Sentences with phrase «about global warming policy»

In July 2010, the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), a British think tank that is skeptical about global warming policy, [21] hired Montford to lead an inquiry into the three British investigations into the Climatic Research Unit email controversy, commonly known as «Climategate.

More to the point, it was wielded in a public and political debate about global warming policy.

Yes, this is all about the FOIA to the Charities Commission about the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

It is also widely stated by people (like Lawson) expecting to have credibility in debates about global warming policy.

I also want NYTiems to poll presidential candidates about global warming policy then publish on news paper, these will make Amecrican citizens know who will support mandatory limit and join Kyoto protocal, then let them make a better decision to elect president.

Tribe's comments seemed to be more aimed at giving conservative pundits some ammunition in the public debate about global warming policies than thoughtful legal reasoning.

Not exact matches

A small, polite man with a mustache and slight stammer, Mr. Reichard speaks knowledgeably and passionately about key liberal policy concerns like campaign finance reform and global warming.

The «political atmospherics» of the meeting might polish Trump's optics, but Bledsoe is skeptical about its influence on public policy, which is being overseen in some cases by transition officials who question the scientific findings on global warming.

Concerns about global warming and oil's imminent demise have caused scientists and policy - makers to look for solutions in both the future and the past: to new technologies such as nuclear fusion, multijunction photovoltaics, and fuel cells — and to traditional energy sources such as water power, wind power, and (sustainable) biomass cultivation (coupled with clean and energy - efficient combustion).

«I've always thought that the phrase «global warming» was something of a misnomer because it suggests that the phenomenon is something that is uniform around the world, that it's all about temperature, and that it's gradual,» Holdren said yesterday at the annual AAAS Forum on Science and Technology Policy in Washington, D.C. (AAAS publishes ScienceInsider.)

Peter Singer was talking about the fact that we can often look at issues of global poverty or global warming, we can look at those as technological issues or such policy issues.

- A Question of Balance: Weighing the Options on Global Warming Policies by William Nordhaus and Global Warming: Looking Beyond Kyoto by Ernesto Zedillo, two climate - change books he is writing about for The New York Review of Books

«We know an awful lot about global warming, and yet there are a lot of personal and emotional, nonscientific barriers to getting better policies out there,» Gehlbach said.

The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30 % over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming.

Back in May the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research hosted a National Climate Adaptation Summit that brought together roughly 150 people representing the US science, business and policy communities for a three - day conversation about coping with the impacts of global warming.

The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 [carbon dioxide] in the atmosphere have increased by about 30 percent over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming.

While refutation texts have been widely used to correct misconceptions about controversial science issues (e.g., global warming, GMOs), to our knowledge they have never been tested to correct misconceptions about policy.

The influencing of policy in re global warming faces a huge amount of inertia, but principles of risk mitigation tell us that we should be aggressive about shifting policy to avert possible threats, the opposite of what results from that inertia.

Interestingly, although the [Summary for Policy Makers] clearly talked about the projected global warming being up to 6.4 degrees above 1980 - 1999 average (which is 6.9 degrees above pre-industrial), you often see AR4 cited as suggesting that warming could be «up to 4 degrees,» which I think is partly a consequence of the way a key figure was presented.

Beyond that, I'm not sure about the invoking of the «last fifteen years of science,» but a good reference to support the 1.5 ºC threashold would be Schleussner et al (2015) «Differential climate impacts for policy - relevant limits to global warming: the case of 1.5 ºC and 2ºC»

Last week I posted a «Your Dot» contribution from Raymond T. Pierrehumbert, a University of Chicago climate scientist concerned that policy makers and the public keep in mind the primacy of carbon dioxide emissions if they are serious about limiting the chances of propelling disruptive human - driven global warming.

Any discussion of global warming, whether in a news story or debate over policy or Gallup poll question, ideally should start with clarity about what's being discussed.

However, it is not hard to see that some of those who have attempted to perpetrate this tale about man - made global warming are more interested in climate change as a way of increasing the power of government over all of our lives instead of implementing a sensible energy policy.

In Shellenberger's variant, you need to add the words «in China» to any claim about the role of an energy technology or policy in fighting global warming and see if it still holds up.

When I speak about climate science, communication and policy, I often use some variant of this visual aid to help separate a few important subcomponents of the phenomenon known as global warming:

Therefore, it is a (by some deliberately promoted) misunderstanding to draw conclusions from such a short trend about future global warming, let alone climate policy.

