Sentences with phrase «only climate debates»

Not exact matches

It is also the only political force that proposes radical solutions to climate change, a problem that is here with us now and can no longer be debated in the abstract.

The only thing that is clear is that there continues to be great debate and uncertainty among these experts regarding the extent of natural climate variability versus human impacts, and what, if anything, enactment of economy - wide greenhouse gas regulations might do to alter our changing climate.

«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.

So in addition to correcting the climate skeptics» misstatements about the facts, clarity will come in this debate only when we examine the unstated normative assumptions that are often hidden in the scientific debate including the notion that some want to call alamist anything that is not proven.

The Southern Company is not only polluting the environment with carbon and other dangerous emissions — it's also polluting the debate over climate policy by funding bad science.

People in the climate research community resisted doing this for years, believing that they were only involved in a scientific debate, where, after much back and forth, and a fair amount of snark, reality would eventually win out.

«I am reminded of debates in economics, investing, politics, religion and climate science where a good heuristic is if the person you are reading only points to evidence of one side and never raises or represents the better aspects of the opponents side.

I only possess a layman knowledge of climate science, I am in no position to debate the science and neither is 99 % (I'm guessing) of the general population, we simply have to take your word for it.

People in the climate research community resisted doing this for years, believing that they were only involved in a scientific debate, where, after much back and forth, and a fair amount of snark, reality would eventually win out.

As an outside observer, it seems that climate science is marked by scientists not only debating data, but credentials: who is a real climatologist and who is not.

Our work in conducting the Review has led us to identify a number of issues relevant not only to the climate science debate but also possibly more widely, on which we wish to comment briefly.

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.

As the papal encyclical on the environment, equity and climate is released on Thursday, this debate will only intensify.

Despite the often contentious debates that erupt over climate change science, we've seen only one other retraction in the field since we launched in August 2010, when Edward Wegman was forced to retract a paper for plagiarism.

If the question is about climate, as was the case in the Biden - Palin debate, one can only presume that the «clean» refers to capturing and storing carbon dioxide, the main heat - trapping emission linked to recent warming.

I only note that the scientific understanding of the reality and risks of climate change is strong, compelling, and increasingly disturbing, and a rational public debate is desperately needed.

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.

In revealing that the policy debate will inevitably come down to finding a balance, Rosenberg's piece helpfully reminds readers that climate science only frames this question, but does not offer a clear answer on what to do.

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.

But a one - sided debate, with all the noise from the denialists, is only going to solidify, in the public mind, the dodgy soft - science of the climate skeptics.

The violation of the Third Law will be only temporary as slowly scientific observation and understanding will get the better of the present situation... it is a firm conclusion that the climate change debate is distorted in its presentation and that its alleged scientific conclusions are unsound.

According to some people, only a «climatologist» can be a credible scientific voice in the climate debate.

«ExxonMobil — which recorded $ 10.5 billion in third quarter profits this year — has an obligation and a responsibility to the global community to refrain from lending their support, financial and otherwise, to bogus, non substantiated articles and publications on climate change that serve only to cloud the important global debate of rigorous peer - reviewed research and writings,» Senator Snowe said.

It's only six pages long and KT hits most of the talking points and conceits of the climate change movement: the hacked emails, «deniers», the complicit media, the importance of avoiding scientific debate plus amusing self - serving cartoons at the end and a loving dedication to friend and colleague, Stephen Schneider.

Climate governance can not be considered only in terms of environmental damage because it is now a part of the economic debate around the competition for scarce resources.

The whole international climate debate is infused with issues of justice, and progress is possible only if each nation is seen to be doing its fair share.

The only «surprising» thing revealed — as the punchline — by the second of three episodes of Climate Wars is that Stewart was ignorant of the debate he was reporting on.

Away from the debate that only exists in Mann et al's heads — of one side representing the proposition «climate change is real», and the other side denying it — it seems that there is a widespread view that planet has warmed, slightly.

Zdoc makes a wise comment, obvious only to those who haven't been seduced by or wallowing in the climate change debates:

As for your statement that there is only «consensus around the basics»; please enlighten me as to what that consensus is because after following the climate debate (and learning the science) for almost ten years, I haven't seen ANY consensus on anything I would call BASIC.

If the climate debate were only about ECS, this measure of «lukewarmism» would make sense.

The SMC's emphasis on «expert opinion», reflects the «values» recently evinced by Lewandowsky, that debate about the climate and criticism of his own work is valid only when «addressed through proper channels» — it «should take place in the scientific literature».

sadly false news does not only apply to politics and is rife on all sides of the climate debate.

Since recorded climate observations have only been for a very short period in the billion year history of climate on this Earth, I am bemused by both sides of the AGW debate claiming any discernable trend either way.

This debate between heat transport and greenhouse effects not only reveals a lack of climate consensus; it also reveals the subjectivity that influences how climate sensitivity is estimated.

The climate itself will end the debate, not some weak political IG that can only respond in a specific scope.

So Ward was in the curious position of making an appeal to authority - yes, climate debate should be permitted, but only between fully credentialed experts - without appealing from authority.

In short, Oreskes (who is not a scientist, of climate or of any other kind) appears to have unilaterally (albeit with, perhaps a little help from her ideological friends) determined that there can be only one side to a «scientific» debate: That which she — in her willful ignorance — has chosen to conjure up and propagate.

I hope that you understand that there are many here who selectively identify agendas on (only) one side of the climate change debate.

And with the HUGE amounts of money that corporate polluters are pouring into this debate, not only would anyone who proved climate change be famous, they would be very, very rich.

It has not only distorted our public and policy debates on issues related to energy, greenhouse gas emissions and the environment, it also has inhibited the scientific and policy discussions that we need to have about our climate future.»

It appears likely that this is because the CIC does not believe there should be any real debate on climate science or any other science - based issue coming before EPA and that the SAB should only hear the views of those who closely support the tenets of those who are willing to overthrow science - based environmental regulation in favor of climate alarmism and environmental extremism.

In the absence of any obvious climate catastrophe, let alone the slightest evidence, I can only conclude that the alarmists understand at some level that are losing the «debate,» such as it has been.

You have been in the climate debates for years yet only now you are discovering that Alarmists will not touch empirical studies of phenomena such as the AMO with a ten foot pole?

Six months after world leaders signed the Paris Agreement, a sweeping accord designed to combat global warming, climate change was only brought up tangentially, in one brief moment, on the debate stage.

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.

Only in the up - is - down world of the climate debate is serious academic debate and scholarship derided in the manner that Ward has done.

I guess since the only response possible to Monckton's searing global warming arguments are these «personal attacks», he automatically wins every climate debate from now on.

I have only been observing the climate debate for a couple of years... so that would be your first logical error.

Actually, the only debate still worth having is about the strength of the changes (climate sensitivity) and most estimates don't look good.