Sentences with phrase «case over climate change»

Not exact matches

«There is a larger context for this latest development,» he wrote, «namely the onslaught of dishonest and libelous attacks that climate scientists have endured for years by dishonest front groups seeking to discredit the case for concern over climate change.»

The report, published in the Royal Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, said the case was the first of its kind, directly linking anxiety over climate change to psychosis.

What I find ironic is that it is his can - do optimism that is in this case working against our ability to do something about our dependence on fossil fuels and the climate change that this dependence is resulting in, that is, switching to alternate energy, preserving modern civilization and the world economy beyond Peak Oil and Peak Coal, preventing climate change from becoming such a huge problem that it destroys that the world economy — and more than likely leads to a series of highly destructive wars over limited resources.

A globally warm medieval period could be a simple forced response to increased solar, in which case it doesn't imply any larger intrinsic variability than already assumed, and since solar has been pretty much constant over the last 50 years, improvements to our understanding of solar forced climate changes are irrelevant for the last few decades.

In my opinion, climate behaves in a far from linear way, with loads of factors to take into account, so in most cases it would be very difficult to find climate records react consistently (over several solar cycles / decades / centuries) in the same way to say a solar change (see the Hoyt & Schatten 1998 book).

We also need to drive home that once a core body of understanding has accumulated over decades on an issue — as is the case with human - forced climate change — society can use it as a foundation for policies and choices.

In an interview, Richard Somerville, a climatologist at the University of California, San Diego, and a past contributor to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said the case for climate change as a serious risk to human affairs was clear, despite recent firestorms over some data sets and scientists» aClimate Change, said the case for climate change as a serious risk to human affairs was clear, despite recent firestorms over some data sets and scientists» acChange, said the case for climate change as a serious risk to human affairs was clear, despite recent firestorms over some data sets and scientists» aclimate change as a serious risk to human affairs was clear, despite recent firestorms over some data sets and scientists» acchange as a serious risk to human affairs was clear, despite recent firestorms over some data sets and scientists» actions.

Shows that over the next 30 years, increased drought severity from climate change could triple West Nile virus cases, but only in regions with low human immunity

In the case of climate change, those measurements after measurements by thousands of scientists for over fifty years are adding up to an extremely compelling and robust argument because they all pretty much agree with each other: we can send people to the moon, and our excess CO2 is changing the climate.

Lindzen was one of several prominent climate change deniers who offered «friend of the court» briefs as part of a case in which San Francisco and Oakland are suing fossil fuel companies over the costs their cities face due to climate change.

So what we have is someone who is clearly identified with an in - group (in your case «skeptics») and who asserts an asymmetry in the climate change domain that qualitatively elevates his own identity group over the out - group («realists»), asserting a cultural cognition bias in someone that he feels is identified with that out - group (without even an attempt to explain the basis for such a determination *), even those that person isn't asserting such a qualitative elevation of his own in - group.

They open up a whole new viewpoint, often exposing the human element as it interfaces with changes in climate over the centuries, and in some cases demonstrating how climate had an impact on human history

The Philadelphia Inquirer reported, «In the high - stakes conflict over U.S. climate - change policy, groups that deny or cast doubt on global warming brought in $ 7.2 million from 2003 to 2010... «Powerful funders are supporting the campaign to deny scientific findings about global warming,» reported Robert J. Brulle...» In the eighth paragraph, the Inquirer noted the response by James Taylor of the Heartland Institute, who observed that many of the groups «support other causes as well» and, in some cases, spend «less than 10 percent of their funding... on climate - related efforts.»

Not Shi - Ling Hsu, who builds an accessible, well - informed, and undeniably persuasive case for the superiority of carbon taxes over alternative climate change policy instruments.

This activity report presents some examples of the IFAD - GEF partnership from around the world by using brief case studies to highlight certain aspects of various projects, which includes over 43 national and regional projects, covering areas of biodiversity, climate change, international waters, land degradation and sustainable forest management.

The hearing, «Data or Dogma: Promoting Open Inquiry in the Debate over the Magnitude of Human Impact on Earth's Climate,» featured testimony from three scientists who are skeptical of the case for action to address climate change (Prof. Judith Curry of Georgia Tech, Prof. John Christy of the University of Alabama Huntsville and Prof. Will Happer of Princeton University), one mainstream climate scientist (Prof. David Titley of Penn State University), and talk radio personality and author MarkClimate,» featured testimony from three scientists who are skeptical of the case for action to address climate change (Prof. Judith Curry of Georgia Tech, Prof. John Christy of the University of Alabama Huntsville and Prof. Will Happer of Princeton University), one mainstream climate scientist (Prof. David Titley of Penn State University), and talk radio personality and author Markclimate change (Prof. Judith Curry of Georgia Tech, Prof. John Christy of the University of Alabama Huntsville and Prof. Will Happer of Princeton University), one mainstream climate scientist (Prof. David Titley of Penn State University), and talk radio personality and author Markclimate scientist (Prof. David Titley of Penn State University), and talk radio personality and author Mark Steyn.

