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.
Not exact matches
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.
One is that it will simply intensify the
political, ideological and, yes, moral
debate that has erupted
over who does and does not believe we are causing
global warming, and thus move us even farther from the important scientific effort that the issue deserves.
Nevertheless,
global warming hypotheses have been narrowed in the press and public
debate to a «consensus» view of catastrophic
global warming in a
political world that prizes agreement and confidence
over exploration, and a media that thrives on crisis.
Nowhere is the
political and ideological force of growth fetishism more apparent that in the long, tortuous
debate over how to tackle
global warming.
A climate researcher for decades, he had long been in the midst of
political and scientific
debates over global warming, tirelessly urging
political leaders and the public to take action now to avoid disasters such as rising sea levels in the future.
An effort by a handful of UC Berkeley scientists to reexamine temperature data underlying
global warming research has landed in the center of a national
political debate over government regulation.