Sentences with phrase «argue against climate»

The Heidelberg petition did not argue against climate change, though it is sometimes presented as though it does.

Although the climate scientists who say that the climate is changing (about 97 percent by some estimates) far outnumber those who don't, Gore's comments indicate the strength of the message of those who argue against climate change.

More specifically, when opponents of climate change policies make self - interest based arguments against the adoption of policies such as cost to the United States, there are no follow - up questions asked by the press about whether those who argue against climate change policies on grounds of cost to the United States are denying that the United States has duties or responsibilities to those outside the United States to prevent harm to them.

Peabody, which operates three coal mines in the Powder River Basin, has argued against climate change legislation at the national and international level, pushing instead for coal gasification and carbon sequestration technologies, under the name clean coal.

Irregardless, it is completely amazing to me that the head of the RNC is arguing against climate change based on arbitrary names of countries!

Not exact matches

I think my question to those of you who couple atheism with evolution and climate change is: how can we as scientists even start trying to inform you about the details of what you are arguing against if you automatically presume everything we say is a blasphemous lie?

I think my question to those of you who couple evil atheism with evolution, the big bang, and climate change is: how can we as scientists even start trying to inform you about the details of what you are arguing against if you automatically presume everything we say is a blasphemous lie?

Feminist writers have rightfully long argued that pornography» promotes a (cultural) climate in which acts of sexual hostility directed against women are not only tolerated but ideologically encouraged.»

Beyond its use as a tool against large financial institutions, Schneiderman has used the act as a basis for a probe into ExxonMobil, arguing that its alleged failure to disclose to its shareholders and the public research that showed the potential impact of climate change constituted a Martin Act violation.

Two Australian retirees invoke the «father of modern science» to argue against settled climate science but instead draw from a deep history of denial and distortion

Emerging economies have often argued that they should be compensated before they take action against climate change.

Bill Hare, who leads a group of top climate scientists and economists at Berlin - based Climate Analytics who helped produce the UNEP gap report, said Geden's accusations «could not be more wrong» and lumped the researcher in with climate skeptics and other naysayers «who systematically downplay the risks of climate change and argue against action to reduce emissions on spurious and ill - founded grounds.climate scientists and economists at Berlin - based Climate Analytics who helped produce the UNEP gap report, said Geden's accusations «could not be more wrong» and lumped the researcher in with climate skeptics and other naysayers «who systematically downplay the risks of climate change and argue against action to reduce emissions on spurious and ill - founded grounds.Climate Analytics who helped produce the UNEP gap report, said Geden's accusations «could not be more wrong» and lumped the researcher in with climate skeptics and other naysayers «who systematically downplay the risks of climate change and argue against action to reduce emissions on spurious and ill - founded grounds.climate skeptics and other naysayers «who systematically downplay the risks of climate change and argue against action to reduce emissions on spurious and ill - founded grounds.climate change and argue against action to reduce emissions on spurious and ill - founded grounds.»

Indian coal plants under the CDM received financial backing from the World Bank, sparking an outcry against that organization by groups that argue that the bank's support for the coal industry is inconsistent with its other efforts to tackle climate change.

Arguing against mitigation by appealing to uncertainty is therefore misplaced: any appeal to uncertainty should provoke a greater, rather than weaker, concern about climate change than in the absence of uncertainty.

I would agree that unforeseen changes in ocean circulation could throw off model predictions, there are surely other wildcards too, but uncertainty like that is not your friend if you want to argue against avoiding climate change.

But Rep. Raul Grijalva is also strongly defending his search for ties between fossil - fuel interests and climate research against charges that it's a «witch hunt,» arguing that the thrust of the inquiry is aimed at providing important disclosures.

Eisen also said that while rising temperatures caused by climate change could bring the mosquito farther north in the United States, the many elements that influence the mosquito itself and the transmission of dengue virus argue strongly against looking solely at climate to assess disease threat.

Against this sort of background, it's perhaps understandable that I should have sided with McKeever, who seemed to offer in his paintings and his writings so much that I couldn't argue with: «In the present climate of all - knowing, self - conscious art, where just about everything is a critique of something or other, there is still the need, even an urgent need, for something as unadorned as (the) simple painting.

Judge William Alsup had requested this tutorial to bring him up to speed on the fundamental science before proceedings begin in earnest in a case brought by the cities of San Francisco and Oakland, on behalf of the people of California, against a group of major fossil fuel companies, addressing the costs of climate change caused, they argue, by products those companies have sold.

Sashka's main goal seems to be convincing us about the uncertainty in climate science, then to use this uncertainty to argue against regulatory action.

