Sentences with phrase «people on both sides of the climate debate»

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.

... puts him at odds with «most people on either side of the climate debate», he in fact alienates himself.

With those two rather innocuous statements, I have just alienated most people on either side of the climate debate.

Not exact matches

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.

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

Many people on the skeptical side of the climate debate see Jerry Ravetz» «postnormal science» as part of the problem, indeed the man himself as responsible in large part for formulations such as those of the late Stephen Schneider regarding making a judgement about the balance between truth and effectiveness.

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.

In climate science, it is not hard to put names on «people» on both sides of the global warming debate.

I know, for instance, why there are smarter and more knowledgeable people than me on the «wrong» side of the climate debate.

There are many smart, informed people on the climate skeptic side of the debate (see here).

But ironically, that only reinforces the main theme that I post on: (1) political ideology is largely determinative in how people align themselves in the climate debate and, (2) being that most posters at Climate Etc. are on the «skeptical» side of the debate, this site is solid evidence that rudeness and closed - mindedness (as represented by accusations of trollhood and thread - jacking) is equally well - represented on both sides of the climate climate debate and, (2) being that most posters at Climate Etc. are on the «skeptical» side of the debate, this site is solid evidence that rudeness and closed - mindedness (as represented by accusations of trollhood and thread - jacking) is equally well - represented on both sides of the climate Climate Etc. are on the «skeptical» side of the debate, this site is solid evidence that rudeness and closed - mindedness (as represented by accusations of trollhood and thread - jacking) is equally well - represented on both sides of the climate climate debate.

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.

History will record the NIPCC as the most significant contribution any person or group on the climate realist side of the debate made to helping society get back on track towards making climate and energy decisions that actually help the environment and society.

«'' On both sides of the climate debate, the test that people seem to be applying as to whether their reasoning is logical is whether it leads to conclusions they already held.

Most people, on every side of the AGW debate, would agree that chopping down a rain or boreal forest to promote development of renewable fuels is an extremely bad idea in terms of earth's climate.

Implying that good people are found on only one side of the climate debate is infantile.

There is virtually no real weather or climate data, yet people on both sides of the debate build computer models and speculate endlessly.