Sentences with phrase «catastrophic impact on climate change»

Ref: Letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, dated 3-26-12, regarding a request for NASA to refrain from making unsubstantiated claims that human produced CO2 is having a catastrophic impact on climate change.

Not exact matches

The world is fast approaching a «catastrophic tipping point» on climate change that could have a major impact on economic growth and security, Tony Blair has said.

Tim Maughan reports from New York on the first of a series of debates on climate change, starting with the impact of catastrophic events and global injustice

Another threat, environmental, is represented by the depletion of natural resources of the planet, the uncontrolled growth of cities and the catastrophic global climate change that tends to produce serious impact on economic activities and increased social problems of mankind.

This underlying theme is particularly timely given the growing impact of climate change on sea levels around the globe and the potentially catastrophic results.

Due to the direct impact from Hurricane Irma on his home in the Lower Florida Keys, his recent projects are calling attention to the massive physical destruction and catastrophic environmental damage left behind by increasingly powerful storms due to climate change.

ExxonMobil's position on climate change thus focuses on the uncertainty of specific impacts, rather than the big - picture certainty that there will be impacts, and that they could be catastrophic.

(See article on unforseeability) Although even more optimistic predictions of climate change impacts are disastrous for some of the world's most vulnerable people, the upper end of possible human - induced temperature increases in this Century of 5 to 9 o C will be catastrophic and perhaps unimaginable for the world.

«There is an incoherence at best between oil companies on the one hand positioning themselves as being on the side of the world's developing countries and while on the other actively pursuing strategies which will entail catastrophic climate change which we already know is having a significant impact on the global south,» she said.

The ideas seems to rest on the conclusion that if the United States acts to reduce emissions others will follow and therefore as a matter of «prudence» the US should make commitments given climate change's potential catastrophic impacts.

The British medical journal The Lancet, known for its tobacco Prohibitionist and anti-Israel views, created a commission on Health and Climate Change to promote, as if it were science, the view that «to avoid the risk of potentially catastrophic climate change impacts requires total anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to be kept below 2900 billion tonnes by the end of the century» — not a calculation that physicians, biologists, and the like are particularly qualified toClimate Change to promote, as if it were science, the view that «to avoid the risk of potentially catastrophic climate change impacts requires total anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to be kept below 2900 billion tonnes by the end of the century» — not a calculation that physicians, biologists, and the like are particularly qualified to Change to promote, as if it were science, the view that «to avoid the risk of potentially catastrophic climate change impacts requires total anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to be kept below 2900 billion tonnes by the end of the century» — not a calculation that physicians, biologists, and the like are particularly qualified toclimate change impacts requires total anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to be kept below 2900 billion tonnes by the end of the century» — not a calculation that physicians, biologists, and the like are particularly qualified to change impacts requires total anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to be kept below 2900 billion tonnes by the end of the century» — not a calculation that physicians, biologists, and the like are particularly qualified to make.)

On what specific basis do you disregard the conclusions of the United States Academy of Sciences, and numerous other Academies of Sciences around the World including the Royal Academy of the UK, over a hundred of the most prestigious scientific organizations whose membership includes those with expertise relevant to the science of climate change, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, the American Institute of Physics, the American Meteorological Society, the Royal Meteorological Society, and according to the American Academy of Sciences, 97 percent of scientists who actually do peer - reviewed research on climate change whose conclusions hold that the Earth is warming, that the warming is mostly human caused, that harsh impacts from warming are already being experienced in parts of the world, and that the international community is running out of time to prevent catastrophic warminOn what specific basis do you disregard the conclusions of the United States Academy of Sciences, and numerous other Academies of Sciences around the World including the Royal Academy of the UK, over a hundred of the most prestigious scientific organizations whose membership includes those with expertise relevant to the science of climate change, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, the American Institute of Physics, the American Meteorological Society, the Royal Meteorological Society, and according to the American Academy of Sciences, 97 percent of scientists who actually do peer - reviewed research on climate change whose conclusions hold that the Earth is warming, that the warming is mostly human caused, that harsh impacts from warming are already being experienced in parts of the world, and that the international community is running out of time to prevent catastrophic warminon climate change whose conclusions hold that the Earth is warming, that the warming is mostly human caused, that harsh impacts from warming are already being experienced in parts of the world, and that the international community is running out of time to prevent catastrophic warming.

On what specific basis do you disregard the conclusions of the United States Academy of Sciences, and numerous other Academies of Sciences Around the World including the Royal Academy of the UK, over a hundred of the most prestigious scientific organizations whose membership includes those with expertise relevant to the science of climate change, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, the American Institute of Physics, the American Meteorological Society, the Royal Meteorological Society, and according to the American Academy of Sciences 97 percent of scientists who actually do peer - reviewed research on climate change which conclusions hold that the Earth is warming, that the warming is mostly human caused, and that harsh impacts from warming are already being experienced in parts of the world, and that the international community is running out of time to prevent catastrophic warminOn what specific basis do you disregard the conclusions of the United States Academy of Sciences, and numerous other Academies of Sciences Around the World including the Royal Academy of the UK, over a hundred of the most prestigious scientific organizations whose membership includes those with expertise relevant to the science of climate change, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, the American Institute of Physics, the American Meteorological Society, the Royal Meteorological Society, and according to the American Academy of Sciences 97 percent of scientists who actually do peer - reviewed research on climate change which conclusions hold that the Earth is warming, that the warming is mostly human caused, and that harsh impacts from warming are already being experienced in parts of the world, and that the international community is running out of time to prevent catastrophic warminon climate change which conclusions hold that the Earth is warming, that the warming is mostly human caused, and that harsh impacts from warming are already being experienced in parts of the world, and that the international community is running out of time to prevent catastrophic warming.

