I wrote here last year about Lessl's exploration of global
warming debates in relation to «scientism,» a presumption of some that science «brings clarity to all endeavors.»
Remember when James Hansen launched the Great Global
Warming debate in the hot, dry summer of 1988?
It seems that the individual that wrote this paper was: «Of loaded dice and heated arguments: Putting the Hansen — Michaels global
warming debate in context» social epistemology, 2000, vol.
In a really good article in the New York Times, Eduardo Porter explains the economic end of the global
warming debate in terms that even the most rabid green could understand.
I must admit to being somewhat frustrated with the global
warming debate in that I think it's missing (and indeed drawing focus away from) the point, which is that we need to focus on long - term sustainability in our interactions with the planet.
McIntyre has been described as a «persistent amateur who had no credentials in applied science before stepping into the global
warming debate in 2003» and has been a prominent critic of temperature records that suggest increasing global temperatures over the past 1000 years.
Not exact matches
Turns out I'm not the only one to notice that
in the
debate over the best mechanism to combat global
warming, the pols seem to prefer cap - and - trade systems to a carbon tax.
Alice Hill, who directed resilience policy for the National Security Council
in the Obama administration, said the wider
debate over cutting climate -
warming emissions may have distracted people from promptly pursuing ways to reduce risks and economic and societal costs from natural disasters.
After many years of vague talk by governments about fighting global
warming, it is encouraging that the
debate has finally begun to tackle specific mechanisms to achieve cuts
in greenhouse gas emissions.Â
As with global
warming, so too with the lawlessness
in our society: the
debates over its causes are far from finished.
Yesterday the Bill had its Second Reading
debate in the Commons and here is a flavour of the
warm welcome it got from the Tory backbenches.
Cameron also paid a
warm tribute to the Lib Dem leader, with whom he has had a frosty relationship
in the past, for bringing the matter to the Commons on a day set aside for a
debate on a subject chosen by the third party.
In a video posted on his official Assembly website, Hanna is seen debating a bill on the floor and decrying a «conspiracy» by scientists who engage in climate research to «suppress» research conducted by those who challenge the existence of global warmin
In a video posted on his official Assembly website, Hanna is seen
debating a bill on the floor and decrying a «conspiracy» by scientists who engage
in climate research to «suppress» research conducted by those who challenge the existence of global warmin
in climate research to «suppress» research conducted by those who challenge the existence of global
warming.
This is just as the leading candidates earmarked for the
debate are
warming up to reel out their plans for the state
in the next four years as contained
in their manifestos.
The causes of the
warming remain
debated, but Liu and his team homed
in on the melting glacial water that poured into oceans as the ice receded, paradoxically slowing the ocean current
in the North Atlantic that keeps Europe from freezing over.
Some researchers have suggested that climate change, which has resulted
in a rapidly
warming Arctic, is leading to jet stream kinks that keep extreme weather
in place, although that hypothesis is still being
debated (ClimateWire, April 3).
That study sparked a dizzying
debate — but one that will ultimately help glaciologists grasp just what is happening
in East Antarctica and push scientists to consider how to handle contentious results
in a
warming world.
Skeptic: Let's talk
in 30 years While
debate flared around what to do about climate change, the notion that the earth is
warming might be more widely accepted.
«Too often
in debates about climate change risk, the starting point is a presumption that only global
warming in excess of 2 °C represents a threat to humanity,» says climate scientist Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University, College Park.
The recent slowdown
in global
warming has brought into question the reliability of climate model projections of future temperature change and has led to a vigorous
debate over whether this slowdown is the result of naturally occurring, internal variability or forcing external to Earth's climate system.
A Sensitive
Debate The dramatic nature of global
warming captured world attention
in 2001, when the IPCC published a graph that my co-authors and I devised, which became known as the «hockey stick.»
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.
Starting from the same kernel of scientific truth as did The Day After Tomorrow — that global
warming could disrupt ocean currents
in the North Atlantic — a study commissioned by the Pentagon, of all organizations, concluded that the «risk of abrupt climate change... should be elevated beyond a scientific
debate to a U.S. national security concern.»
In 2005 MIT climatologist Kerry Emanuel stirred intense debate with a study indicating that global warming had caused hurricanes to nearly double in strength since the 1970
In 2005 MIT climatologist Kerry Emanuel stirred intense
debate with a study indicating that global
warming had caused hurricanes to nearly double
in strength since the 1970
in strength since the 1970s.
