Sentences with phrase «other side of the climate debate»

Your very presence on the other side of the climate debate does more to validate the science than anything else you could do.

Beck promised the program would present the «other side of the climate debate that you don't hear anywhere.»

Not exact matches

Troubling, though, is the fact that 35 percent of the climate grade depends on having classes smaller than 25 pupils, which means that QC has taken sides in the great class - size debate, notwithstanding the rivers of doubt that Hoover Institution economist Eric Hanushek and others have poured on the notion that smaller classes are an efficient means of boosting achievement.

Whilst many Republican candidates are vying with each other to kick away any role for active government action to tackle climate change, an eerie silence seems to be coming from the other side of the debate.

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.

But I share MacCracken's view that this is the not forum for a full - blown debate — and that the «debate» format in general, pitting two «sides» against each other, is not the best way to assess the state of scientific understanding of climate change.

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.

Joshua: if you're arguing that motivated reasoning is disproportionately characteristic on one side of the climate debate in comparison to the other,

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.

But it does suggest that if both sides of the debate paid close attention to the social consequences of policies, rather than the present intractable debate on the reality of AGW, then we might get to a point where we can agree on some action — you might think it is pointless with regard to the climate (but a substantial proportion of people think it will), but if it produces some other good outcomes it might be ok.

But it does suggest that if both sides of the debate paid close attention to the social consequences of policies, rather than the present intractable debate on the reality of AGW, then we might get to a point where we can agree on some action — you might think it is pointless with regard to the climate (but a substantial proportion of people think it will), but if it produces some other good outcomes it might be OK.

A documentary exploring the other side of the climate - change debate and its ever - changing, but often - flawed science, «An Inconsistent Truth,» will air on Newsmax TV on Sunday at 10 p.m. ET.

Climate Depot «Bridges the Climate Divide»: «Thanks to Morano, people on opposite sides of debate are now hearing each other out»

Hundreds of scientists, economists, and public policy experts are set to meet in Manhattan next month to discuss the other side of the climate change debate that the establishment media prefers to pretend does not exist.

Climate Depot «Bridges the Climate Divide»: «Thanks to Morano, people on opposite sides of debate are now hearing each other out» — Morano's «got a huge audience and platform.

I've long intended writing a piece with the provocative title of «the Nazi Thing» on the puzzling question of what it is about the climate debate which makes people on both sides resort to using language like «denier,» «death trains» on the one hand, and «eco-fascism» on the other, when it's so obviously counterproductive.

It's a bit cheap, given that there's no evidence or even likelihood, that actual climate scientists are responsible for this hoax, to say that jumping to very firm conclusions on very little evidence, and indeed fraudulently improving the evidence that doesn't quite show what you want it to, are characteristic of one side of this debate rather than the other.

This fact mirrors the many varied positive claims that are made on the other «side» of the climate debate, but which seem to emerge axiomatically from the fact that «climate change is happening».

I've seen both two sides of the climate debate, and in case you haven't noticed, one side contradicts the other on very complicated science details.

Here is the problem with Mr. Zwick's point in actual application: Increasingly, many people on both sides of the climate debate have decided that the folks on the other side are not people of goodwill.

In a damning parliamentary report, the BBC is criticised for distorting the debate on man - made climate change — for which it says the scientific evidence is overwhelming — through its determination to put the other side of the argument across.

What he failed to realize when making that move is that the two sides of the climate debate hate each other.

Other oddities to this episode were the number of prominent climate scientists, including some usually on the «alarmist» side of the public debate, criticizing the paper, and the general low - key news coverage.

It's a shrill cry that has been made many times when there has been a debate with a scientific dimension: both sides accuse the other of «denying», and the such like, not just within the climate wars.

On one side of the «debate» we are «denying» science that shows the world has warmed, and on the other side climate science is apparently being used to drive a socialist anti-freedom agenda.