Sentences with phrase «anything about greenhouse gas»

While I am still comfortable with my argument that «human inertia» is the prime explanation for a long response time for doing anything about greenhouse gas emissions, I am very wary of efforts by California and the U.K. to stick their necks out on carbon reductions.

Point above being that one could write a long list of reasonable initiatives without mentioning anything about greenhouse gases or climate change, which could arguably be good in general, but possibly also slow the change, should it happen in the first place of course.

Not exact matches

If you don't do anything about those, then you are in trouble in all the others: more people, means more greenhouse gases, which means more rapid climate change.»

If you don't know anything about how the atmosphere functions, you will of course say, «Look, greenhouse gases are going up, the globe is warming, they must be related.»

It's almost as mind - boggling as the amount of energy some individuals and organizations spend trying to convince the public that this heating up isn't anything to worry about and / or that anthropogenic greenhouse gases aren't the cause!

The Bush administration made clear today that it doesn't intend to do anything about climate change in the final six months in office, announcing that instead of responding to the Supreme Court's mandate last year that the EPA determine the dangers posed to humankind by greenhouse - gas emissions they would simply request further public comment.

It's immediately clear that climate models are unable to resolve any thermal effect of greenhouse gas emissions or tell us anything about future air temperatures.

He said he played plenty for his tuition but in two courses supposedly covering climate, he had not heard anything about the factors like multidecadal ocean cycles and the various ways cycles on the sun affect climate only greenhouse gases.

In the scorching summer of 1988, when global warming first hit headlines in a significant way, presidential candidate George H.W. Bush used a Michigan speech to pledge meaningful action curbing heat - trapping greenhouse gases, saying, «Those who think we are powerless to do anything about the greenhouse effect forget about the White House effect.»

I have absolutely no doubt that at the current rate of [greenhouse gas emissions] we can cross a tipping point, and when that occurs it's too late to do anything about it.»

Nor do cycles say anything about how greenhouse gases may perturb flow and change quasi standing waves in Earth's spatio - temporal chaotic flow field.

Surely the hurdle for cosmic rays should, if anything, be higher as the science behind how greenhouse gases is well understood but the mechanism (apart from same vague theories about cloud seeding) for GCR is not?

Back in 1992 — well before science had anything conclusive to say about humanity's impact on the climate — the United Nations persuaded countries to sign an international treaty aimed at saving the planet from «dangerous» human - emitted greenhouse gases.

Does section 202 of the Clean Air Act, the provision through which EPA is promulgating motor vehicle greenhouse gas emission standards, say anything about fuel economy?

If you don't know anything about how the atmosphere functions, you will of course say, «Look, greenhouse gases are going up, the globe is warming, they must be related.»

More simply, the model can not tell us anything at all about the physically real climate, at the level of resolution of greenhouse gas forcing.

The national debate over what to do, if anything, about the increasing concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has become less a debate about scientific or economic issues than an exercise in political theater.

Nowhere did I say anything about any net warming caused by back radiation from greenhouse gases.

Considering that we can't get the two biggest nations and greenhouse gas emitters in the world to agree on actually doing anything about climate change, getting the crime of ecocide enshrined into international law, let alone actually enforcing it, may seem far - fetched.

The fundamental conflict is of what (if anything) we should do about greenhouse gas emissions (and other assorted pollutants), not what the weather was like 1000 years ago.