In his State of the Union address President Obama failed once again to give the American people some straight talk
about global climate disruption.
Not exact matches
He emphasizes ythat the chief concern
about global warming is not the increase in temperatures but the resultant
disruption in normal
climate, that in turn leads to damaging events.
It was irresponsible of the mainstream media to talk
about the Texas storm, Harvey, while essentially never mentioning its connection to
climate change, let alone the strong connection of population growth to both
global warming and environmental
disruption in general.
As climatologist Tim Ball summarized «Beck's work completely undermined the IPCC claims and assumptions
about the role of CO2 in man - made
Global Warming, then
Global Warming, then
Climate Change, and now
Global Climate Disruptions.»
My point is that you've been hearing
about global warming,
climate change,
climate disruption (or whatever you prefer to call it) that «the science is settled» for years.
For example, a 2006 study, led by British economist Lord Nicholas Stern, concluded that the cost of achieving a 2 °C target would be
about 1 percent of
global GDP, five times less than the costs of the
climate disruption experienced if we fail to act.
Amen to Hansen's calling on President Obama to personally and actively take up the cause of
climate science and to begin to speak in earnest
about the threat posed by
global climatic
disruption.
This is precisely the sort of headline that
climate scientists have been warning us
about when they talk
about altered precipitation patterns as a result of
global climate disruption.
Worst idea: 2009 seems to have been the year that
global warming deniers shifted from claiming that
climate disruption is a hoax to claiming that
climate disruption is too big and too far along to stop, so there's no point in doing anything
about it.
Those focused both on humanitarian relief efforts, often a military mission, and on combating rising instances of extremism (which are often fueled by economic desperation or inability to access shelter, food, and water) are now very concerned
about the impact of
climate change
disruptions on
global stability.
Secretary Kerry has long paid attention to the concerns expressed by the leading
climate scientists
about human - caused
global climatic
disruption.
Beck's work completely undermined their major claims and assumptions
about the role of CO2 in
Global Warming, then
Climate Change, and now
Climate Disruptions.
And if the models are good enough to accurately model the effects of geoengineering, then perhaps we should trust what they tell us
about addressing
global climate disruption, namely that cutting greenhouse gas emissions is the best way to curtail overall
climate disruption.
Dr. Curry, Discussions
about re-marketing AGW / CAGW / cliamte change /
Global warming / global climate disruption are like efforts to improve the marketing of the
Global warming /
global climate disruption are like efforts to improve the marketing of the
global climate disruption are like efforts to improve the marketing of the Edsel.
Fourth, although
global warming and
climate disruption are the best - known consequences of carbon pollution, they're not the only ones people should worry
about.
The letter requested that NASA in general and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in particular stop publishing the scientific conclusions
about the human - driven causes of
global climate disruption.
We can see very clearly that when it comes to having an intelligent discussion
about global warming then,
climate change then, disastrous
climate disruption then, «
global weirding,» etc., that it is communication itself that has been the most attacked and then undermined.