Loading...

"I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do..." - Hallo friend WELCOME TO AMERICA, In the article you read this time with the title "I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do...", we have prepared well for this article you read and download the information therein. hopefully fill posts Article AMERICA, Article CULTURAL, Article ECONOMIC, Article POLITICAL, Article SECURITY, Article SOCCER, Article SOCIAL, we write this you can understand. Well, happy reading.

Title : "I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do..."
link : "I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do..."

"I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do..."

"... and there’s tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see," said EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, quoted in "Scott Pruitt’s office deluged with angry callers after he questions the science of global warming." That's at WaPo, which counters Pruitt with this quote from Gina McCarthy, the previous EPA Administrator:

"The world of science is about empirical evidence, not beliefs.... When it comes to climate change, the evidence is robust and overwhelmingly clear that the cost of inaction is unacceptably high.”

The McCarthy quote actually doesn't disagree with anything Pruitt said. It just models a different attitude toward the science.

WaPo chooses to forefront the anger against Pruitt. What's the journalistic theory there? I'm headed back out on the road, so I'll just give this my "emotional politics" tag and throw the discussion over to you.

"... and there’s tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see," said EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, quoted in "Scott Pruitt’s office deluged with angry callers after he questions the science of global warming." That's at WaPo, which counters Pruitt with this quote from Gina McCarthy, the previous EPA Administrator:

"The world of science is about empirical evidence, not beliefs.... When it comes to climate change, the evidence is robust and

Loading...

overwhelmingly clear that the cost of inaction is unacceptably high.” The McCarthy quote actually doesn't disagree with anything Pruitt said. It just models a different attitude toward the science.

WaPo chooses to forefront the anger against Pruitt. What's the journalistic theory there? I'm headed back out on the road, so I'll just give this my "emotional politics" tag and throw the discussion over to you.

Thus articles "I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do..."

that is all articles "I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do..." This time, hopefully can provide benefits to all of you. Okay, see you in another article posting.

You now read the article "I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do..." with the link address https://welcometoamerican.blogspot.com/2017/03/i-think-that-measuring-with-precision.html

Tweet

Subscribe to receive free email updates: