Sentences with phrase «of debate over climate change»

It puts him at an extreme on the spectrum of debate over climate change in both tone and substance.

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.

The Republican Party's fast journey from debating how to combat human - caused climate change to arguing that it does not exist is a story of big political money, Democratic hubris in the Obama years and a partisan chasm that grew over nine years like a crack in the Antarctic shelf, favouring extreme positions and uncompromising rhetoric over co-operation and conciliation.

What makes climate change different, they say, is that there are five new variables: uncertain and fragmented environmental legislation and regulations; the reactions of capital and insurance markets to emerging business opportunities (and matching risks) posed by climate change; stakeholder activism; pending litigation and the rapidly evolving scientific debate over proper responses to climate change.

People all over the world, both in positions of power and not, seem to believe that there is room for debate on the issues of climate change, humanity's involvement and the need to transition to a low - carbon future.

Dr. Hayhoe is the co-author of the book A Climate for Change: Global Warming Facts for Faith - Based Decisions and describes herself as «a spokesperson with one principal goal — to bring public awareness to the simple truth that the scientific debate is over, and now it's time for all of us to take action.»

In his speech, Kerry noted that the president «has repeatedly questioned the underlying science of climate change and attempted to reignite the debate over whether the threat is real.»

There is a real diversity of informed opinion on how important climate change is going to be to various things that affect humans, and there is a diversity of opinion on how to address this problem, but the debate over human - induced climate change is over.

A team of UK researchers has shed new light on the climate of the Little Ice Age, and rekindled debate over the role of the sun in climate change.

The recent slowdown in global warming has brought into question the reliability of climate model projections of future temperature change and has led to a vigorous debate over whether this slowdown is the result of naturally occurring, internal variability or forcing external to Earth's climate system.

Debate over the tradeoffs and values of how to respond to climate change is appropriate for environmental education, Buhr and other educators say.

It might be tempting to dismiss this as yet more evidence of the US right divorcing itself from scientific reality, as has happened in debates over evolution and climate change.

A remarkable feature of the recent debates over climate change, energy systems, infrastructure rehabilitation and health care reform is the lack of detailed forward - looking government proposals and plans.

Over one - third of them reported facing influence to teach «both sides» of a climate change debate.

Whether it would quell the debate over global cooling - fueled in part by the East Coast's hard winter and the revelation of errors in the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change synthesis report - is less certain.

Clive Hamilton's article on the debate over geoengineering highlights a regrettable tendency for discussion of climate change to be polarised...

Zinke acknowledged climate is changing and humans have had an influence, but claimed there is a lot of «debate» over how much of a role humans have played and what can or should be done to combat climate change.

I suspect that over the next six months, this is going to be a debate that will become part of the campaign, and I will be very clear in voicing my belief that we're going to have to take further steps to deal with climate change in a serious way.

Yet at this forum, an on - campus debate at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology over whether the university should divest the fossil fuel holdings within its $ 11 billion endowment, might not have happened if market forces properly priced the economic and environmental costs of climate change, a theme that Anthony Cortese, the event moderator, alluded to at the outset.

The NRC asked the committee to summarize current scientific information on the temperature record for the past two millennia, 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 temperature record to the state of scientific knowledge on global climate change.

It is a sign of the times that the public debate among major players over Oregon's coal - free future saw little contention regarding the reality of climate change and focused mostly on the best way to address it.

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.»

In the meantime, watching the evolution of the debate over hurricanes and climate change, several things are clear.

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.

So what do we agree on related to the range of voices out there in the debate over how to respond to the reality of human - forced climate change?

Roughly a year ago, we summarized the state of play in the ongoing scientific debate over the role of anthropogenic climate change in the observed trends in hurricane activity.

We debated whether the Democratic platform tussle over a carbon price and natural gas policy between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, resolved a few days ago, was the last gasp of climate change as a big issue in the presidential campaign.

