Sentences with phrase «of debate about climate change»

To not respond to a request for that information would seem to be hiding behind the letter of FOIA rules (we shall see what the IC says), rather than responding in its spirit; if the information exists at all, it is surely in the public interest for it to be made public, to improve the quality of the debate about climate change policy.

But as ugly, pointless and as unpleasant for those involved as it was, if there is something to be said about the character of the debate about climate change, it is that raised passions and low tactics are not unique to either putative «side».

Not exact matches

Carney, who now leads the Bank of England, has inserted himself into the global debate over what to do about climate change.

Obama offered no indication of whether he'll eventually issue a permit for the pipeline, whose construction has become a flashpoint in the U.S. debate about environmental policy and climate change.

This post about the Suzuki - Pembina report is a case in point: both sides of the debate seemed to think that I was offering aid and succor to the cause of the climate change deniers.

The deafening silence around climate change in the US presidential campaign has left leading climate scientists baffled by the absence of debate about the «greatest issue of our time».

Using the example of the current debate surrounding anthropomorphic climate change, Thompson sought to evaluate the argument from authority through a single prism, the way in which science is handled in argumentation about public policy.

We concluded that the three digital players were beneficial for public debate about climate change, as they had found new ways of covering the «old», sometimes boring, often remote, theme of climate change.

In his letter, which was drawn up jointly with Dutch premier Jan Peter Balkenende, Mr Blair notes the importance of energy security but says any debate on the subject must also be about climate change and its links to the European economy.

Nonetheless the debate about climate change crosses national borders so I believe I can still contribute a useful answer on one of your points.

The real voice of reason in this race comes instead from left field, from Green Party candidate Howie Hawkins, who has waged a consistently serious race and who on Wednesday issued a call for his fellow candidates to stop arguing about sports teams and debate issues like jobs, health care and climate change.

Similar to the debate on fracking, public opposition to the gas port became part of a larger discussion about New York State's energy policy and how the state should respond to climate change.

Today's lead editorial in the Times Union lambasted Cuomo & Astorino for failing to run serious campaigns and praised Howie Hawkins, writing «The real voice of reason in this race comes instead from left field, from Green Party candidate Howie Hawkins, who has waged a consistently serious race and who on Wednesday issued a call for his fellow candidates to stop arguing about sports teams and debate issues like jobs, health care and climate change.»

The letter, which included a statement on climate science by the leaders of 18 scientific societies, stated, «Although debate about policy options exists, climate change is not a scientifically - controversial topic.»

When compared to other religious groups, Evangelicals have often been more wary of science as evidenced in debates about evolution, stem cell research, and climate change.

A group of about 20 religious activists associated with Young Evangelicals for Climate Action traveled to the debate to hold prayer sessions asking that both candidates embrace the «moral» challenge of climate Climate Action traveled to the debate to hold prayer sessions asking that both candidates embrace the «moral» challenge of climate climate change.

Professor Bruce Fitt, professor of plant pathology at the University of Hertfordshire's School of Medical and Life Sciences, said: «There is considerable debate about the impact of climate change on crop production — and making sure that we have sufficient food to feed the ever - growing global population is key to our future food security.»

«Too often in debates about climate change risk, the starting point is a presumption that only global warming in excess of 2 °C represents a threat to humanity,» says climate scientist Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University, College Park.

«The study is of particular importance for the current debate about climate change,» says Manning.

There was much public debate about the role of climate change in the aftermath of Harvey, and many Republicans were quick to dismiss links to global warming, pointing out that states like Florida and Texas have a long history with deadly storms.

The publication of each report is a key event in the debate about climate change, but their reception and coverage in the media has varied widely.

There was a fair amount of chatter on the internet about the lack of climate change in the first presidential debate, popularized as #climatesilence.

They say that these debates about climate change and teaching evolution in schools, you know, really comes down, it really blurs the lines; it confuses the public about the kind of the boundaries between science and ideology.

While the economics of any cap - and - trade system are worthy of debate, it's clear something has to be done about climate change and Chao has shown no interest in any alternative.

The focus of the debate on CO2 is not wholly predicated on its attribution to past forcing (since concern about CO2 emissions was raised long before human - caused climate change had been clearly detected, let alone attributed), but on its potential for causing large future growth in forcings.

The study, published today in Nature Climate Change, throws open the debate about how to meet the stringent temperature goals of the Paris Agreement.

Mike Wallace's talk was about the «National Research Council Report on the «Hockey Stick Controversy»... The charge to the committee, was «to summarize current information on the temperature records for the past millennium, describe the main areas of uncertainty and how significant they are, describe the principal methodologies used and any problems with these approaches, and explain how central is the debate over the paleoclimate record within the overall state of knowledge on global climate change.»

