Sentences with phrase «accepting human caused climate change»

Not exact matches

The Trudeau government believes accepting the scientific evidence for human - caused climate change and reducing greenhouse gas emissions are critical to gaining social licence for pipelines, Carr says.

Accepting the denier's view that human activity is not causing climate change would also preclude the natural solution to human - caused climate change.

The White House obviously accepts the science behind human - caused climate change, as was made clear again this week by its announcement of plans to cut carbon emissions from U.S.

Kaine tried one last time: «Do you accept that climate change is caused by human activity, at least in part?»

According to Kahan, the study also casts doubt on the value of social - marketing campaigns that feature the message that «97 % of climate scientists» accept human - caused climate change.

Regardless of whether participants said they accepted that human activity caused climate change, most recognized that scientists expect climate change to create serious environmental dangers, including increased coastal flooding.

Although the IPCC reports are conservative, accepting their validity commits the fossil - fuel industry to agreeing that (1) climate change is real, (2) humans are causing it and (3) it's dangerous.

Australia, latest poll 3 May 2011 72 % population accept that humans are partly or fully the cause of climate change,

It's not that Nate revealed himself to be a climate change denier; He accepts that human - caused climate change is real, and that it represents a challenge and potential threat.

Professor Curry wrote, «If you accept the premise that human caused climate change is dangerous and that we need to rapidly stop burning fossil fuels, then I don't see a near term alternative to nuclear.»

If you accept the premise that human caused climate change is dangerous and that we need to rapidly stop burning fossil fuels, then I don't see a near term alternative to nuclear.

How I would love for just one reporter to ask Mr. Inhofe (or any other denialist) «Please, what level of evidence would you accept as substantial enough that human caused climate change is real?»

Although the two studies used hugely different methodologies, it's notable that their findings came away with almost exactly the same percentages that accept human - caused climate change.

Reblogged this on Climate Collections and commented: Executive Summary: If you accept the premise that human caused climate change is dangerous and that we need to rapidly stop burning fossil fuels, then I [JC] don't see a near term alternative to nClimate Collections and commented: Executive Summary: If you accept the premise that human caused climate change is dangerous and that we need to rapidly stop burning fossil fuels, then I [JC] don't see a near term alternative to nclimate change is dangerous and that we need to rapidly stop burning fossil fuels, then I [JC] don't see a near term alternative to nuclear.

He had claimed he found 34 abstracts in the scientific mainstream that did not accept the consensus position that humans are causing rapid climate changes.

that «Human combustion of fossil fuels is significantly causing that climate change» is also true, then many, perhaps most, people will accept that there is a need to «reduce greenhouse gas emissions and build out clean energy» even if it will «cost consumers money, decrease energy security and destroy jobs».

People who do not accept human - caused climate change generally believe that a large fraction of scientists disagree with the basic notion of man - made warming.

Cuccinelli's opponent, McAuliffe, accepts that human activity is causing climate change, according to his press secretary Josh Schwerin.

A 2012 study in the journal Nature Climate Change found that people were more likely to accept human - caused global warming if they were informed that scientists were in broad agreement (which we know they are).

There's a widely held belief that when it comes to human - caused climate change, you're far less likely to accept the science if you lean toward the right of the political spectrum.

The administration declined to join the Kyoto treaty on climate change, even though last year Mr. Bush accepted findings by a panel of American experts that human activity had caused most of the global warming in recent decades.

Whether to even accept the overwhelming evidence that climate change is real and human - caused has become a partisan political issue, thanks in large parts to the efforts of bad actors like the Koch Brothers to poison both our atmosphere and our public discourse.

The American Tradition Institute (ATI), a coal company - funded group that does not accept the scientific evidence for human - caused climate change, sued in 2011 for six years of Mann's emails (roughly 38,000 emails) from the University of Virginia, where he had been a professor.

Large majorities in every major nation on the planet accept the scientific consensus that humans are causing climate change.

I am not sure whether you accept the reality of anthropogenic climate change (climate change caused by humans, ACC).

I asked him if he accepted the science that human emissions were causing climate change.

It was clearly intended by Congressman Lamar Smith, who is a climate change denier, he does not accept the overwhelming scientific consensus on human - caused climate change.

Seventy - nine percent of climate change coverage on the major corporate broadcast TV networks last year focused on statements or actions by the Trump administration, with heavy attention given to the president's decision to withdraw from the Paris agreement and to whether he accepts that human - caused climate change is a scientific reality.

According to the survey, only 55 % of «Liberal Democrats» — a group 79 % of whom accept human - caused climate change is occurring — believe that climate scientists «research findings... are influenced by» the «best available evidence... most of the time...»

At the same time, the number of moderate Republicans that accept humans are causing climate change has shown a pretty notable uptick in the past year, so maybe we're not totally doomed to a lifetime of squabbling over basic science.

Even if you play devils advocate and accept that humans do cause catastrophic warming and there are too many of us, and if you can skip past the Nazi eugenics connotations of population control and depopulation policies, those methods are fundamentally still not a valid solution to the perceived climate change threat.

While it is generally accepted that the observed reduction of the Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover extent (SCE) is linked to warming of the climate system caused by human induced greenhouse gas emissions, it has been difficult to robustly quantify the anthropogenic contribution to the observed change.

Again, that doesn't mean humans aren't to blame for climate change, but it explains how a group that is meant to focus on more real - time events that are just starting to be accepted as human - caused could lag behind.

More than 97 % of climate scientists accept that humans are causing climate change and less than 2 % reject that view.

According to recent Gallup polls, 60 percent of Americans accept that climate change is happening, and 57 percent believe that it is caused by human activities — but only 36 percent believe it poses a threat to their way of life.

«The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the internationally accepted authority on the subject, concludes that the climate system has warmed dramatically since the 1950s, and that scientists are 95 percent to 100 percent sure human influence has been the dominantClimate Change, the internationally accepted authority on the subject, concludes that the climate system has warmed dramatically since the 1950s, and that scientists are 95 percent to 100 percent sure human influence has been the dominantclimate system has warmed dramatically since the 1950s, and that scientists are 95 percent to 100 percent sure human influence has been the dominant cause.

If we accept the notion that humans are a significant cause of climate change then we need to focus on the cause and not the by - product (CO2 emissions) created by the cause

When people are aware of the high level of scientific agreement on human - caused global warming, they're more likely to accept that climate change is happening, that humans are causing it and support policies to reduce carbon pollution.

Those who want to preserve the status quo have continued to deny and attack the expert consensus because it's a «gateway belief»: when people are aware of the high level of scientific agreement on human - caused global warming, they're more likely to accept that climate change is happening, that humans are causing it, and support policies to reduce carbon pollution.

Obviously this is a loaded question, but if we accept that the starting premise is true (politicians media et al have stimulated an AC to support alarm about human - caused climate change) is it not what the issue ultimately entails?

Rather than debating scientists who don't accept false claims that humans are causing dangerous climate change, they just proclaim more loudly -LSB-...]» [58]