Sentences with phrase «scientific debate about climate change»

And scientific debate about climate change can be scientific again.

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.

Not exact matches

Some critics say the pope should refrain from speaking about scientific matters, while others laud his letter as a major contribution to the climate change debate.

The letter, which included a statement on climate science by the leaders of 18 scientific societies, stated, «Although debate about policy options exists, climate change is not a scientifically - controversial topic.»

But, it said, about three in 10 middle and high school science teachers «reported telling their students, wrongly, that the causes of recent climate change are the matter of scientific debate.»

Concerning the «debate» highlighted by the above exchanges between Pielke and Holdren, the issue isnt about analogues to past droughts (which, by the way, the California resource managers were more interested in), but about the scientific evidence that California droughts have become more severe due to climate change.

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.

This scientific debate about whether anthropogenic climate change is dangerous needs to end up like a game of postal chess (on the internet).

«[The subjects raised] made for a decent scientific debate 15 years ago, but the questions have since been settled... The Great Global Warming Swindle raised old debates that are going to be latched on to and used to suggest that we don't need to do anything about climate change.

I appreciate the bold scientists who maintains the debate about scientific methods of climate change research; however, I miss a mention of the first challengers, McIntyre and McKitrick, who were the first scientists who questioned the statistical methods leading to hockety stick shape of paleoclimate reconstructions.

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

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 President has reportedly told U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt during several conversations that he supports Pruitt's plan for a «red - team, blue - team» debate aimed at challenging the prevailing scientific consensus about humans» impact on climate change, a senior administration official reportedly told E&E News.

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.

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.

There's a debate to be had about the science, there's a debate to be had about the best way to approach the problem of climate change and how big that problem is, in the light of — but not as a consequence of — the best scientific information available.

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.

Even though there is overwhelming scientific consensus, they may have bought into the myth that there is a scientific debate about the reality of climate change.

«There is a «false sense somehow that there is a two - sided debate going on in the scientific community» about the origins of climate change, said Bob Ward, the senior manager for policy communication at the Royal Society.

In November, 2015, the three lead NIPCC authors — Craig Idso, Robert M. Carter, and S. Fred Singer — wrote a small book titled Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming: The NIPCC Report on Scientific Consensus revealing how no survey or study shows a «consensus» on the most important scientific issues in the climate change debate, and how most scientists do not support the alarmist claims of the Intergovernmental Panel on ClimaScientific Consensus revealing how no survey or study shows a «consensus» on the most important scientific issues in the climate change debate, and how most scientists do not support the alarmist claims of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climascientific issues in the climate change debate, and how most scientists do not support the alarmist claims of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate climate change debate, and how most scientists do not support the alarmist claims of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Cchange debate, and how most scientists do not support the alarmist claims of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Climate ChangeChange.

Before the show had even gone to air, the program was causing controversy with commentators — myself and others including Clive Hamilton, Stephan Lewandowsky and Michael Ashley — pointing out its format gave the false impression of there being a legitimate scientific debate about fossil fuel burning causing climate change.

In the meantime, during the debates about US domestic policy on climate change that have been taking place for almost thirty years, the US media has reported on climate issues almost exclusively by focusing on issues of scientific certainty about climate change impacts and economic cost to the US economy.

This phenomenon is partly attributable to the fact that economic interests opposed to US climate change policies have skillfully and successfully framed the US climate change debate as a matter about which there is insufficient scientific evidence or too much adverse impact on the US economy to warrant action.

But the report is also disconcerting, because it suggests that the agents of climate denial have largely succeeded in equating the spread of disinformation with «open debate» — and in convincing educators that to teach the uncontested truth about climate change is to violate the spirit of scientific inquiry.

Since leaving Tyndall — and as we found out in a telephone interview — he has come out of the climate change closet as an outspoken critic of such sacred cows as the UN's IPCC, the «consensus», the over-emphasis on scientific evidence in political debates about climate change, and to defend the rights of so - called «deniers» to contribute to those debates...

What I am talking about is, that it seems to me that with regard to climate science, this blog spends far too much time responding to the phony, trumped - up «debate» fueled by denialist drivel, and not enough time addressing the legitimate scientific question as to whether it is in fact too late to prevent global warming and climate change that will be catastrophic to human civilization, not to mention the entire Earth's biosphere.

If it is the multitude of scientific debates about climate feedbacks, sensitivity, tipping elements, relative impacts of climate change on natural systems, etc. then I do agree.

Estimating «climate sensitivity» — the magnitude of the change in TS after doubling CO2 concentration from the pre-industrial 278 parts per million to ~ 550 ppm — is the central question in the scientific debate about the climate.

Note that the NSS does not take a position on the scientific debate about whether climate change is happening, what its causes are, and what can be done about it.