Sentences with phrase «against climate change so»

But back - to - the - land efforts can only take the fight against climate change so far.

Not exact matches

To receive backing from such a highly respected campaigner, who has been so prominent in the battle against fracking and broader issues of climate change, is a real boom to the party as we look to translate the «Green surge» into votes at the general election in May.

Well so is the Campaign against Climate Change, Rising Tide, Stop Climate Chaos, and Plane Stupid, not to mention older hands such as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and the WWF.

«The new framework allows us to make those calculations so that the five adaptations in the eight climate change scenarios can be assessed against what the crop yield would be if no adaptations were initiated by farmers.»

I'm so glad that the United States are already making a move against climate change.

Also I remember an American climate researcher [Schlesinger I think] was going around giving a presentation on reducing CO2 [and spending money to do so] as a form of Insurance policy against the risk of climate change.

These questions would not be so serious, except that the paper is to appear in SCIENCE and thus will be taken as evidence against the prospect of dangerous climate change.

Bad idea, sure, but maybe not the monumental setback in the fight against climate change that is feared by so many.

From literal urban jungles to the so - called untarnished wilderness, from the scientific realities of climate change to the poetic human longing for time outside, Human Nature is a nuanced exploration of the forces — both internal and external — that both pit us against and bring us closer to the natural world.

Also I remember an American climate researcher [Schlesinger I think] was going around giving a presentation on reducing CO2 [and spending money to do so] as a form of Insurance policy against the risk of climate change.

Part of the reason that elements of the climate change debate take on religious proportions — by the activists for and against policy — is that folks have so dug in around almost every aspect of the debate that it is hard to raise a question about some uncritically accepted element of the religious canon without folks first attacking you as an untrained heathen.

Who knows, maybe in another 10 years or so, the WSJ editorial page will be claiming that they were never really against actions to deal with climate change but they just felt the science needed to be more certain first.

In the USA the political right are so against action to combat climate change because it appears to somehow appear to be communist in nature, anti freedom and individual restrictive and hence against the seemingly free market economy that the USA has embraced since the end of the 2nd world war culminating in such neurotic / paranoid behaviour as being labelled a left wing conspiracy.

DeBuys finds that things will be fine for the 3.5 million people who currently depend on this water for daily use as long as (1) predictions of climate change models prove groundless, (2) the kind of droughts documented by tree rings and other records of past climate disruptions don't occur, and (3) the cities of central Arizona don't grow so much that they consume their agricultural buffer, their main protection against uncertain years ahead.

Their failure do so is a good argument against them — e.g. «what model of AGW climate change are you using when you say that recent trends do not support AGW?»

The military plans to defend against any and all percieved national threats, so naturally «climate change» when viewed as a threat would need to be evaluated in all its permutations to national security.

«I think increasingly the campaign to deny the reality of climate change is going to come up against that brick wall of the evidence being so plain to people whether they are hunters, fishermen, gardeners,» he said.

Prime Minister Brown proposed the fund so that the fight against climate change could begin immediately.

Just as Newton's law of universal gravitation is most easily tested against astronomical observations, which we are in no position to vary ourselves, so does my poster test its hypothesis against modern climate observations, which likewise we are in no position to change.

Following a judgment by a Dutch court that the government must step up the fight against climate change, a prominent international lawyer recently proposed that the International Court of Justice rule on climate science so that the scientific disputes in this area can be settled.

Undamaged so far are world leaders who secretly decided thirty - eight (38) years ago, in fear of mutual nuclear annihilation, to Unite Nations against an imaginary «common enemy» — «Global Climate Change» — and base future government policies on

The New York Times has come up with a new defense against so - called climate denialists who happen to point out that most polar bear populations are steady or increasing amidst climate change: The ice hasn't disappeared as fast as we said it would.

-- «They are the base of the food chain... if there's no plankton, there's no fish in the oceans... And they take CO2 out of the atmosphere by taking it into the interior of the ocean where it can be stored for thousands of millions of years so they're an essential buffer against climate change due to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere»

So if there is a real, though unquantifiably small, possibility of catastrophic climate change, and if we would ideally want some technological hedges as insurance against this unlikely scenario, and if raising the price of carbon to induce private economic actors to develop the technologies would be an enormously more expensive means of accomplishing this than would be advisable, then what, if anything, should we do about the danger?

And so if climate change raises civilization challenging ethical questions which imply duties, responsibilities, and obligations what questions should the press ask opponents of climate change policies when they make economic and scientific arguments against climate change policies?

He has done so as a means of signaling to the world that the United States is willing to show exceptional leadership in the fight against climate change.

So it's clear that even in issues such as climate change there is an active fringe of people deploying violent rhetoric and hate mail against those with whom they disagree.

