Sentences with phrase «argue human greenhouse gas»

Oil companies are expected to argue human greenhouse gas emissions were the main driver of recent global warming and that it is a problem, but their legal filings contest their liability and the use of courts to settle what's considered a global matter.

Not exact matches

Exxon has argued against all the other shareholder proposals as well, including a «policy to explicitly prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity»; a policy articulating Exxon's «respect for and commitment to the human right to water»; «a report discussing possible long term risks to the company's finances and operations posed by the environmental, social and economic challenges associated with the oil sands»; a report of «known and potential environmental impacts» and «policy options» to address the impacts of the company's «fracturing operations»; a report of recommendations on how Exxon can become an «environmentally sustainable energy company»; and adoption of «quantitative goals... for reducing total greenhouse gas emissions.»

Since levels of greenhouse gases have continued to rise throughout the period, some skeptics have argued that the recent pattern undercuts the theory that global warming in the industrial era has been caused largely by human - made emissions from the burning of fossil fuels.

... The first error was to argue that the Hotspot is a «fingerprint» of human influence — and specifically, related to an increase in greenhouse gases.

-- A new post on ClimateEthics.org argues, as others have before, for another uncomfortable reality: Complacency is not an ethical response to the persistent uncertainty clouding forecasts of harmful impacts from the continuing buildup of human - generated greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

By the way, I'd just like to mention that I am far happier to be arguing about the comparative benefits of nuclear power, wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, conservation, efficiency, reforestation, organic agriculture, etc. for quickly reducing CO2 emissions and concentrations, than to be engaged in yet another argument with someone who doesn't believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or that human activities are not causing warming, or that the Earth is cooling, or thinks that AGW is a «liberal» conspiracy to destroy capitalism, etc..

A new post on ClimateEthics.org argues, «Complacency is not an ethical response to the persistent uncertainty clouding forecasts of harmful impacts from the continuing buildup of human - generated greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.»

As for the ethics of all of this, Donald A. Brown of Pennsylvania State University argues that the world's top emitters of greenhouse gases are morally obligated to curb carbon dioxide and similar emissions based on the level of certainty that is already established on the impacts of those emissions — most of which will be in poorer places with small contributions to the human - caused gas buildup in the atmosphere.

When I have seen the «climate has always changed», it has almost invariably been used to argue that somehow human - produced greenhouse gases can not force climate, so that the observed change is somehow «natural».

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.

It is not the first such optimistic study: researchers have lately argued that the 2 °C target set in Paris is possible, if humans start reducing greenhouse gas emissions towards zero, and do so within 40 years.

But it is true that some of the fossil - fuel funded groups that formerly argued that there is no global warming have reacted to criticism by changing their argument to «the climate is always changing,» as if that somehow disproves the scientific consensus that human greenhouse - gas emissions are causing dangerous warming.

To counter that claim, the Justice Department argues that» [t] he basic connection between human induced greenhouse gas emissions and observed climate itself has not been established.»

Gases and other particles pumped into the atmosphere by humans, some scientists argue, are altering the climate system's heat storage through the so - called greenhouse effect.

Happer and his colleagues did not challenge that CO2 causes warming, but argued current warming was within the bounds of natural variability and that human additions of greenhouse gases were an extremely small share of what nature throws up every year.

Many climate skeptics argue that the most likely scenario for global warming is that human emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases will cause mild warming, a geographic mixture of winners and losers, and what problems arise can be met by adaptation.

Skeptics of this theory argue that greenhouse gases produced by humans do not significantly impact climate.

They will argue that most of the existing greenhouse gases generated by humans were emitted by today's rich countries and that those countries should therefore bear more responsibility for cutting back.

This table lists all the names I've found who have signed any of the open letters or declarations expressing skepticism of the IPCC's findings, of climate science generally, of the «consensus» on human - induced warming, and / or arguing against any need for immediate cuts to greenhouse gas emissions.

«[Senator Cruz argues that the] mismatch between modeled and observed tropospheric warming in the early 21st century has only one possible explanation — computer models are a factor of three too sensitive to human - caused changes in greenhouse gases (GHGs)[13, pages 1 and 2].

One scientist, paleoclimatologist William Ruddiman, even argued that the rise of human agriculture had already produced enough greenhouse gases to counteract the gradual cooling that should have come during the past several thousand years; every previous cycle had begun a steady cooling soon after its peak, rather than leveling off as ours had done.

Others have argued that the records were caused by El Nino, a complex natural phenomenon that takes place every few years, and has nothing to do with greenhouse gas emissions by humans.

From the article:... The world's next great conflagration will occur because of the slow and steady warming of the climate, because of the concentration of greenhouse gases emitted by humans, argues a retired Navy rear admiral in a Friday editorial in Science magazine.