Sentences with phrase «whole climate debate»

The whole climate debate is interesting from that perspective.

But there again, many people, myself included, believe that the whole climate debate was tailored to a political agenda and not to any sincere belief in facts.

In the author's view the whole climate debate has been muddled — and continues to be muddled — by not differentiating between this trend in the data (which oscillates) and the mean trend (which does not).

Not exact matches

Climate change scepticism is not official party policy, but Wilson has stated: «I think in 20 years» time we will look back at this whole climate change debate and ask ourselves how on earth were we ever conned into spending the billions of pounds which are going into this without any kind of rigorous examination of the background, the science, the implications of it all.Climate change scepticism is not official party policy, but Wilson has stated: «I think in 20 years» time we will look back at this whole climate change debate and ask ourselves how on earth were we ever conned into spending the billions of pounds which are going into this without any kind of rigorous examination of the background, the science, the implications of it all.climate change debate and ask ourselves how on earth were we ever conned into spending the billions of pounds which are going into this without any kind of rigorous examination of the background, the science, the implications of it all.»

This does not seem to be a central critique of Joe and Stefan against our piece, but I outline this issue here because there is a falseness in the way the whole climate science community has posed the goal - setting and crank - turning debate.

Likewise, they prefer to debate urban heat island effects rather than to discuss the rising temperature trends, other clear signs of rising temperatures, the positive feedbacks which are beginning to kick in so that climate change will take on a life of its own independently of what we do in the future if changes are not made now (# 111, «Storm World» post, comment # 141) and what such climate change will imply for humanity as a whole (Curve manipulation, comment # 74, A Saturated Gassy Argument, comment # 116).

On the whole, I think Revkin has tried to be fair to all sides of the climate change debate.

As this is an issue which is fairly crucial to the whole climate change debate I'd have thought it would have already been covered fairly thoroughly on this web - site.

I have a problem with the whole idea of reconciliation in the climate debate and for once, it's not political but moral.

The whole international climate debate is infused with issues of justice, and progress is possible only if each nation is seen to be doing its fair share.

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.

It's not just climate science that needs debate but the whole enterprise of modern science is in need of transparent review.

The whole «climate science» warming debate seems much ado about bad science.

UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown said, «I think the great thing about the Commonwealth conference is that we could find nations that were rich and poor, nations that were facing directly now climate change and nations who were debating it but hadn't felt the full impact of it, all coming together to agree something that, you know, if a third of the world can agree at the Commonwealth conference, then perhaps the whole of the world can agree at Copenhagen.»

He is the one «doubter» in this whole piece that actually has some influence in the current climate debate.

So far, here in the United States, public debate over climate change has been little more than an endless series of arcane scientific and political talking points tossed back and forth on the Internet between those who believe AGW will destroy the planet and those who believe the whole thing is a massive hoax.

As a matter of fact, the whole climate change debate is not based on sound terms.

If you are right and there is no ongoing debate this by itself tells me the whole field of climate modeling has been politically subverted and their current long term model work isn't worth that much.

If this man stays in the campaign running for long he will change the dynamics of the whole public climate debate.

The statement fails to explain the whole debate revolves around climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases.

«I support [the work of the NIPCC] because I am convinced that the whole field of climate and climate change urgently needs an open debate between several «schools of thought,» in science and well as other disciplines, many of which jumped on the IPCC bandwagon far too readily.

A common error in climate debate is drawing conclusions from narrow pieces of data while neglecting the whole picture.

And that is why the whole «Yes, but RC moderation» is so laughable as a serious contribution to the debate about climate change.

I'll dig through the archives too — I've read quite a bit about how science and psuedo - science are «framed» along with doubt and skepticism regarding the Evolution / Creation debates — that's a whole «nuther monster with many of the same qualities as the climate debate.

When referring to the whole issue, try something like «the urgent challenge of human - induced climate disruption» rather than «climate debate.»

Werthamer told InsideClimate News, «The whole idea was to do a really clean, really defensible research project, and that would be the key to open the door to whole [climate change] debate.

I am a long time reader of this site, and I share many of your concerns and frustrations about the way this whole debate has gone, and how prominent climate scientists and the press treat any opposing views.

What's irrelevent is this whole piece, perhaps you didn't get the memo but the climate debate is over.

This book includes critical economic facts and key percentages that put the climate debate in a whole new light.

The fact is if we required the same standard of information from climate scientists that we do from drug companies, the whole debate on global warming would be long over.

This is precisely what has happened with the climate debate and it is at risk of damaging the whole reputation of science.

(And if it existed, it would greatly benefit the whole climate wars debate.)

Quite an effort has been made by many people (including Dr Richard Muller) to portray the BEST pre-pre-pre-papers as some kind of death blow against climate skepticism, as if the whole debate had been a sports match with everybody pigeonholed in two opposite camps: here, the noble scientists finding out the world is warming; there, the ignoble skeptics pretending the world is not warming.