Not exact matches
The National Academies, fulfilling a congressional request, have issued a trio of invaluable reports affirming the scientific
case for a growing and largely harmful human influence on climate; proposing a path and strategies
for curbing American
emissions of heat - trapping gases; and urging the country to work to cut risks attending life with no new «normal» climate patterns or coastlines.
But this is clearly a
case of the wrong tool
for the job, if the job is, in fact, to
curb emissions of greenhouse gases as human populations and energy appetites crest.
In any
case, Oreskes et al. make a strong
case for the need of
curbing the
emission of GHGs.
Lord Rees appeals
for research into geoengineering technologies in
case efforts to
curb carbon
emissions fail
In this
case, the «right» answer,
for the proponents of CAGW, is that those models whose output shows that CO2 is evil, and we must
curb emissions immediately, or preferably sooner than that, give the «right» answer.
Yet
for decades, Exxon - funded lobbyists that cast doubt on the science and muddied the
case for acting to
curb greenhouse gas
emissions.
Researchers Tim Searchinger and Ralph Heimlich make the
case that policies that lead to setting aside land
for biofuels production — like our own ethanol policies in the United States — ultimately do little to
curb greenhouse gas
emissions.