Sentences with phrase «arguing if climate change»

The scientific community stopped arguing if climate change is real and predominantly caused currently by humans decades ago.

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?

Arguing for the need to focus on «solutions rather than on catastrophic consequences of climate change,» Wibeck suggests effective methods for moving forward with climate change communication, emphasising a need for strategic interaction between communicators and educators, arguing that it is necessary if the public role in challenging global climate change is going to inArguing for the need to focus on «solutions rather than on catastrophic consequences of climate change,» Wibeck suggests effective methods for moving forward with climate change communication, emphasising a need for strategic interaction between communicators and educators, arguing that it is necessary if the public role in challenging global climate change is going to inarguing that it is necessary if the public role in challenging global climate change is going to increase.

If storms do become more prevalent and violent as the climate changes, they argue, more people may demand substantive policy changes.

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.

In other words, if you argue that the Earth has a low climate sensitivity to CO2, you are also arguing for a low climate sensitivity to other influences such as solar irradiance, orbital changes, and volcanic emissions.

Even if in the United States, the discussion about climate change continues to be framed as a debate, Goodell isn't arguing its...

Viz.: «Critics of the idea of man - made climate change argue that conditions 1,000 years ago were as warm as, if not warmer than, they are today.

In essence, what we argue for in the NRC abrupt change report is a concern for the possibility that there is indeed some presently unknown switch in the climate system that could reach a threshold of being activated if we perturb the climate sufficiently by increasing GHG concentration.

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 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.

Brook and Bradshaw argue that the full gamut of electricity - generation sources — including nuclear power — must be deployed to replace the burning of fossil fuels, if we are to have any chance of mitigating severe climate change.

There are those who just like to argue; if they couldn't find an argument about climate change they'd find some other subject.

The proposition that «science» somehow dictated particular policy responses, encouraged — indeed instructed — those who found those particular strategies unattractive to argue about the science.36 So, a distinctive characteristic of the climate change debate has been of scientists claiming with the authority of their position that their results dictated particular policies; of policy makers claiming that their preferred choices were dictated by science, and both acting as if «science» and «policy» were simply and rigidly linked as if it were a matter of escaping from the path of an oncoming tornado.

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.

While the Climate Change pundits agree that energy efficiency and renewables are in the long term, «the most sustainable solutions both for security of supply and climate,» they argue that «global greenhouse gas emissions can not be reduced by at least 50 % by 2050, as they need to be, if we do not also use other options such as carbon capture and storage.Climate Change pundits agree that energy efficiency and renewables are in the long term, «the most sustainable solutions both for security of supply and climate,» they argue that «global greenhouse gas emissions can not be reduced by at least 50 % by 2050, as they need to be, if we do not also use other options such as carbon capture and storage.climate,» they argue that «global greenhouse gas emissions can not be reduced by at least 50 % by 2050, as they need to be, if we do not also use other options such as carbon capture and storage.»

The BBC piece cites an article in Nature which argues that we must leave 75 % of the remaining fossil fuels untouched, if we are to avoid dangerous climate change.

Filmmakers Mike Taylor and Karen Coshof argue that while global warming and climate change are deadly serious issues, individuals, businesses, religious and secular groups and governments CAN make a difference if we all act fast, although as Coshof puts it in the interview, «the key word is fast!»

The report argues that migration can be a «sensible climate change adaptation strategy» — if it is managed carefully and supported by good development policies and targeted investments.

Now they argue that reduced emissions will prevent climate change / global warming and that the world will experience various alleged dooms if that is not done.

You could argue that's simply wishful thinking, or you could argue that China and India would be even less likely to address climate change if the United States wasn't even going to try.

While climate change mitigation has been included into its agricultural sector, the developed world argues that if it does not reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from agriculture, these emissions are expected to increase [continue reading...]

In responses to the lack of scientific proof arguments, climate change advocates usually stress the harsh environmental impacts to people and ecosystems that climate change will cause if action is not taken or argue that climate change science is settled.

Environmental justice groups argue that their communities have a lot at stake if cap and trade fails to curb climate change.