There is so much wrong in these comments and so much that goes against everything we know about Trump and his administration's positions on climate change.

If you've ever wondered exactly why the global coal industry has argued so vehemently — first against the science of climate change and secondly against doing anything about it — the International Energy Agency lays it all out in its latest World Energy Outlook.

So in a 2015 poll, they broke out the question a little to It then asks respondents which areas they would like science and innovation to prioritize over the next 15 years, with areas such as job creation, health and medical care, energy supply, education and skills, and the fight against climate change among the issues they are asked to consider.

Therefore emitters of carbon can finance inexpensive projects to reduce carbon emissions and apply reductions achieved by these projects against their reduction obligations and in so doing reduce ghg emissions that cause climate change.

Scaling down our emissions and building resilience against climate change can only take us so far.

Jim likes to say, «I am not a gambler, so who am I to go against 97 % of climate scientists are telling us that climate change is real and we need to do something about it.

And so Fiona started researching Passivhaus in earnest — it seemed to be the solution for sustainable design, comfort and taking positive action against climate change.

The media's respectful worship of inspirational bad science best - sellers (e.g. «Mein Kampf's» eugenics pesudoscience) is based on the book's corruption to «change human affairs», which is precisely Dale Carnegie's template for inspirational speech making, and is so well suited to the conceited like climate reality denier Al Gore), deliberately «oversimplifies» and deceives to motivate the masses against an exaggerated immediate peril (requiring gas chambers for eugenics, unilateral nuclear disarmament, or CO2 taxation).

«Nobody is arguing that we can or should stop all climate change, so in slide 9 Happer is again arguing against a claim that is not made.

If Goldacre really wants to stick his neck out, why doesn't he try arguing against a rich, powerful, bullying Climate - Change establishment which includes all three British main political parties, the National Academy of Sciences, the Royal Society, the Prince of Wales, the Prime Minister, the President of the USA, the EU, the UN, most schools and universities, the BBC, most of the print media, the Australian Government, the New Zealand Government, CNBC, ABC, the New York Times, Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank, most of the rest of the City, the wind farm industry, all the Big Oil companies, any number of rich charitable foundations, the Church of England and so on?

Last month, a man by the name of Jagadish Shukla (along with several other scientists) sent a letter to the President and Attorney General Loretta Lynch, demanding that RICO charges — that is, «racketeering, influenced and corrupt organization» charges — be brought against so - called «climate deniers,» as though those who disagree with the theory that global climate change is inherently man made and undeniably catastrophic, were joined together in a conspiracy that amounts to organized crime.

95) Australia has stated it wants to slash greenhouse emissions by up to 25 percent below 2000 levels by 2020, but the pledges were so unpopular that the country's Senate has voted against the carbon trading Bill, and the Opposition's Party leader has now been ousted by a climate change sceptic.

As the US airline industry faces a host of challenges — steep international competition, rapidly increasing consumer demand, flight delays and congestion, the ever - pressing need for safety, controversy over federal vs. private insurance against terrorist acts, and so on — climate change looms as a sleeping giant.

I've been railing against the GOP's party plank on climate change for years now, so none of this is surprising.

UN climate chief Christiana Figueres earlier said, «The GCF will be a prime global channel to deliver public funds and to leverage private sector finance so that developing countries can build resilience against climate change and green their economies.

So using the criteria of «noticeable» climate change that would affect humanity and nature, that can be reasonably validated against the benchmark of the 1920 - 40 period by such records as instrumental and crop, or observations, and as being of a duration of at least one decade, we have some 15 decadal episodes of «noticeable» climate change, (up and down) between1538 and 2012.

If you want to make an impact in the fight against climate change you can do so by actively supporting wind power!

The social cost of carbon is the discounted monetary value of future climate change damages due to additional CO2 emissions (for example, the costs of adverse agricultural effects, protecting against rising sea levels, health impacts, species loss, risks of extreme warming scenarios, and so on).

If the evidence against climate change is so «obvious» and «logical,» this exercise should be exceedingly simple.

Despite the fact that both the models and the YD hypothesis indicate changes in heat transport can affect the global temperature, and in the case of the YD so dramatically temperatures go against the forcing trend, you are steadfast in your beliefs that it is impossible that any long term trend in heat transport can be affecting modern climate.

This policy document looks at how carbon markets have so far been a successful economic tool in the fight against climate change.

But there are worse consequences for so - called deniers, as when Obama era Attorney General Loretta Lynch hinted at «pursuing civil actions against so - called «climate change deniers.

Just to give you an idea of the kind of inconsistent sloppy thinking you're up against; The other day a winger explained to me that climate change hasn't been «proven» so spending millions of dollars on it is not warranted.