We decided to emphasize consumer opposition, but also to make the case that New Jersey should retain oversight over utilities to deal with long - range issues like climate change.

So, in the case of climate change, if we could flip a magic switch and turn off all our carbon emissions today, we would still see the impact of the Industrial Revolution on our planet for well over 5,000 years.

In the case of the IPCC, maybe you know a lot more - IPCC finally admits that paving over tropical forests is a major factor in climate change

Drawing on case studies of past environmental debates such as those over acid rain and ozone depletion, science policy experts Roger Pielke Jr. and Daniel Sarewitz argue that once next generation technologies are available that make meaningful action on climate change lower - cost, then much of the argument politically over scientific uncertainty is likely to diminish.26 Similarly, research by Yale University's Dan Kahan and colleagues suggest that building political consensus on climate change will depend heavily on advocates for action calling attention to a diverse mix of options, with some actions such as tax incentives for nuclear energy, government support for clean energy research, or actions to protect cities and communities against climate risks, more likely to gain support from both Democrats and Republicans.

4 Core Case Study: Studying a Volcano to Understand Climate Change NASA scientists correctly predicted that the 1991 Philippines explosion would cool the average temperature of the earth by 0.5 C o over a 15 month period and then return to normal by 1995.

And I quickly found myself at the center of attacks by climate change critics looking to discredit the hockey stick curve as a way of supposedly discrediting the case for concern over climate change.

Moreover, just as was the case with cap and trade legislation, other issues, including immigration, gun control, income inequality, banking regulation, and revisions to the health care bill may take top legislative priority over climate change.

This bizarre case of group denial does have one plausible explanation: scientific findings (i.e., anthropogenic climate change is real, and has dangerous impacts that are happening now and will worsen over time) are antithetical to a shared ideology (i.e. «climate change is a hoax»).

Happer was one of several prominent climate change deniers who offered «friend of the court» briefs as part of a case in which San Francisco and Oakland are suing fossil fuel companies over the costs their cities face due to climate change.

I particularly loved watching and listening to this 2016 Al Gore TED talk over and over again: The case for optimism on climate change.

While many believe that global climate change poses a very serious threat, in many cases views on this issue have not changed over the past five years.

Climate change product liability may affect related industries sooner rather than later, as shown by the recent case of a number of US States taking power generation companies to court over climate Climate change product liability may affect related industries sooner rather than later, as shown by the recent case of a number of US States taking power generation companies to court over climate climate change.

What they do — and have done at length in one form since 2009 — is dispute in massive detail how the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has failed to make the case that what little global warming we've seen over the last 150 years is primarily driven by human activity.

It remains true that Earth has warmed more than 1 degree farenheit degrees over last century largely due to the buildup of human - made greenhouse gases... it remains the case that the projections of future climate change are every bit of discouraging as they were before the recent flap began.»

Soon was one of several prominent climate change deniers who offered «friend of the court» briefs as part of a case in which San Francisco and Oakland are suing fossil fuel companies over the costs their cities face due to climate change.

The chief scientist said Mr. Daboub, who oversees the sustainable development division of the bank, tried to take out some references to climate change completely and, in other cases, replaced it with the phrases «climate risk» and «climate variability», which convey greater uncertainty over the human impact on climate.

Over the next 80 + years these could result in a reduction of atmospheric CO2 by year 2100 of 60 to 80 ppmv, out of an anticipated «business as usual» level of 640 ppmv to a «worst case» high - coal, high - forcing high - end climate change scenario of 750 ppmv (IPCC RCP 8.5).

It argues that the IPCC's «heroic days» of «Herculean work» are probably over, more frequent assessments focused on policy challenges are required, and the wider review of science made possible by the blogosphere can help: New Scientist says because the case for anthropogenic climate change is firmly established («the Nobel prize is won») the IPCC really needs to revision itself.

In the latter case, the alternative relative SST measure in the lower panel does not change very much over the 21st century, even with substantial Atlantic warming projections from climate models, because, crucially, the warming projected for the tropical Atlantic in the models is not very different from that projected for the tropics as a whole.

Over long periods, glacial response to climate change becomes obvious as glaciers retreat and, in some cases, disappear.

Consider the case of energy production, which dominates the debate over climate change.

The first is that it is transparently the case that, whatever the GWPF has said about climate change, it has enjoyed no influence over policy whatsoever.

Judge William Alsup, who has a history of digging into the scientific and technical details of the cases before him, ordered the tutorial to better understand climate science before presiding over a case in which the cities of San Francisco and Oakland are suing the five largest fossil fuel companies — ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, ConocoPhillips and Shell — over the damages of climate change.

With concerns over climate change and health impacts of air pollution growing and due to cost reductions in renewable technology, similar developments are taking place in many parts of the world, making the German experience an interesting case study for energy policy in other countries.