Sentences with phrase «of debate on global warming»

There are many public intellectual debates occurring over scientific and skeptical issues — the place of creationism vs evolution in public science classes, the including of alternative medicine in academic curricula, the validity of debate on global warming, etc..

Also just read an interesting article at MINDING THE CAMPUS on the lack of debate on Global Warming at University campuses.

Not exact matches

In a video posted on his official Assembly website, Hanna is seen debating a bill on the floor and decrying a «conspiracy» by scientists who engage in climate research to «suppress» research conducted by those who challenge the existence of global warming.

«That's the way we deal with global warming, climate change or any of those problems,» Christie said in the prime - time debate on CNBC.

Among atmospheric scientists, physicists, oceanographers and others who study Earth's energy balance there is virtually no debate on either the existence or the causes of global warming.

Update, June 19, 10:30 p.m. Joe Romm has written a long post on Climate Progress on the Orwellian aspects of a «good» Anthropocene — «Words Matter When Talking Global Warming: The «Good Anthropocene» Debate» — and Hamilton has a long essay in Scientific American warning that «The New Environmentalism Will Lead Us to Disaster.

Although I don't know how the hostess picks themes or manages to manage things, in my brief experience with the blog, you are much more likely to find a sensible and creative discussion of how to actually address the issue (global warming, sustainability, and related matters of living well within our environment) on the family, local, or cultural levels than you are to find a large acrimonious debate among (often anonymous) people.

Dr. Somerville was on the losing side of a Marc 2007 debate between scientists over whether global warming was a «crisis.»

I am simply reporting an advert on page A16 of todya's TNYT: The advert states that «global warming is not a crisis» and asks one to call Al Gore to ask him to debate a Mr. Chris Horner.

or had a heads up on the following: «Science Myth of Consensus Explodes: APS Opens Global Warming Debate» «The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human - induced global waGlobal Warming Debate» «The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human - induced global wWarming Debate» «The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human - induced global waglobal warmingwarming.

The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science.

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.

In the talk, Victor, trained in political science, warns against focusing too much on trying to defeat those denying the widespread view that greenhouse - driven climate change is a clear and present danger, first explaining that there are many kind of people engaged at that end of the global warming debate — including camps he calls «shills» (the professional policy delayers), «skeptics» (think Freeman Dyson) and «hobbyists.»

I have served my time in the «trenches of the climate war» in the context of the debate on hurricanes and global warming.

http://humbabe.arc.nasa.gov/~fenton/ Note that this global warming as been studied by only one research team and presented in one article (to be compared to the thousands of articles studying climate trends on earth), based on partial satellite data, and there is a serious debate now amongst the planetologists community to determine if this is a persistent trend or if it will stop in a few years.

4:15 p.m. Updated On the tiny patch of American public discourse reserved for the global warming debate (to get an idea of how tiny, find climate, or the environment for that matter, in this news map if you can), a week of blogitation over a sprawling report examining failed efforts to pass a climate bill has started to give way to constructive discussion.

If you've followed the scientific debate on global warming and hurricanes, you will recognize many of the characters in Mooney's tale (yours truly even gets mentioned a few times:)-RRB-.

Mike Crichton's latest pageturner has drawn on my earlier critique of the epic overselling of «Nuclear Winter», but fails to mention how I categorized the media hype in dialog with Steve Schneider at a 1987 symposium:» Nuclear Winter is a joke played at the expense of the credibility of the climate modeling community on the eve of the global warming debate»

In the intellectual equivalent of a pro-wrestling «smackdown,» two teams of combatants enter a plush, packed auditorium on the Upper East Side for a debate titled «Global Warming Is Not a Crisis,» staged by a group called Intelligence Squared U.S..

Whatever your own personal views are about global warming, pro or con, or just sitting on the fence in the middle of the debate, you should know this: there is not much time left.

As you undoubtedly know, despite a blitz of signature drives and online chatter (centered on the Twittter hashtag #climatesilence), there was no mention of global warming in the presidential debate on domestic issues.

He withdrew any kind of bipartisan support for an ETS (and more)» «two years ago Canadians gave majority government to Stephen Harper's Conservatives, who were pledged to a sensible use of its resources, so Australians have now elected a government with a pragmatic attitude on global warming» «Led by Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, an attempt was made, by what can only be described as alarmists, to exploit these fires for the purposes of the global warming debate.

First of all, Oreskes et al. emphasize that the reality of mean global warming is essentially undisputed, but that the future impacts on the scale for which humans would have to prepare are still the subject of considerable research, inquiry, and debate.

There are a variety of debates under way over the merits or perils of focusing on particular climate (and sea level) findings, or a particular season's conditions, in discussing human - driven global warming.

Finding myself in the same foxhole as Steve Schneider when the «Nuclear Winter «balloon went up — it was launched on the anniversary of Orson Welles» War of The Worlds Broadcast with a media graphics package prepared by the Creative Department of that great K - Street PR institution Porter Novell Inc., I remarked to him that it all seemed like a bad joke on Cold War policy analysts, played at the expense of the credibility of climate modeling on the eve of the global warming debate.

But in the debate over a response to global warming, there were blinders on a lot of Democrats, as well — blinders that resulted for far too long in a one - solution focus on a comprehensive, and doomed, cap - and - trade climate bill.

Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political «cause» rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

I regret deeply that the attacks on me now appear to have spilled over onto other scientists who have dared to question the degree to which human activities might be causing dangerous global warming, a topic that ought rightly be the subject of rigorous open debate, not personal attack.

NZ Climate Truth provides the following description on their home page: «Vincent is too modest, the content is global in scope and his penetrating analysis honed by years of reviewing IPCC reports is applied to issues arising in the Greenhouse / Global Warming / Climate Change debate.&global in scope and his penetrating analysis honed by years of reviewing IPCC reports is applied to issues arising in the Greenhouse / Global Warming / Climate Change debate.&Global Warming / Climate Change debate.»

The whole debate on global warming is misguided, since it focuses on statistical effects of the pathetically low levels of CO2 in the atmosphere now, and tries to portray CO2 and higher world temps as bad.

A professor who is accusing global warming skeptics of engaging in tabloid - style character assassination of scientists, called an American climate skeptic â $ œan assh * leâ $ on the December 4, 2009 live broadcast of BBC's Newsnight program. â $ œWhat an assh * le!â $ declared Professor Watson at the end of the contentious debate with Climate Depot's executive editor Marc Morano.

In this debate we often find scientific leftists who are willing to consider the precautionary principle for nuclear power and global warming suddenly becoming very adventurous about the effects of new scientific and industrial developments on the environment.

The Goddard Institute has played a very prominent role on both sides of the debate over man - made global warming theory.

None of these laws and regulations will be preceded by debate, they will be imposed on us by fundamentalist politicians and scientists who have swallowed the Kool - Aid and declared global warming as fact; end of discussion.

Mr. Harris is perhaps the most frequently cited and interviewed critic of exaggeration and alarmism in the global warming debate, appearing thousands of times on online news forums and regularly in newspapers in Canada and the U.S. and occasionally in Australia, New Zealand, the U.K., and other countries.

Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) Chairman Nigel Lawson accused the BBC of silencing the debate on global waGlobal Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) Chairman Nigel Lawson accused the BBC of silencing the debate on global wWarming Policy Foundation (GWPF) Chairman Nigel Lawson accused the BBC of silencing the debate on global waglobal warmingwarming.

: Ex-Chancellor Lord Lawson, a passionate climate change sceptic, accuses BBC bosses of silencing debate on global warming,» Daily Mail, July 9, 2014.

The devotees of both sides of the mainstream climate debate i.e. on the one hand those who warn against the dangers of global warming, which they attribute mainly to atmospheric emissions of carbon dioxide, and on the other those who assert that the theory of anthropogenic global warming is a fraud, resort to hysteria when they sense that their ideas are under threat.

Naturally, on the AGW side of the debate there is screaming this is proof of global warming even though if you look at the history of tornados in our province and our location at the top end of tornado alley, this is not all that uncommon an event and it has occurred about once every twenty years or so.

By focusing on the consequences of climate change rather than its scientific causes, some experts suggest that Mr. Nash succeeded in circumventing a divisive political debate over global warming and the extent to which human activity contributes to it.

On the bottom quarter, a blurb read, «[t] he Issue of global warming has given rise to a heated debate.

'' In addition to critiques by well - known global warming deniers, the issue of hurricanes and global warming has been debated intensely within the meteorological community, identifying clear differences in the prevailing views on this subject...............»

I write to report on a debate that defeated the motion «This House Believes Global Warming is a Global Crisis» during a meeting of the St Andrews University Debating Society.

However, on Wednesday 4 March 2009, the St Andrews University Debating Society held their debate of the motion, «This House Believes Global Warming is a Global Crisis» in the Old Parliament Building, St Andrews.

He felt this would collectively encapsulate the fatal weakness accusers show when they resort to charter assassination in order to avoid debate on the science of global warming.

Beyond all this alarmism about global warming or ocean acidification, we need to see that on a deeper level it is a debate about carbon, and when we dig into that level of the debate we will finally see that behind the demonization of carbon and C02, it is all about an attack on humanity itself.

The society has officially taken a position many of us AMS members do not agree with... Instead of organizing meetings with free and open debates on the basic physics and the likelihood of AGW induced climate changes, the leaders of the society... have chosen to fully trust the climate models and deliberately avoid open debate and discussion... My interaction (over the years) with a broad segment of AMS members... have indicated that a majority of them do not agree that humans are the primary cause of global warming.»

And I don't often question your reasoning w / r / t the science, per se, but on your arguments w / r / t the social aspects of the debate and on a few occasions, the rhetoric of your scientific arguments (such as your acceptance of arguments about a «pause» in «global warming.»

But scientists and officials involved in the intensifying international debate on how to deal with global warming say it has taken the United States far too long to put the issue front and center, particularly because this country is the biggest source of heat - trapping gases, and because the spread of American - style consumerism to developing nations is likely to create the biggest source of the gases in the next century.

while in the context of the ongoing climate debate we continue — albeit with some embarrassment — to employ the scientifically meaningless phrase «climate change», we recognise that, in principle, a planetary warming to fend off otherwise imminent glacial inception, together with CO2 greening (the latter offsetting loss of vegetation footprint, the only real environmental concern) is having broad positive impacts on society, including the global economy, natural resources, and human health.