At the end of last year, the world's eyes were on Lima as 196 nations debated what to do about climate change at the United Nations Climate Chclimate change at the United Nations Climate Chachange at the United Nations Climate ChClimate ChangeChange...

Heading into the 2015 True / False Film Festival in Columbia, Missouri, the last two documentaries I reviewed were Kirby Dick's The Hunting Ground, about rape on college campuses, and Robert Kenner's Merchants Of Doubt, about the industry - financed «experts» who deliberately muddy the debate over the settled science of climate change and cigarette - smokinOf Doubt, about the industry - financed «experts» who deliberately muddy the debate over the settled science of climate change and cigarette - smokinof climate change and cigarette - smoking.

But, it said, about three in 10 middle and high school science teachers «reported telling their students, wrongly, that the causes of recent climate change are the matter of scientific debate.»

Four mixed - media paintings come from a series Smith began in the early»90s that recalls her father's stories of older Native Americans who survived colonial violence, while sculptural work framed by a canoe refers to the ongoing debates about climate change that persist today.

But lately, there have been a lot of debates about whether or not climate change is a man - made event or if it is even a real concern.

It seems that solar forcing is one of the sceptics» last trenches in the debate about climate change.

It's probably conservatives trying to seize the attack ground in view of a possible pending debate about climate change in Washington, but the chorus of denialist opinion is so coordinated and their «logic» so simple it is convincing many, even among educated people (science PhDs) who can not be bothered to look deep into things but try to form an opinion based on a few journalistic pieces.

Skeptical Climatologist Dr. Timothy Ball formerly of the University of Winnipeg in Canada wrote about the current state of the climate change debate earlier this month:

Part of the reason that elements of the climate change debate take on religious proportions — by the activists for and against policy — is that folks have so dug in around almost every aspect of the debate that it is hard to raise a question about some uncritically accepted element of the religious canon without folks first attacking you as an untrained heathen.

Read and disagreed with your review of «Centrist» messaging Andrew and am now replying to your interesting and insightful shared dialogue with Dave about framing the climate change debate:

The op - ed favorably cited by Mike Mann says this explcitly, «That means we need to clearly say there is no scientific debate about climate change — and instead shift the conversation to next steps... Those of us who write opinion need to press for public - policy action, steps that move us as a planet forward.

Roughly, I'd guess the debates over global climate change took place largely between 1981 and 1995; a good bit shorter than the debates over continental drift, but then there was less radical about the idea of global climate change — it was already known that the planet's climate had changed in the past, so the idea that it might be changing in the present was less radical than the idea that the vast continents might, in fact, be drifting like huge floating islands.

This debate is about your pocketbook, it's about your job, it's about whether you can still afford health care, whether we're going to do something about climate change or not, what kind of world your kids are going to be living in in ten or fifteen years, how are we going to respond to peak oil, where is the next transistor economy going to come from?

There was plenty of debate this week about whether human - driven climate change played a role in the fires that have scorched large patches of Southern California or raised the odds of more such infernos in years to come.

Second, there is a wider debate over what to do, or not do, about climate change, with peoples» preferences (a carbon tax, a technology push, building dikes or parasols in space) not so much a function of science as values.

Anyone who thinks that there is any genuine «debate» about either the reality of anthropogenic global warming and consequent climate change, or the grave threat not only to human civilization but to all life on earth if unmitigated, «business as usual» anthropogenic global warming and consequent climate change are permitted to continue, is profoundly misinformed.

The perception that you may have of the «debate» in the media or politics is mostly due to the inevitable compression of news stories, combined with an apparent journalistic need to provide «balance» (see Chris Mooney's article on this), and well - funded campaigns by interests who are worried about what the reality of climate change might imply on the regulatory front.

My comment was not about M&M as individuals but really about how the hockey stick controversy and M&M's arguments fit into the bigger picture of the climate change debate.

For the next 10 years, people from all walks of life join in the debate about energy and climate change.

As a matter of common decency and journalistic ethics, we ask everyone in the climate change debate to sit back and think about what just happened.

I suspect one of the reasons that he brought it up is that the general public, when told there is no debate amongst experts as to whether warming is occurring, are also told that the hundreds of scientists they hear about in the news dismissing warming (or saying that there is a debate) are not climate change experts and therefore shouldn't be believed.

However, since a high proportion of misnamed «skeptics» are in fact deliberate liars, who endlessly repeat assertions that they well know have been repeatedly shown to be false, it will probably have little effect on the fake, phony, Exxon - Mobil sponsored «debate» about anthropogenic climate change.

I agree that cultural cognition — the idea that we shape our views so they agree with those in the groups with which we most closely identify, in the name of acceptance by our group and thus of safety — powerfully explains the polarized passions over whether climate change is «real,» the «debate» that gets most of the attention about public opinion.