If the report argues for the acquisition of capabilities, tools, systems, and institutions that could help meet the potential for problems brought on by climate change, it is not necessarily arguing for the adoption of specific adaptations or mitigation strategies.

If someone argues that all or even the majority of people who are «alarmed» about climate change — and consider carbon taxes as a potentially viable policy — are Marxist in their intentions, then I see little room for discussion.

If you need more proof that «obesity and climate change are linked,» simply consider how awful life is now in Mexico, the same authors argued in an article for their Climate and Health Cclimate change are linked,» simply consider how awful life is now in Mexico, the same authors argued in an article for their Climate and Health CClimate and Health Council.

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.

Many «climate scientists» would argue that the rate might change greatly after year 40 and lead to runaway warming in years 51 through 100 that will lead to great disaster for humanity if we do not implement what they think is correct.

The UK's climate change ambition will be undermined if the duty to maximise oil and gas extraction is included in the Infrastructure Bill, argue environmental NGO, Friends of the Earth and non-profit environmental law organisation, ClientEarth.

Q: Some argue that we can't solve climate change and poverty if we do nothing to stop population growth.

If you argue that the United States should not adopt climate change policies on the basis that economic competitors such as China have not adopted climate change policies, are you claiming that no nation has a duty to reduce its ghg emissions to its fair share of safe global emissions until all other nations reduce their ghg emissions accordingly?

if you want to argue against the need for action on climate change, fine.

Moreover, as I've argued here previously, the emphasis, or hope that science can conclusively answer the debate about global warming almost concedes to the alarmist / precautionary perspective that, if «climate change is happening», then so the policies are justified.

If you read conservative tracts expressing skepticism about the need to address climate change, one is struck by the vigor devoted to arguing about the most likely outcome of loading anthropogenic greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

If you want to read essays arguing that climate change is a fraud and a hoax, or that the American economy is about to collapse, the technology is available to allow you to do exactly that.

He added, «If you can just get rid of the data, you're in a stronger position to argue we should do nothing about climate change.»

Those opposing climate change legislation in the United States often have argued that it would be unfair to the United States if it was bound to reduce GHG emissions and China was not required to do the same.

Roberts, quoting climate scientists Kevin Anderson and Alice Bows, argues, that the «brutal logic» of climate change «suggests (extremely) dangerous climate change can only be avoided if economic growth is exchanged, at least temporarily, for a period of planned austerity» in the world's developed nations.

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?

The video argues that ethics is the crucial missing element in the climate change debate and if an ethical framing of most climate change policy issues were taken seriously it would transform how the public debate on climate change takes place.

As if this were not daunting enough, in 2002 the US National Academies of Science not only endorsed the IPCC's conclusions but produced a new report entitled Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable surprises, which argued that global warming may trigger «large, abrupt and unwelcome regional or global climatic events» such as severe droughts and floods.

It would seem to me that if you want to argue that «skeptics» are, as a group, less influenced by identity and emotion in their reasoning about climate change than «realists,» you should be able to design some kind of mechanistic hypothesis for why that is the case, come up with some experiment methodology for collecting and analyzing data that would support your theory, and then collect the data and write it up.

On the one hand they argue that even if it were true, it would be pointless for any individual country to do anything as it wouldn't make any difference BUT they then turn around and criticise individuals who believe climate change is real for not trying to save the world from climate change by relying on simply changing their own behaviour.

If you want to argue that butterflies aren't going extinct in the California mountains because of climate change, you have to get down and dirty with the data.

It is argued that if we are to minimize the negative impact of environmental change on older people, interdisciplinary study of the convergence of the two trends, «climate gerontology», is needed.

Former Sen. John WarnerMore senators and citizens might support a climate bill if it emphasized the national security challenges presented by climate change, former Virginia Sen. John Warner (R) argued on Tuesday.

I once argued with a fried regarding some of the accepted orthodoxy regarding climate change alarm and at the time I really didn't have a good answer for «how is it that all these scientists and politicians got it so wrong if you're right?»

Main Point: We don't argue that climate change isn't happening, and if that's what you think the debate is about then you are completely wrong.