Sentences with phrase «real climate debate»

Not in the real climate debate.

There never was any real climate debate!»

Not exact matches

«We're past the point where we can seriously debate whether climate change is real» Do you mean as a society, separated from the scientific facts?

The real voice of reason in this race comes instead from left field, from Green Party candidate Howie Hawkins, who has waged a consistently serious race and who on Wednesday issued a call for his fellow candidates to stop arguing about sports teams and debate issues like jobs, health care and climate change.

Today's lead editorial in the Times Union lambasted Cuomo & Astorino for failing to run serious campaigns and praised Howie Hawkins, writing «The real voice of reason in this race comes instead from left field, from Green Party candidate Howie Hawkins, who has waged a consistently serious race and who on Wednesday issued a call for his fellow candidates to stop arguing about sports teams and debate issues like jobs, health care and climate change.»

In his speech, Kerry noted that the president «has repeatedly questioned the underlying science of climate change and attempted to reignite the debate over whether the threat is real.»

There is a real diversity of informed opinion on how important climate change is going to be to various things that affect humans, and there is a diversity of opinion on how to address this problem, but the debate over human - induced climate change is over.

«It is time to move on from the fake debate over whether climate change is real or poses a risk, and onto the worthy debate about what actions we must take to avoid a climate catastrophe,» he said in an email.

MELBOURNE, AUSTRALIA — In the run - up to national elections on 21 August, the country's top science body, the Australian Academy of Science (AAS), has weighed in on the climate change debate with a report backing the mainstream scientific view that human - induced climate change is real and that a business - as - usual approach to carbon emissions will lead to a «catastrophic» four - to five - degree increase in average global temperatures.

The lessons are as follows: Lesson 1 - Intro to climate change Lesson 2 - Climate Change, real or hoax Lesson 3 - The Ice Age Debate Lesson 4 - Worst Case Scenario Lesson 5,6 - Impacts of Climate Change Lesson 7 - Impacts on the UK This content is suitable for year 9 but is taught to a high level and is more than suitable to use foclimate change Lesson 2 - Climate Change, real or hoax Lesson 3 - The Ice Age Debate Lesson 4 - Worst Case Scenario Lesson 5,6 - Impacts of Climate Change Lesson 7 - Impacts on the UK This content is suitable for year 9 but is taught to a high level and is more than suitable to use foClimate Change, real or hoax Lesson 3 - The Ice Age Debate Lesson 4 - Worst Case Scenario Lesson 5,6 - Impacts of Climate Change Lesson 7 - Impacts on the UK This content is suitable for year 9 but is taught to a high level and is more than suitable to use foClimate Change Lesson 7 - Impacts on the UK This content is suitable for year 9 but is taught to a high level and is more than suitable to use for GCSE.

But lately, there have been a lot of debates about whether or not climate change is a man - made event or if it is even a real concern.

Scientific debate as seen here on Real Climate, with data certified by experts to support arguments, in completely unknown.

The activity title is «Making Sense of Climate Science Denial» Climate change is real, so why the controversy and debate?

As an outside observer, it seems that climate science is marked by scientists not only debating data, but credentials: who is a real climatologist and who is not.

It has been registered time and again that, aside from a few serious climate scientists who make useful points in the real debate, all of the anti-warming people are paid industry hacks.

Steve, aside from the fact that Climatology is not a «debate», so there are not 2 sides, the comment section posts here are NOT «the blog», that consists of the lead articles by the group of scientists known as «Real Climate», for which see the Contributors link, the comments are from folks like you and me, generally non-scientists with varied opinions and sometimes clashing personalities.

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.

Republicans mounted a filibuster and prevented any real debate on the issues surrounding the bill that might have at least helped in the next round of attempts at climate legislation.

It is another red - herring being used by interest groups to further another absolutely useless debate which we all know as «is climate change real» and «are humans causing this?».

Do you sense that there has been any shift away from feeling the need to re-engage in debates over whether climate change is real or not, and instead toward addressing questions of what to do about it?

The real CAGW warmistas and their grant - sucking comrades in government and academia use the implication of catastrophe to hide their silly belief in a Marxian / Luddite Utopia have driven the climate debate into the ditch by labeling everyone who does not wish to don a hair - shirt as a WUWT denier.

Iâ $ ™ d still like to see Willis and his fellow AGW recalcitrants start a fresh debate over there so I can see them put those wacky climate scientists in their place and teach them a thing or to about real science, the type that doesnâ $ ™ t impact on business profits.

