Not exact matches
And there was this great, it was my favorite moment of the weekend and it was this very dramatic moment, when basically Emanuel was complaining a little bit, very politely, and smiling about the fact that journalists still are doing stories about, you know, the debate
around climate science, but there's not really, of course, there's not a debate, there's consensus that anthropogenic global warming is happening and that, why are you still doing these stories, asking
questions?
I've written in the past about other issues related to setting a numerical limit for
climate dangers given both the enduring uncertainty
around the most important
climate change
questions and the big body of
science pointing to a gradient of risks rising with temperature.
That project brought together journalists and
climate scientists, via email, so that reporters covering the conference could get
climate science questions answered
around the clock.
So,
questions will be
around what interventions and policies are justified by what the current
science already says — not just what it doesn't yet specifically know — about risks and implications of
climate change.
Shortly after the midterms, some 40 climatologists
around the world banded together to form a «rapid response unit» on key
climate -
science questions.
At the event, Greenpeace investigator Connor Gibson
questioned Marc Morano's role in the national
climate discussion, illustrating his role in attacking the
science, attacking anyone who
questions his relevance in conversations
around climate change.
The same memo also urged the administration to
question the certainty of
science around climate change:
Though governments
around the globe and the entire
climate science community are discussing and debating the «option» of geoengineering (never admitting to the rationally inarguable fact that geoengineering has been going on for decades), the
question of fallout contamination from SRM aerosol spraying is never even mentioned by our so called scientists.
Then there is the
question, related to the first and second, about the necessity of organising public life
around the principles seemingly understood from environmental /
climate science.