Sentences with phrase «political climate debate»

To this end, both the scientific and the political climate debate need more space and attention for diversity and uncertainty in knowledge and views.

The growing focus on climate adaptation also has the power to highlight and expand the political climate debate.

The political climate debate would benefit from clarification of the political values and visions that are at play in climate change.

Not exact matches

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.

The current political climate within the American Church is full of debate over a myriad of national and moral issues, however, protecting the environment should not be up for debate...

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.

Still, Cuomo has been hesitant to discuss the cause of climate change in the past, referring to it as a «political debate» that he has tried to avoid while speaking at a State Police graduation in Albany earlier this summer.

Climate Change — Want to know more about climate change — the science, impacts and political Climate Change — Want to know more about climate change — the science, impacts and political climate change — the science, impacts and political debate?

Climate Change — Want to know more about global warming — the science, impacts and political debate?

In the debates, Perry distinguished himself by comparing the persecution of a 17th - century astronomer by a powerful religious and political body with the plight of those who doubt the science of climate change.

With Congress preparing to debate climate legislation, environmentalists and their allies are spending millions on ad campaigns aimed at building public support for a cap - and - trade bill and scoring early political points.

«Atmospheric CO2 is not a pollutant, it is in fact the very elixir of life,» CO2 Coalition adviser Craig Idso says of the climate change debate at the Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC.

And the political debate of mitigation or adaptation surely hinges on the science, eg on climate sensitivity.

But in the current political climate, divisions are deeper than ever and uttering the word «Brexit» can spark heated debate.

In this new political climate, debates about private - school choice have become less about ideology and more about practical considerations, such as which students will be eligible, which schools will be allowed to participate, and how schools should be held accountable.

Given the political climate and opportunities for change — the availability of stimulus funds (including Secretary of Education Arne Duncan's commitment of $ 350 million in stimulus funding to support assessment work), the movement toward common standards, and the upcoming reauthorization of No Child Left Behind — we can bypass the debate between the two flawed options of either maintaining the status quo or returning to performance - based assessment systems of the 1990s.

LA - based Kohn Gallery's upcoming Fall exhibition, titled ENGENDER, will reexamine male and female gender classifications — a topic that is quite timely now as it has ever been given the ongoing gender debates within our political climate.

Maybe someone would like to reply to them but I guess scientifically the debate ended some time ago but getting political and economic action on climate change still requires a response from those who continue to befuddle the public.

«This is not a technical book on climate change, as others have said, however if you want your opinion on the AGW debate to be an informed one or are interested in the political forces even now shaping the future global climate, this is essential reading.»

And the political debate of mitigation or adaptation surely hinges on the science, eg on climate sensitivity.

* 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...)

The debate about climate change and its impact has been before various political bodies for some time now.

Instead, Goldston is saying that we should recognize that debate about energy policy, climate change, etc. is inherently political.

Every political group uses spin to try to persuade the public, but some of the groups that represent conservatives and industry use what can be called extreme tactics in the climate change science debate.

In the talk, Victor, trained in political science, warns against focusing too much on trying to defeat those denying the widespread view that greenhouse - driven climate change is a clear and present danger, first explaining that there are many kind of people engaged at that end of the global warming debate — including camps he calls «shills» (the professional policy delayers), «skeptics» (think Freeman Dyson) and «hobbyists.»

We need a lively debate on whether to leave these kinds of climate science efforts behind, and focus instead on socio - political measures to «hit the brakes hard» — whether those be carbon taxes, carbon rationing (probably the most direct and effective means), or whatever.

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 would rather spend my time on site that are hearing from voices on many spectrums: mainstream papers that have top - notch science coverage and a climate focus, or open - minded debates between environmentalists on both sides of the political arena.

I have a problem with the whole idea of reconciliation in the climate debate and for once, it's not political but moral.

I have exchanged views with many a Climate Etc., «denizen,» mostly w / r / t political issues related at least tangentially to the climate Climate Etc., «denizen,» mostly w / r / t political issues related at least tangentially to the climate climate debate.

A few points that have caught my interest so far: • dealing with complex problems using complex tools, ideas • the idea of reconciliation in scientific debates is to try different approaches in an experimental meeting for attempting nonviolent communication in impassioned debates where there is disagreement • reconciliation is not about consensus, but rather creating an arena where we can have honest disagreement • violence in this debate derives from the potential impacts of climate change and the policy options, and differing political and cultural notions of risk and responsibility.

The surface temperature data set plays a central role in the political debate over climate change.

I think it would be much better if all participants in the climate debate were much clearer about their political motives.

One of the things I really like about David Robert's scheme is that climate scientists are removed from the political debate.

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.

Judith My compliments on your effort to separate the science from the politics, and to get the political debate going over energy & climate.

The important question to ask, I argue, is how such an intolerant culture was allowed to develop in powerful political and academic institutions, and why the alarmist case was preferred by policymakers, who continue to make use of the binary view of the climate debate.

Climate change has risen up the political agenda as politics has become professionalised, and managerial in character, leaving the public with less democratic choice, and public debate deprived with contested values.

If sceptics were taken more seriously, if there was a debate... if there was a political, or academic culture which accepted debate... Cardiff wouldn't produce such rank pseudo-science, and social scientists in Nottingham could be more confident about the definition of «space in the ecosystem of climate change discourse», but probably would chose his words — and his coordinates — more carefully.

How do political sociologists develop such blind spots in the climate debate, such that publishing a «lukewarm» report means a tiny organisation with few resources has radically altered its presumed position?

That would go immediately into the highly political arena of the climate change debate.

This is to say that the «consensus» has political, rather than practical utility: it is more useful to the task of mobilising towards «action on climate change» than it is informing the debate about what kind of problem climate change is, and what the options for dealing with it are.

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

But his contributions to climate debates demonstrate perfectly the discrepancy between the shrill cries for action, such as those of Stewart, and what actually emerges from the scientific process, when those scientists aren't engaged in political activism.

Climate scientists have become entangled in an acrimonious political debate that has polarized the scientific community.

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

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.

A great irony is that the Scientizers have different political views but share the expectation that science is the appropriate battleground for this debate, and have together thus far successfully kept the focus of attention on the climate science rather than policy and politics.

The political debate apparently trumps any responsibility the program might feel to present to its viewers an accurate picture of the debate, or non-debate, over anthropogenic global warming among actual climate scientists.

PeterS, With those measly qualifications, how do you expect to compete with a political scientist in the climate debate?