Sentences with phrase «understand the climate debate»

«The «normal» physicist (or simple «scientist» should be able to understand the climate debate, and should not be silenced or denied voicing his opinions, just because he is not the full blown..»

«I think I understand the climate debate better than anyone, not because I know more about climate but because I know more about the logic of complex issues.

Hulme indeed wrote an article in 2007 citing the need to use PNS to understand the climate debate and the claims made at both of its extremes.

Clearly they have no use if we want a historically consistent definition with which to understand the climate debate in the present.

Nuccitelli's survey results are either the result of a comprehensive failure to understand the climate debate, or an attempt to divide it in such a way as to frame the result for political ends.

To understand the climate debate, then, it is often necessary to look outside it, rather than take it at face value.

Just as Donald and Painter's evidence to the STC reflected either naivety or a strategy, Nuccitelli's survey results are either the result of a comprehensive failure to understand the climate debate, or an attempt to divide it in such a way as to frame the result for political ends.

Not exact matches

«It reframes part of the climate change debate by encouraging individuals around the world to better understand where their electricity is coming from before they adopt supposedly eco-friendly technologies,» he says.

For this reason, a European project was estaqblished in 2011, COST - action TOSCA (Towards a more complete assessment of the impact of solar variability on the Earth's climate), whose objective is to provide a better understanding of the «hotly debated role of the Sun in climate change» (not really in the scientific fora, but more in the general public discourse).

My understanding of most of the (lets call it) skeptical positions from people like Roy Spencer is that they essentially claim exactly that: the absence of a large signal compared to noise (or natural variability) and the entire debate is essentially about the question, whether noise is a measurement / statistical problem or the very nature of climate itself?

What's important, to my mind, is not to confuse this kind of normal, healthy scientific debate with more basic understanding of human contributions to, and responses to, climate change.

Overall, I think the debate over the iris hypothesis is a testament to the efforts the scientific community goes through to evaluate challenges to theories and find ways to improve our understanding of the climate (for instance, see Bill Ruddiman's post from last week).

I only note that the scientific understanding of the reality and risks of climate change is strong, compelling, and increasingly disturbing, and a rational public debate is desperately needed.

You don't have to be a climate scientist to understand what's fair in the structure of a civic debate.

I understand there is some debate about whether earthquakes could be related to climate change.

oh, as for web resources to help understand it all, on climate and global warming there is the wonderful Climate Debate Daily, with bothclimate and global warming there is the wonderful Climate Debate Daily, with bothClimate Debate Daily, with both (all?)

The 2 °C target is a matter of substantial debate (too weak, too strong, too vague...), but it is a good yardstick for understanding the scale of climate change, and its impacts, that we are setting ourselves up for this century.

The violation of the Third Law will be only temporary as slowly scientific observation and understanding will get the better of the present situation... it is a firm conclusion that the climate change debate is distorted in its presentation and that its alleged scientific conclusions are unsound.

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.

One can tell by how climate change policies are being debated around much of the world that few people, including many very educated people, understand the scale and urgency of the problem now [continue reading...]

Anthony Watts is not a contributor to climate science in the way Gavin Schmidt is but you need to understand both of them to understand the debate between them.

George Browning: Sustainability and Sabbath: Genesis 2:1 - 4a and the Climate Change debate This thesis argues that a person of faith and more particularly of Christian faith is a person who lives Sabbath rest, understands their place within the creation, and is committed to the redeeming of the whole created order and the fidelities which enable life to be sustainable.

By and large, this is how climate scientists seem to have obtained their understanding of the Hockey Stick debate — and here realclimate is hardly an unbiased source.

But I share MacCracken's view that this is the not forum for a full - blown debate — and that the «debate» format in general, pitting two «sides» against each other, is not the best way to assess the state of scientific understanding of climate change.

And Joe Smith, at least seems to understand that the climate debate is about more than climate science.

His refusal to understand the debate he comments on even leads him to put mainstream climate scientists into the same category as «deniers».

How would more respectful debate, between scientists who trust homogenized trends and those who don't, help the public better understand climate change?

Stewart has in his possession the very facts he needs to understand that he has mischaracterised the debate, the arguments, and the motives behind objections to climate change alarmism.

======================= It's puzzling how someone who recognises that banning DDT for the sake of the environment led to an epidemic - level rise in world malaria (Pandora's Lab: Seven Stories of Science Gone Wrong) has such a crude (mis) understanding of the issues in the climate debate, for instance can not see the cost / benefit argument concerning fossil fuels.

I would say the climate debate has been muddled by trying to tease out a signal in a system we don't seem to understand very well.

If climate change is understood to be a moral issue, it would completely transform the way climate change policies have been debated in the United States for over three decades.

I hope that you understand that there are many here who selectively identify agendas on (only) one side of the climate change debate.

In a widely cited study, Drexel University sociologist Robert Brulle claimed to expose a vast network of organizations executing «a deliberate and organized effort to misdirect debate and distort the understanding of climate change.»

In a still widely cited study Brulle claimed to expose a vast network of organizations executing «a deliberate and organized effort to misdirect debate and distort the understanding of climate change.»

In the absence of any obvious climate catastrophe, let alone the slightest evidence, I can only conclude that the alarmists understand at some level that are losing the «debate,» such as it has been.

Most casual participants in the Global Warming «debate» don't have the time to deep - dive the dozens of interrelated specialties needed to understand climate science.

This book is not pleasant to read, but it is essential if you are to understand the origins of the irrational and vicious wrangling that pollutes the climate debate.

«Successfully reframing the climate debate in the United States from one based on environmental values to one based on health values... holds great promise to help American society better understand and appreciate the risks of climate change...» — George Mason University, Center for Climate Change Communication, May climate debate in the United States from one based on environmental values to one based on health values... holds great promise to help American society better understand and appreciate the risks of climate change...» — George Mason University, Center for Climate Change Communication, May climate change...» — George Mason University, Center for Climate Change Communication, May Climate Change Communication, May 9, 2011

Brulle claimed to expose a network of nonprofit organizations executing «a deliberate and organized effort to misdirect debate and distort» the public's understanding of climate science.

«It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long - term climate processes.»

None of this is understood and the climate change debate can not be settled until it is understood.

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.

The fact that Lewandowsky could put Betts into a category of «climate sceptic», and his comment into a category of «conspiracy theory» should be an object lesson about letting prejudice influence research for those seeking to understand and explain the climate debate.

However, if climate change is understood as essentially a moral and ethical problem it will eventually transform how climate change is debated because the successful framing by the opponents of climate change policies that have limited recent debate to these three arguments, namely cost, scientific uncertainty, and unfairness of reducing ghg emissions until China does so can be shown to be deeply ethically and morally problematic.

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.

Great, if we can get the skeptics to understand why the â $ œno significant warming since [date] â $ œ argument is bogus, and quit cherry picking, it will be a victory for BOTH sides of the climate debate.

I encourage anybody who is serious about the climate change debate to understand Weitzman's logic in detail.

If you think winning the climate debate depends on «the consensus [being] outed internally by people with courage,» I can understand your pessimism.

The report also noted that «the climate debate has become increasingly polarised around political issues rather than scientific understanding».

He told me that after the climate change debate had opened, he vowed that he would make no contribution to it unless and until he had satisfied himself that he had achieved sufficient understanding of the scientific issues involved.