It's correct that some campaigners
for action on greenhouse gases have made the mistake of trying to gloss over the substantial uncertainty surrounding the most important potential outcomes from a big greenhouse buildup.
Most people are also willing to
take action on greenhouse gas emissions, and to have the government and businesses take action, the Cardiff poll found.
The voices there range from the economist Lord Nicholas Stern, who has long championed
aggressive action on greenhouse gases, to Freeman Dyson, the provocative physicist who has been a prominent critic of portrayals of human - driven global warming as an urgent danger.
It is these tendencies, in part demanded by the governments that created the panel in 1988, that have sometimes offered fodder to critics, some of whom simply want to improve the assessments while others appear eager to undercut the credibility of the enterprise as a strategy for
delaying action on greenhouse gases.
Work with, and support, like - minded scientists so they promulgate sufficient doubt to
forestall action on greenhouse gases and any shift away from unfettered use of fossil fuels.
But will this shift in perceptions and evidence affect prospects for
meaningful action on greenhouse gases — which of course is a much tougher challenge than the near - term imperative of girding against future damage from such storms?
For too long, I said, environmental activists have argued that it's heaps of corporate or conservative money and professional disinformers who've
blocked action on greenhouse gases.
Climate change campaigners say they've been hearing rumours out of Victoria that the Campbell government intends to
announce action on greenhouse gas emissions soon.
I claim it is only reasonable to place IPCC authors in the «mainstream» and to recognize that the IPCC reports incorporate a strong call for
action on greenhouse gas reductions.
«Our results argue strongly against using abnormally large losses from individual Atlantic hurricanes or seasons as either evidence of anthropogenic climate change or to
justify actions on greenhouse gas emissions.
But I wanted to address his notion now in the context of the intense push to interpret the current superstorm in the context
of action on greenhouse gases, and my reaction to it on the blog so far.
Those most passionately pushing for and
against action on greenhouse gases have a tendency to jump to the National Snow and Ice Data Center Web site to chart each wiggle.
«There's a question of whether going along with the approval of the Northern Gateway pipeline will make LNG development in B.C. more challenging by angering First Nations so adamantly opposed to the oil sands pipeline,» said George Hoberg, a professor at the University of British Columbia's school of forestry and founder of UBCC350, a group pressing
for action on greenhouse gas emissions.
Most of us will walk away from the latest IPCC assessment more certain than ever of the need for
action on greenhouse gas emissions, not to mention adaptive measures like dunes, dikes, and sea walls to fight rising seas.
Read some of the reasoned comments here by Dale R. McIntyre, who's clearly grounded in wilderness experience but rejects calls for
action on greenhouse gases.
Even before the material was fully sifted by foes of
action on greenhouse gases (or anyone else), Senator James M. Inhofe proclaimed that the e-mail trove «is just one more reason to halt the Obama E.P.A.'s job killing global warming agenda.»
It's important to note that there's also sometimes a kind of «false inequivalence» in the fight over climate science and policies — an implication that the lack of
action on greenhouse gases is largely the result of the unfair advantage in money and influence held by industries dealing in, or dependent on, fossil fuels.
«Climate uncertainties and their discontents: increasing the impact of assessments on public understanding of climate risks and choices» is by a trio of scientists who are also public advocates for
action on greenhouse gases.
Related In case you missed it last week (as I did), Christiana Figueres, the head of the United Nations office facilitating the climate treaty negotiations, made some pretty inept efforts in a Guardian interview to cite extreme weather patterns in making the case for
action on greenhouse gases.
About 15 minutes in, we talk about a Grist piece trying to link the earthquake to arguments for
action on greenhouse gases.
There are far better justifications for
action on greenhouse gases.»