When you argue that a nation emitting high levels of ghgs need not adopt climate change policies because there is scientific uncertainty about adverse climate change impacts, are you arguing that a nation need not take action on climate change until scientific uncertainties are resolved given that waiting to resolve all scientific uncertainties before action is taken may very likely make it too late to prevent catastrophic climate change harms to millions of people around the world?

Seems that Nicholas Stern now thinks there may well be catastrophic impacts: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jan/27/nicholas-stern-climate-change-davos «I got it wrong on climate change — it's far, far worse»

Of course this is totally dependent on how «better» is measured, but there is one fundamental, over-riding sense in which I think it isn't better - that we are likely facing potentially catastrophic impacts from anthropogenic climate change and we have little prospect of averting that within timescales that would make a significant difference.

«We believe the claims by NASA and GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies) that man - made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated.»

In the last two entries we examined the failure of the US media to communicate about: (1) the strong scientific position on climate change, and (2) the magnitude of greenhouse gas emissions reduction necessary to avoid catastrophic climate impacts.

Because it has been scientifically well established that there is a great risk of catastrophic harm from human - induced change (even though it is acknowledged that there are remaining uncertainties about timing and magnitude of climate change impacts), no high - emitting nation, sub-national government, organization, business, or individual of greenhouse gases may use some remaining scientific uncertainty about climate change impacts as an excuse for not reducing its emissions to its fair share of safe global greenhouse gas emission on the basis of scientific uncertainty.

Climate change raises questions of both distributive and retributive justice because: (a) Climate change is a problem caused by some people that inflicts harm on others; (b) Some of the poorest people in the world are extremely vulnerable to its impacts and can do little to protect themselves from those impacts; (c) The adverse impacts to some of the world's poorest people are likely to be catastrophic; and (d) Huge reductions from status quo emissions are necessary to prevent catastrophic warming.

If nations fail to base their climate change policies on what equity, ethics, and justice require of them on mitigation of their greenhouse gas emissions and funding for adaptation, losses, and damages, then the global response to climate change will not likely be ambitious enough to avoid catastrophic climate impacts while deepening existing injustices in the world.

If we did cause the climate to change due to our puny input, mankind can not really live on this planet without making a catastrophic impact on it.

The catastrophic impacts of climate change will ensure that Vietnam, its neighbors, and the entire world will pay a heavy price for continuing to rely on dirty coal.

A streak of freak floods in the US, a deadly heat - wave across Central Russia, record drought in the Amazon, deadly floods in Colombia and Venezuela, record highs all over the globe, and a catastrophic flood in Pakistan that affected 20 million people: this is the year when the impacts of climate change no longer appeared hazily in an abstract future, but seemed to be knocking on our collective doorstep.

man - made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data.

Climate change scientists argue that increasing CO2 emissions will have a catastrophic impact on humanity.

This law was put into effect to mitigate the impacts of catastrophic climate change and defend a livable future on this planet.

We believe the claims by NASA and GISS that man - made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data.

The complaint alleged that the defendants had produced and promoted the use of «massive amounts» of fossil fuels despite having been aware since the 1950s, based on information from the American Petroleum Institute, that emissions from fossil fuels would cause severe and even catastrophic climate change impacts.

Pingback: New «What We Know» report on climate change by AAAS: Earth's climate on a path to warm beyond range experienced in «past millions of years»; action needed to lower future costs and risk of catastrophic and irreversible impact

During that time, he once described the predicted future impacts of climate change as «catastrophic» for most people on Earth.

Pingback: New AAAS report on climate change: Earth's climate on a path to warm beyond range experienced in «past millions of years»; action needed to lower future costs and risk of catastrophic and irreversible impacts.

E.g., research assumes greenhouse gas emissions cause warming without explicitly stating humans are the cause»... carbon sequestration in soil is important for mitigating global climate change» (4a) No position Does not address or mention the cause of global warming (4b) Uncertain Expresses position that human's role on recent global warming is uncertain / undefined «While the extent of human - induced global warming is inconclusive...» (5) Implicit rejection Implies humans have had a minimal impact on global warming without saying so explicitly E.g., proposing a natural mechanism is the main cause of global warming»... anywhere from a major portion to all of the warming of the 20th century could plausibly result from natural causes according to these results» (6) Explicit rejection without quantification Explicitly minimizes or rejects that humans are causing global warming»... the global temperature record provides little support for the catastrophic view of the greenhouse effect» (7) Explicit rejection with quantification Explicitly states that humans are causing less than half of global warming «The human contribution to the CO2 content in the atmosphere and the increase in temperature is negligible in comparison with other sources of carbon dioxide emission»»

Written by thousands of science, policy, and economics experts from around the world, the UN International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports represent a synthesis of existing climate research knowledge, focusing on the evidence of a warming climate («virtually certain»), the global impacts, and the ways we might avert its most catastrophic eClimate Change (IPCC) reports represent a synthesis of existing climate research knowledge, focusing on the evidence of a warming climate («virtually certain»), the global impacts, and the ways we might avert its most catastrophic eclimate research knowledge, focusing on the evidence of a warming climate («virtually certain»), the global impacts, and the ways we might avert its most catastrophic eclimate («virtually certain»), the global impacts, and the ways we might avert its most catastrophic effects.

[2] The new data raises doubt on how serious EU Member States are in their attempts to avoid catastrophic climate change, the impacts of which are increasingly felt across the globe already today, mostly by poor people in developing countries who had no role in creating the problem.

Though the government is admitting to the impacts of climate change on public health, there is, of course, no mention of the global climate engineering assault and the catastrophic impact to public health being caused by geoengineering programs.