Sentences with phrase «public debate about climate change»

As perhaps has already become clear, Climate Cover - Up is an important contribution to the ongoing public debate about climate change.

In other words, consensus messaging has a neutralising effect, which is especially important given the highly polarised nature of the public debate about climate change.

In other words, if you want to know why Climategate is interesting, don't look for the source of the leak / hack and question the «ethics» of climate «deniers»; take a long, hard look at the «ethics», and the politics of those who have worked to deny a public debate about climate change.

If a public debate about climate change and energy policies were permitted, and if the values that inform the interpretation of climate science were open to democratic contest, the climategate emails would be inconsequential.

«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.

In the end, the only question that matters [for the public debate about climate change] is, what are we going to do about it?

And a vocal minority of corporate interests and their ideological allies are spending a lot of money to hijack the public debate about climate change.

To push a political agenda politicians eagerly capitalize on every tragic event and the Golden Toad demonstrates why public debate about climate change and «demands for proof» are more important now than ever.

We — a growing number of volunteers and coalition members — are raising public debate about climate change and taking responsibility into our own hands, right here in our own city.

He is the chair of the David Suzuki Foundation and founder of DeSmogBlog.com, which works to «expose misinformation campaigns polluting the public debate about climate change and the environment.»

Again, with reference to Tamsin and many others who we might say fall into her camp - where is the evidence that shows the putative blowback effect within the public debate about climate change that underlies her criticism of «activism?»

We concluded that the three digital players were beneficial for public debate about climate change, as they had found new ways of covering the «old», sometimes boring, often remote, theme of climate change.

Not exact matches

Using the example of the current debate surrounding anthropomorphic climate change, Thompson sought to evaluate the argument from authority through a single prism, the way in which science is handled in argumentation about public policy.

The three candidates running in New York's 21st Congressional District argued about the environment and climate change in a debate on Mountain Lake Public Television Monday night.

Similar to the debate on fracking, public opposition to the gas port became part of a larger discussion about New York State's energy policy and how the state should respond to climate change.

There was much public debate about the role of climate change in the aftermath of Harvey, and many Republicans were quick to dismiss links to global warming, pointing out that states like Florida and Texas have a long history with deadly storms.

They say that these debates about climate change and teaching evolution in schools, you know, really comes down, it really blurs the lines; it confuses the public about the kind of the boundaries between science and ideology.

Galway and Roscommon, Ire About Blog I'm interested in international relations, American foreign policy, climate change, US presidential elections, public debate, Kansas Jayhawks basketball, film, and major league baseball.

The op - ed favorably cited by Mike Mann says this explcitly, «That means we need to clearly say there is no scientific debate about climate change — and instead shift the conversation to next steps... Those of us who write opinion need to press for public - policy action, steps that move us as a planet forward.

And by all means let's ask Walmart to be a louder voice in public policy debates about energy and climate change.

I suspect one of the reasons that he brought it up is that the general public, when told there is no debate amongst experts as to whether warming is occurring, are also told that the hundreds of scientists they hear about in the news dismissing warming (or saying that there is a debate) are not climate change experts and therefore shouldn't be believed.

I agree that cultural cognition — the idea that we shape our views so they agree with those in the groups with which we most closely identify, in the name of acceptance by our group and thus of safety — powerfully explains the polarized passions over whether climate change is «real,» the «debate» that gets most of the attention about public opinion.

I mean even though I became this reluctant and accidental public figure in the debate over climate change, over time I've learned to embrace the opportunity that has given me to talk to the public about this problem and the threat that it represents, to inform the public discourse on this issue.

I was hoping that the book would be accessible to a pretty broad range of readers because I really wanted to use my personal story as sort of this reluctant and accidental public figure in the debate over climate change, to talk about the bigger issues, the reality of the problem, the threat that it represents, the need to have a good faith discussion about what to do about it.