Two days after the talk, Mr. Gore was sharply criticized for using the data to make a point about global warming by Roger A. Pielke, Jr., a political scientist focused on disaster trends and climate policy at the University of Colorado.

beliefs and attitudes about global warming public policy and climate change research on climate change and public opinion Yale Opinion Climate Maps Yale Project on Climate Change Communication

My reading of this statement is that you are saying that the likelihood that global warming is increasing the destructive potential of hurricanes (and is likely to do so increasingly in the future) is irrelevant to the policy debate about hurricane damage.

If a policy prescription does not account for the real complexity in the climate system, and real gaps in knowledge about aspects of global warming that matter most, is it likely that the public and lawmakers will pursue a big transformation of lifestyles and economic norms to curb CO2 emissions in a growing world still more than 85 percent dependent on burning fossil fuels to drive economies?

I wish that people who write articles about global warming and others who affect and make energy policy like the environmentalists and the teary eyed soccer moms who support them, had some training in science, technology and economics.

Steven E. Koonin, once the Obama administration's undersecretary of energy for science and chief scientist at BP, stirred up a swirl of turbulence in global warming discourse this week after The Wall Street Journal published «Climate Science is Not Settled,» his essay calling for more frankness about areas of deep uncertainty in climate science, more research to narrow error ranges and more acknowledgement that society's decisions on energy and climate policy are based on values as much as data.

«Public discourse about global warming and climate policies ignores fundamental physical realities about energy and overlooks the profound benefits of...

«It appears to be the policy of the Royal Society to stifle dissent and silence anyone who may have doubts about the connection between global warming and human activity,» said Dr. Moore, Chairman and Chief Scientist of Vancouver, Canada - based Greenspirit Strategies Ltd..

The comprehensive, uniform information provided by this system will give policy makers more confidence in making decisions about influencing global warming that can have worldwide economic impact, he said.

The first steps are are underway - every nation in Europe is bagging subsidies for solar / wind, most are «exploring» gas, some are building coal (Germany), and many are signaling an interest in reconsidering the policies they pretended were about global warming.

What particularly interested me was the number of scientists who had been pushed out of CSIRO, or had left of their own volition, after being tightly censored in what they could say about global warming, and the emissions reductions that would be needed to stabilise the climate (the latter point is particularly sensitive since any actual number implies a target and government policy is opposed to targets).

The origins and consequences of democratic citizens» policy agendas: A study of popular concern about global warming.

The Global Warming Policy Foundation invited climate change skeptic Judith Curry to speak at the House of Lords about climate change, reports DeSmog UK.

It documents how a small group of scientists with links to industry were able to sow doubt about the scientific consensus and delay effective policy on DDT, tobacco, acid rain and, now, global warming.

Learn from top economists and policy experts about the real costs and futility of trying to stop global warming.»

Mine was about policies seeking to address climate change: I was not asked to demonstrate that manmade global warming was taking place.

Nigel Lawson describes the GWPF as an «all - party and non-party think - tank and a registered educational charity which, while open - minded on the contested science of global warming, is deeply concerned about the costs and other implications of many of the policies currently being advocated.»

In a paper released on December 1 by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, Dr. Goklany says WHO's forecast that climate change would bring about 250,000 extra deaths annually between 2030 and 2050 is based on «absurd assumptions,» «willful exaggerations,» and «flawed methodologies.»

Carbon Brief folks got their knickers in a knot over my «Twenty Good Reasons Not to Worry about Polar Bears» blog post that the Global Warming Policy Foundation released as a Briefing Paper (pdf here).

A truly serious public policy debate over what to do about GHG - driven global warming has not yet occurred in this country.

Whether you are working on the front lines of the climate issue, immersed in the science, trying to make policy or educate the public, or just an average person trying to make sense of the cognitive dissonance or grapple with frustration over this looming issue, What We Think About When We Try Not To Think About Global Warming moves beyond the psychological barriers that block progress and opens new doorways to social and personal transformation.

My main purpose (besides the opportunity to pretend that my ideas were important) was to engage with commenters and learn the origins of the wide spectrum of ideas about global warming and its policy implications.

The Philadelphia Inquirer reported, «In the high - stakes conflict over U.S. climate - change policy, groups that deny or cast doubt on global warming brought in $ 7.2 million from 2003 to 2010... «Powerful funders are supporting the campaign to deny scientific findings about global warming,» reported Robert J. Brulle...» In the eighth paragraph, the Inquirer noted the response by James Taylor of the Heartland Institute, who observed that many of the groups «support other causes as well» and, in some cases, spend «less than 10 percent of their funding... on climate - related efforts.»

Sensible economics should drive our energy policy, not unfounded fears about global warming.