Sentences with phrase «open debate on climate change»

Many of our universities will not allow an open debate on climate change.

Not exact matches

This is NOT open and honest debate as to whether climate change is happening and what its effects are when people who are not climate scientists have louder voice on the science.

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 warming.

«The Right Climate for Development: why the SDGs must act on climate change» released ahead of the twin UN meetings for Heads of State in New York — the UN Climate Summit on 23 September and the opening of the General Assembly debate on post-2015 development on 24 SeptembeClimate for Development: why the SDGs must act on climate change» released ahead of the twin UN meetings for Heads of State in New York — the UN Climate Summit on 23 September and the opening of the General Assembly debate on post-2015 development on 24 Septembeclimate change» released ahead of the twin UN meetings for Heads of State in New York — the UN Climate Summit on 23 September and the opening of the General Assembly debate on post-2015 development on 24 SeptembeClimate Summit on 23 September and the opening of the General Assembly debate on post-2015 development on 24 September 2014.

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.»

The hearing, «Data or Dogma: Promoting Open Inquiry in the Debate over the Magnitude of Human Impact on Earth's Climate,» featured testimony from three scientists who are skeptical of the case for action to address climate change (Prof. Judith Curry of Georgia Tech, Prof. John Christy of the University of Alabama Huntsville and Prof. Will Happer of Princeton University), one mainstream climate scientist (Prof. David Titley of Penn State University), and talk radio personality and author MarkClimate,» featured testimony from three scientists who are skeptical of the case for action to address climate change (Prof. Judith Curry of Georgia Tech, Prof. John Christy of the University of Alabama Huntsville and Prof. Will Happer of Princeton University), one mainstream climate scientist (Prof. David Titley of Penn State University), and talk radio personality and author Markclimate change (Prof. Judith Curry of Georgia Tech, Prof. John Christy of the University of Alabama Huntsville and Prof. Will Happer of Princeton University), one mainstream climate scientist (Prof. David Titley of Penn State University), and talk radio personality and author Markclimate scientist (Prof. David Titley of Penn State University), and talk radio personality and author Mark Steyn.

«I support [the work of the NIPCC] because I am convinced that the whole field of climate and climate change urgently needs an open debate between several «schools of thought,» in science and well as other disciplines, many of which jumped on the IPCC bandwagon far too readily.

If you'd ever like to engage in a public debate with a Heartland scholar on the topic of climate change, our door is always open.

Though scientific consensus must always be open to responsible skepticism given: (a) the strength of the consensus on this topic, (b) the enormity of the harms predicted by the consensus view, (c) an approximately 30 year delay in taking action that has transpired since a serious climate change debate began in the United States in the early 1980s, (d) a delay that has made the problem worse while making it more difficult to achieve ghg emissions reductions necessary to prevent dangerous climate change because of the steepness of reductions now needed, no politician can ethically justify his or her refusal to support action on climate change based upon a personal opinion that is not supported by strong scientific evidence that has been reviewed by scientific organizations with a wide breadth of interdisciplinary scientific expertise.

«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 (with the backing of the society's AGW enthusiasts) have chosen to fully trust the climate models and deliberately avoid open debate on this issue.

Houston, Texas (CCNF) July 11, 2015 — Already a trusted source for citizens and educators wanting to hear what real climate scientists have to say about climate change, CCNF has now opened up its online forum to an ongoing discussion on values and begun hosting a bipartisan debate on climate policy -LSB-...]