G&T managed to get their work out there; publishing it in Nature or Science would not have changed the fact that they're arguments just don't hold any water (they didn't do any new science, they just took what was already known, and then tried to use that to argue against what is already known — a search for logical inconsistency, which might have been worthwhile if they'd known what they were doing and if they'd gone after contrarian «theory»)-- unless it were edited, removing all the errors and non-sequitors, after which it would be no different than a physics book such as the kind a climate scientist would use...

I am not arguing against avoiding climate change.

I would agree that unforeseen changes in ocean circulation could throw off model predictions, there are surely other wildcards too, but uncertainty like that is not your friend if you want to argue against avoiding climate change.

Even for the Senate, where members are well - known to prefer talking to listening, the amount of unilateral jabbering on the climate change bill has been remarkable, with lawmakers both for and against the measure arguing repeatedly over how much time was allotted for them to speak.

To argue, or even suggest, that [human action, including alterations in landscapes and emissions of greenhouse gases] «can»» or even doesn't, or even «may not» affect climate is in essence to argue against the very basic of geophysics and chemistry itself.

And people who argue against doing anything then have to guarantee that humans aren't changing the climate.

Even in his most recent whinge, Schmidt does not seriously argue against the strident antagonism of Real Climate's reaction in September 2009.

How emblematic of the «climate science» establishment to rely upon blatant ad hominems in arguing against empirical data that exposes the gross inadequacies of academic conceptions of «the greenhouse effect.»

He said he did not know the details of Dr Pearman's case, but if a scientist were to join a group that argued against government policy as the Australian Climate Group did on carbon trading he or she would contravene CSIRO's media policy.

The government has argued it can use «flexibilities» built into the Climate Change Act to carry forward over-achievement against earlier budgets, whereas the CCC says any extra savings should go towards raising ambition.

Ellestad got a chance to deliver his «climate's changed before» and «CO2 lags temperature» arguments and nobody present were qualified or got the chance to argue against him.

However, he also supports the idea that warming has recently stopped and has argued against some well - established points of climate science, such as observed sea level rise and glacier melting.

Some scientists believe solar geoengineering could be a key tool in combating climate change, but the risks are unclear, and there are concerns that it could become a political tool to argue against cutting carbon emissions.

Against this backdrop, advocates of scrapping the two - degrees goal argue for new climate - change metrics that they say will resonate more broadly.

Had it turned out that climate sensitivity CS should be say 1.1 C / doubling in order to make sense of the oscillations I would not argue against that since I have no motivation to.

However, it is plausible to argue that implementing Kyoto has distracted attention and effort from real opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and protect society against climate impacts.

I might as well label you an idiot for using it, when you've never met me, have no idea of my competence or the strength of my arguments for or against any aspect of climate dynamics (because on this list I argue both points of view as the science demands and am just as vigorous in smacking down bullshit physics used to challenge some aspect of CAGW as I am to question the physics or statistical analysis or modelling used to «prove» it).

He argues that, in a world of climate change, investors should urgently stress - test the business strategies of big oil against «carbon risk.»

For instance, opponents of US government action on climate change have for over 30 years predominantly argued against proposed policies on two grounds.

Here are some of my thoughts after this week's news that San Francisco and Oakland have filed lawsuits against five oil and natural companies, arguing that the companies should pay for sea walls to protect the cities in case ocean levels rise due to changing climate:

All this leads Stephen Tindale, former director of Greenpeace UK, to argue in a recent report that international climate negotiations should be focused less on setting national emissions targets and more on fixing these perverse financial incentives against a low - carbon economy.

Yet when we argue for change, notably changing our ways in response to climate change, we're arguing against people who claim we're disrupting a stable system.

In his latest column for the New York Times, economist and liberal pundit Paul Krugman argues that a new report from the Chamber of Commerce, intended to show that reducing carbon emissions will be too costly, is actually a great piece of evidence for those who argue that the U.S. can lead the fight against climate change without appreciably hurting its economy.

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.

His ties with SEPP — which argues against the existence of climate change — will not be severed any time soon.

«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.

In a new screed against a free exchange of ideas on climate change, «Earther» Brian Kahn argues that those who question global warming orthodoxy have no right to voice their opinions in public.

Everyone generally is taught standard AGWScienceFiction fisics as if it is real world and I have given a range of sources to show that what I am arguing against is the standard teaching in education, certainly all climate scientists working to the AGW energy budget use it as a given.

As the Trump administration releases a National Security Strategy that argues U.S. leadership is «indispensable» in pushing back against an «anti-growth» and borderline immoral climate agenda, Atwood's dystopian imaginings have never felt more prescient.

It really doesn't make any sense for anyone to argue against it, unless they are absolutely sure that climate sensitivity is very low.