Yet, denial of this empirical scientific evidence remains widespread, preventing a rational debate about the real implications of the ongoing natural climate change.

Away from the debate that only exists in Mann et al's heads — of one side representing the proposition «climate change is real», and the other side denying it — it seems that there is a widespread view that planet has warmed, slightly.

Hence, Mann pretends first that the debate divides on the meaningless proposition, «climate change is real», and then that it is a matter of science vs anti science.

Despite virtual unanimity among scientists that climate change is real, and that it is caused by human activities, people who cast doubt on climate science continue to dominate the debate.

Coming out of Copenhagen, many participants in the international climate negotiations (as well as informed observers), noted that the UNFCCC has real limitations as the sole venue for future climate negotiations: too many countries — 192, excessively stringent requirements for agreement — unanimity, and a distinct tendency to polarize debates between developed and developing countries.

But it is clear that the tensions are running high, and a troubling sense of hostility has long since polarized the debate, even as the real - world evidence of climate change has piled up.

And for the real climate change debate, at the core it is the uncertainty and ignorance that shape things — perhaps more than any science.

It appears likely that this is because the CIC does not believe there should be any real debate on climate science or any other science - based issue coming before EPA and that the SAB should only hear the views of those who closely support the tenets of those who are willing to overthrow science - based environmental regulation in favor of climate alarmism and environmental extremism.

Contrary to what conservatives might suggest, there really isn't a debate in the scientific community over whether climate change is real.

During their two - hour debate, Sen. John F. Kerry, D - Mass., and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R - Ga., agreed that climate change is a real concern that demands urgent action.

I suspect that it is his lingering doubt about his true position in the firmament of climate debate that is the source of his real frustration, not his «frustration with the ongoing efforts... to attack climate science and scientists and prevent -LSB--RSB- debate.»

What's prompted me is real concern that a recent opinion poll showed that half the population still don't think that there's scientific certainty about climate change; they still think there's a real debate to be had there.

The clash between Neste and Greenpeace highlights one of the key ideological debates over climate change: Business and politicians believe that a «technological» fix such as alternative fuels can solve the problem and also generate profits; many environmental groups believe the real solution to global warming lies in reducing consumption.

The debate is over about whether or not climate change is real; it is now time to act to solve the problem.

That is why you and I can both endorse the Vatican's common - sense program for real climate - change debate

while in the context of the ongoing climate debate we continue — albeit with some embarrassment — to employ the scientifically meaningless phrase «climate change», we recognise that, in principle, a planetary warming to fend off otherwise imminent glacial inception, together with CO2 greening (the latter offsetting loss of vegetation footprint, the only real environmental concern) is having broad positive impacts on society, including the global economy, natural resources, and human health.

I take the climate science to date has not been «real» statement as bravado in a cantankerous debate.

There's a real debate that needs to be had on the values, economics, and politics associated with the risks of climate change; lets have that debate in the context of a rational backdrop of what we understand about the climate system, along with the uncertainties and unknowns.

This blog argues that, as important as it is to look at and criticise climate science, the real substance of the debate should be about the politics.

When it comes to the climate change debate unfortunately the real work that goes into being informed requires putting aside feel good missions that vilify man.

At this point in this important debate, it is remarkable that we are still relying on theory and a few old water vapour equations that do not consistently reflect the real world climate anyway.

Rather than debating the regulatory approaches, they want to undermine the conclusion that climate change is a real problem.

But the climate debate will not be settled on Climate Etc., or WUWT, or Real Climate, ClimateProgress, Climate Audit or the Aiclimate debate will not be settled on Climate Etc., or WUWT, or Real Climate, ClimateProgress, Climate Audit or the AiClimate Etc., or WUWT, or Real Climate, ClimateProgress, Climate Audit or the AiClimate, ClimateProgress, Climate Audit or the AiClimate Audit or the Air Vent.

Hopefully, the lawsuit will also spark public debate and real media attention to address the challenge of climate change in a responsible manner and without further delay.

But with debates regarding national climate change policy becoming more acrimonious in Washington as midterm elections approach, it is important to ask, what are the real options for climate policy in the United States — not only in 2010, but in 2011 and beyond.

Sometimes it's hard to know if things you encounter in the climate debate are real, or clever works of fiction or satire.

Which coincidentally is the same PR technique that Friends of Science is using to delay action on climate change; creating the public perception of a scientific debate in order to undermine support for the Kyoto accord or for any real public policy action.

I would personally love to see you defend the climate alarmist argument in a real debate.