In so far as some sceptics and deniers are proclaiming that carbon dioxide - induced anthropogenic global
warming may be «the scientific fraud of the century» then surely the issues surrounding it must be the scientific
debate of the century.
A study published
in April
in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) started this
debate by projecting that a
warming climate would render many of the traditional European wine - growing areas unsuitable for wine production by 2050.
The meeting coincides with a gathering of climate change skeptics
in New York City, who are
debating topics like «Global
warming: Was it ever a crisis?»
«That's the way we deal with global
warming, climate change or any of those problems,» Christie said
in the prime - time
debate on CNBC.
She also emphasises the importance of the study to current
debates about a human role
in climate
warming: «Cumulative archaeological data clearly demonstrates that humans are more than capable of reshaping and dramatically transforming ecosystems.
The
debate should be at the technical aspects of this
warming,
in particular, what is the rate of this
warming???
This suggests above all that no side
in these
debates should imagine it basks
in warm public support.
Evidence of the «pause»
in surface
warming «has sparked a lively scientific and public
debate», says the Nature Climate Change editorial.
Appearing
in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences November 26, the results solve a long - standing
debate and reveal how pollution plays into climate
warming.
from ExxonMobil, Phillip Morris and numerous other corporations and right - wing foundations with vested interest
in the global
warming debate.
I had thought there was a legitimate scientific
debate about the role of global
warming and hurricanes, but it appears that the deniers, although they are legitimate scientists, seem to have fallen
in with the think tank ideologues and PR lobbyists who masquerade as scientists.
The fundamental difference
in opinion (which has not changed since Michaels and Hansen started
debating each other
in 1988) is that Hansen (and the vast majority of relevant experts) think that climate sensitivity (how much the globe will
warm under a doubling of CO2) is around 3 (+ / -1) °C, while Michaels thinks that it is much less (< 1 °C).
The potential influence of rapid Arctic
warming on such extremes has been a hot research topic
in recent years, though it is much
debated in the climate community.
The vast majority of climate researchers are convinced by the data that human - caused
warming is underway, though spirited
debate surrounds the complex feedbacks
in the climate system.
Everything's Cool (Unrated) Cautionary documentary exposes the efforts of the fossil fuel industry lobby and conservative think tanks to manufacture an artificial
debate about global
warming in the face of irrefutable proof of the phenomenon provided by responsible members of the scientific community.
And there is something strangely
warming about the relationship between Mr Numbers and Mr Wrench, a pair of assassins (one of whom is deaf) who bicker
in sign language like an old married couple as they
debate gangster etiquette, the importance of public libraries, and the eating practices of Mormons.
: A
debate that may not be hot, but is at least
warm, like 15 seconds
in the microwave.
Much like the
debate over global
warming, these non-believers refuse to validate an unassailable fact: standardized testing does have positive — and predictive — value
in education and
in life, just as the Earth is, indeed, getting
warmer.
He chuckles when it's compared to the similarly sealed — at least
in most scientists» minds —
debate over global
warming.
LazyBoy Foley was
warm when he brought up parenting
in the last
debate but a public official who is «committed» to public education should actually have gone through the system with his kids.
It is a deliberate lie, scripted by ExxonMobil - funded propaganda mills disguised as «conservative think tanks», that is demonstrably false and as such it does not belong
in the
debate about what to do about anthropogenic global
warming.
But
in no case should a reporter who wishes to portray with accuracy the
debates about global
warming, present a minority view unbacked by science and promoted by businesses with a small, old dog
in a very tough dog fight, as equivalent to hard science from unbiased scientists with no economic interest
in anything but getting the facts and predictions right.
The point is simply that finding a
warmer ocean around the medieval period shouldn't have much weight
in debate about relative surface temperatures.
How come it's the lawyers and businessmen
in the senate and the white house who are
debating the scientific merits of ways to curb global
warming and evaluating economic repercussions of their decisions?
Update, June 19, 10:30 p.m. Joe Romm has written a long post on Climate Progress on the Orwellian aspects of a «good» Anthropocene — «Words Matter When Talking Global
Warming: The «Good Anthropocene»
Debate» — and Hamilton has a long essay
in Scientific American warning that «The New Environmentalism Will Lead Us to Disaster.
Although I don't know how the hostess picks themes or manages to manage things,
in my brief experience with the blog, you are much more likely to find a sensible and creative discussion of how to actually address the issue (global
warming, sustainability, and related matters of living well within our environment) on the family, local, or cultural levels than you are to find a large acrimonious
debate among (often anonymous) people.