In no way do my values suggest that debate should be curtailed: I merely insist that a scientific debate should take place in the scientific literature and that the public be put in a position where it can make an informed judgment about the voices that are opposing mainstream science on crucial issues ranging from climate change to vaccination.

The intention was to convince the public that there was a raging debate among climate scientists about the causes of climate change.

You can not talk credibly about lowering emissions globally if, for example, you are slow to acknowledge climate change; if you undermine calls for an effective carbon price; and if you always descend into the «jobs versus environment» argument in the public debate.

This is journalism for the public policy debate about climate change, not written by a subject matter expert.

Yet she has to maintain her version of scientific certainty because if the public realises that there is a debate about how to respond to climate change, and a debate about how reliable forecasts are, her political manifesto simply has no currency.

Unless the skeptics form a theory, they'll remain minor players in the debates — the climate science debate and the public policy debate about climate change (they're distinct, although often conflated).

«James Hoggan's Climate Cover - Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming is a valuable expose of the efforts that have been made by self - interested actors to prevent political action on climate change, by manipulating the public debate and confusing people about the strength of the scieClimate Cover - Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming is a valuable expose of the efforts that have been made by self - interested actors to prevent political action on climate change, by manipulating the public debate and confusing people about the strength of the scieclimate change, by manipulating the public debate and confusing people about the strength of the science....

The circuit which Nasht was aiming to break, is the one providing voltage to an increasingly toxic debate in the media and in the public about the root causes and consequences of human - caused climate change.

We should really try and figure out and discuss why we disagree so strongly about climate change -LSB-...] We don't have a similar public debate about the mating behavior of fruitflies after all.

My objections to how the public policy debate about climate change concerns methodology, and are explained here: How we broke the climate change debates.

The most recent hiatus began in the late 1990s, reigniting the debate with climate change skeptics and confusing the public about the validity of anthropogenic climate change.

My posts refer to the «public policy debate about climate change».

Nevertheless, there are constraints on time and money, and there is a debate brewing about which part of the climate change problem that public funds, private investment, philanthropic grants, and public policy should be focusing on.

To claim that sceptics «don't believe in climate change» is an Orwellian manipulation of the language designed to confuse the public about what the debate is really on about.

Schneider was influential in the public debate over climate change and wrote a book, Science as a Contact Sport: Inside the Battle to Save Earth's Climate, about his experclimate change and wrote a book, Science as a Contact Sport: Inside the Battle to Save Earth's Climate, about his experClimate, about his experiences.

The debate is not about climate change, though it touches on the excess of the climate debate that have been observed on this blog, as well as in many other areas of public life.

To not respond to a request for that information would seem to be hiding behind the letter of FOIA rules (we shall see what the IC says), rather than responding in its spirit; if the information exists at all, it is surely in the public interest for it to be made public, to improve the quality of the debate about climate change policy.

With regard to the wider public «debate» about AGW, though, I don't see how it is a «bad idea» to name names of politicians who deliberately and aggressively LIE to the American people about the reality of anthropogenic global warming and climate change, and who engage in vicious and dishonest attacks on climate scientists.

In the public debate on climate change we often seem to talk about this implicit «failsafe» of action.

Oilprice.com: You've talked a lot about the role of communication and public relations in the climate change debate.

We have a unique opportunity to end the rancorous debate about climate change, a debate that is poisoning the air — the political air, that is — and inhibiting progress on two fronts: progress on addressing the possibility that we are on the road to a catastrophic warming of the globe, and progress on reforming our anti-growth tax structure, which is so inequitable that it is straining the public's belief in the fairness of capitalism and what we like to call «the American Dream.»

Galway and Roscommon, Ire About Blog I'm interested in international relations, American foreign policy, climate change, US presidential elections, public debate, Kansas Jayhawks basketball, film, and major league baseball.

Galway and Roscommon, Ire About Blog I'm interested in international relations, American foreign policy, climate change, US presidential elections, public debate, Kansas Jayhawks basketball, film, and major league baseball.