I was somewhat involuntarily thrust into the center of the public debate over climate change at this very time, when the «Hockey Stick» temperature reconstruction I co-authored, depicting the unprecedented nature of modern warming in at least the past millennium, developed into an icon in the debate over human - caused climate change [particularly when it was featured in the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) of the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC in 2001].

I believe that most of the debating over science and climate change ended last year with the release of the 4 IPCC reports.

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.

* The role of the US in global efforts to address pollutants that are broadly dispersed across national borders, such as greenhouse gasses, persistent organic pollutants, ozone, etc...; * How they view a president's ability to influence national science policy in a way that will persist beyond their term (s), as would be necessary for example to address global climate change or enhancement of science education nationwide; * Their perspective on the relative roles that scientific knowledge, ethics, economics, and faith should play in resolving debates over embryonic stem cell research, evolution education, human population growth, etc... * What specific steps they would take to prevent the introduction of political or economic bias in the dissemination and use of scientific knowledge; * (and many more...)

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.

I also imgaine that these right wingers (neo cons I believe they are known as) are also very religious in nature (or appear to be) and they carry a lot of power in the USA and hence considering the evolution vs creationism debate that is raging over there at the moment getting action on climate change seems to be almost impossible in the current or by a future republican administration.

I wonder why action is being taken to adapt to and mitigate man - made climate change instead of «discussing» the «debate» over 10 - year old first papers and whether Algore is fat and whether the earth is cooling despite last year being the warmest on record (according to one dataset)?

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.

-- Obama has also failed to challenge fossilized foes of meaningful action on energy and climate change, from Senator James Inhofe to the many conservative columnists — along with some liberals — who've distorted the American discourse on climate into an either - or debate over beliefs little different than that on abortion or gun rights.

The indirect impacts of climate change on people and ecosystems have long been the main focus of research and debate over rising levels of carbon dioxide.

Al Gore, the most famous face of the global warming - industrial complex, has been saying for years that the debate is over, that science has declared humans are responsible for climate change.

Framing climate - change costs as the equivalent of a hidden rising tax could be useful in debates over a climate response.

It may be time to do the same thing for the hybrid debate over the role of climate change in propelling food price spikes and political instability in Egypt and other turbulent places.

I was hoping that the book would be accessible to a pretty broad range of readers because I really wanted to use my personal story as sort of this reluctant and accidental public figure in the debate over climate change, to talk about the bigger issues, the reality of the problem, the threat that it represents, the need to have a good faith discussion about what to do about it.

Do you sense that there has been any shift away from feeling the need to re-engage in debates over whether climate change is real or not, and instead toward addressing questions of what to do about it?

One of the most contentious issues in the debate over how to tackle climate change is the role of REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) in market - based mitigation strategies.

Since debate over the likelihood of severe climate change had become a salient public issue, any statement might be dragged into the media arena.

Top climate scientist James Hansen tells the story of his involvement in the science of and debate over global climate change.

His view accords with that of a growing number of scientists concerned about the pursuit of «intensely political» areas of science, such as the debate over climate change, amid fears that views contrary to government policy were unwelcome.

They are also difficult because the multilateral climate body — the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change — includes over 190 countries; these countries are grouped into various blocs with criss - crossing agendas and priorities; long - standing north - south resentments continue to rile the debate; and negotiations are governed by a consensus rule of procedure (bloody conclimate body — the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change — includes over 190 countries; these countries are grouped into various blocs with criss - crossing agendas and priorities; long - standing north - south resentments continue to rile the debate; and negotiations are governed by a consensus rule of procedure (bloody conClimate Change — includes over 190 countries; these countries are grouped into various blocs with criss - crossing agendas and priorities; long - standing north - south resentments continue to rile the debate; and negotiations are governed by a consensus rule of procedure (bloody consensus!

They are the representatives of political interests who have manufactured a false debate over the existence of human - caused climate change.

Heartland has made important contributions to the scientific debate over the causes and consequences of climate change.

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.