Sentences with phrase «problem with the climate debate»

Not exact matches

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.

Even as scientists and politicians from around the world debated in December how to deal with a practical problem of profound importance — global climate change — another international group of physicists was waiting with bated breath for a more esoteric development.

«That's the way we deal with global warming, climate change or any of those problems,» Christie said in the prime - time debate on CNBC.

The NRC asked the committee to summarize current scientific information on the temperature record for the past two millennia, describe the main areas of uncertainty and how significant they are, describe the principal methodologies used and any problems with these approaches, and explain how central is the debate over the paleoclimate temperature record to the state of scientific knowledge on global climate change.

Mike Wallace's talk was about the «National Research Council Report on the «Hockey Stick Controversy»... The charge to the committee, was «to summarize current information on the temperature records for the past millennium, describe the main areas of uncertainty and how significant they are, describe the principal methodologies used and any problems with these approaches, and explain how central is the debate over the paleoclimate record within the overall state of knowledge on global climate change.»

Off and on for more than a year, I've been in a running debate with Dave Roberts, an environmental blogger for Grist, over the shape of the climate problem and the prospects of various efforts to tackle it.

As a youth I participated in many of my father's experiments, observing first - hand the benefits of atmospheric CO2 on plant life and the manifold problems with the model - based theory of climate change, all of which events occurred long, long before James Hansen stood in front of the U.S. Senate and brought the CO2 debate to the eyes of the public in 1988.

Despite some problems with the underlying analysis, the fact remains that a lot of money was spent by both sides of the debate over cap and trade, and in the end little was accomplished to address our energy and climate needs.

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

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.

I go into more detail about the problems with the extension of the genetic analogy into the climate debate here: http://www.climate-resistance.org/2008/12/the-completely-cuckoo-climate-change-cyberspace-conspiracy-conspiracy.html

The more substantive problem with the argument, if we take it at face value, is it's own inability to understand the terms of the climate 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.

The author's approach underlines so much of the problem with the global warming / climate change debate.

The problem with the debate over climate is that it is polarised.

Combined with the growing understanding that carbon emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels are driving global climate change, the debate is now focused on how to restructure the U.S. transport system to solve these two problems.

Common to these arguments is that they have successfully framed the climate change debate so that opponents and proponents of climate policies debate facts about costs, scientific uncertainty, or economic harms to nations that act while other large emitters don't act rather the moral problems with these arguments.

The problem with a red, blue team approach to climate science is the extremely political nature of the debate which would be carried out in the public arena.

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.

+1 The rest of the climate change debate seems to me to be academic, with a cure (decarbonisation) looking for a problem.

There is an important need to change the focus of national debates on climate change policies at the national scale so that citizens understand the ethical problems with their country's national commitments.

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.

My problem with this current debate is the complete lack of structure to the trial and conviction of climate scientists.

«Jim Hoggan, a public relations expert and co-founder of DeSmogBlog.com, explained the problem this way: «The public debate about climate change is choked with a smog of misinformation.

that the most fundamental problem with the «climate change debate» is that a small disparate group of «loud and proud» people are manufacturing popular doubt.

Andrew Montford's observation comes in response to an article by Gavin Schmidt, in which he apparently shows more reflection on the problems of science and advocacy than I would have expected, given his robust statements about «deniers», and his refusal to debate with more sceptical climate scientists in the past, and his impatience with his scientific critics, to the delight of climate activists.

The problem with this discussion, as with so many discussions in the climate debate jr. high school cafeteria food fight, is that many involved have twisted the arguments away from a matter of philosophy to a matter of furthering partisan agendas.

It is interesting how «skeptics,» some of whom so often complain that part of the problem is that «realist» climate scientists won't engage in debates with «skeptics,» suddenly support Judith's failure (thus far) to engage in detailed debate with Gavin on this topic.

Analysts on any side of the climate debate can find problems with the SCC as a regulatory instrument.

IMO, it would be logical to turn the Climate debate away from climate fortune telling and focus instead on the true cause of the problems associated with power generation and consuClimate debate away from climate fortune telling and focus instead on the true cause of the problems associated with power generation and consuclimate fortune telling and focus instead on the true cause of the problems associated with power generation and consumption.

the committee will summarize current scientific information on the temperature record for the past 1,000 - 2,000 years, describe the main areas of uncertainty and how significant they are, describe the principal methodologies used and any problems with these approaches, and explain how central the debate over the paleoclimate temperature record is to the state of scientific knowledge on global climate change.

Judith — you started # 2 in this series with «The significance of the debate over the hockey stick and «hide the decline» is the following: Sir John Houghton made the hockey stick into an icon for the climate change problem, which became of substantial importance in the marketing of climate change to the public; therefore, challenges to the hockey stick, while maybe not being of particular scientific importance are highly important in the public debate on climate change.»