Sentences with phrase «cause global catastrophe»

The main thing to note is that she is claiming that changes to atmospheric CO2 levels have big warming effects on the climate and will cause a global catastrophe.

I was not surprised by the results because my geology Professors all seemed unconvinced that man's CO2 input could cause a global catastrophe.

Up until this point, the bond has been special, but that is put to the test once a genetic experiment gone wrong changes George and other animals into enormous creatures that threaten to cause a global catastrophe if not somehow contained.

Asteroid impacts that cause global catastrophe are climate - changing events, and most of the resulting fatalities would be due to that change (which would cause social disruption that is expected to lead to starvation, disease and violence).

They are called potential pandemic pathogens (PPPs) because an accident involving their release could cause a global catastrophe.

These giant space rocks would cause a global catastrophe if one were to strike the Earth (watch a Japanese simulation of the effects of a huge 100 - km - wide impactor).

Russian President Vladimir Putin warned against such military build - up, saying it could cause a global catastrophe.

Not exact matches

The threat to our security is in the form of asteroids too small to be detected at long range but large enough to cause major catastrophes; NASA is now searching for asteroids one kilometer or larger in diameter, the impact of which could have global consequences.

Heather Birch, a Cardiff University PhD from the School of Earth and Ocean Sciences who led the study, said: «The global catastrophe that caused the extinction of the dinosaurs also devastated ocean ecosystems.

A next - generation global air traffic control system is vulnerable to malicious hacks that could cause catastrophe

From 1933 to 1940, the US government bought 1.3 million metric tons of gold — draining the global system of the precious metal and causing catastrophe for most gold - backed currencies due to a shortage of gold to redeem for whatever notes backed by it.

Small wonder atmospheric methane can cause such global catastrophe considering its dramatic rise during the last few years, as elucidated by Carana on 5 December 2013 in the figure below.»

Any normal person would conclude that CO2 is not causing runaway global warming, climate catastrophe, or for that matter, any other problems.

Why don't you be honest and admit that you people welcome weather events that you can claim are climate catastrophes caused by global warming.

Although a libertarian might well agree that CO2 absorbs / scatters IR radiation, and that this will produce a warming effect, and agree that this effect could cause problems, and could even agree that it requires the intervention of some agency, he doesn't have to agree with Read that this represents either a global catastrophe in the making, or a palpable «limit to growth».

See the video of Prof. Mike Hulme for a resounding challenge to political arguments for action on climate change, based on the idea that the consensus is that global warming will cause catastrophe.

In January, the World Economic Forum said a catastrophe caused by climate change was the biggest potential threat to the global economy in 2016.

What they are practicing is not science, it is propaganda based on an unsupportable catastrophic AGW agenda designed to convince the public that a rise in a tiny trace gas comprising only 0.00038 of the atmosphere will cause runaway global warming and climate catastrophe.

Around global warming then, at the current juncture in history, we can say that there are those who have primary moral responsibility for causing climate catastrophe, a much larger group of those who have secondary ethical responsibility for climate catastrophe, and a still larger group who are bystanders in terms of causality of global warming to date but will need to assume some responsibility in solving the climate crisis.

For more than 20 years, a few dozen researchers, but above all, politicians and media, have spread the notion that carbon dioxide emissions will cause a global climate catastrophe.

The «global policies that work» might take frighteningly few natural catastrophes to come into effect (to a first approximation, the Arab Spring was caused by low crop yields, for instance).

Lastly, I see no compelling evidence that a small rise in global temperatures, whether caused by man or not, is bound to cause ecological catastrophe.

Scientists and experts skeptical that human activity will cause a climate catastrophe have filed briefs with the court, likely disputing claims from cities and oil companies about global warming.

The possiblity that fossil fuels may lead to global catastrophes is mute compared to what our addiction has already caused in more mundane terms to average citizens.

While much of the world has reacted with shock and sympathy to the damage caused by Hurricane Katrina, senior government leaders in Germany warned the United States to expect more natural catastrophes if it did not get serious about global warming.

The CFR's Levi was also a lead voice in the «extreme weather» catastrophe choir claiming that the deaths and damage from Tropical Storm Sandy could be laid at the feet of human - caused global warming.

These technological fixes won't solve the problem of humans causing climate change, could give us an excuse to avoid reducing carbon emissions, and could lead to a global catastrophe.

Together with other anthropogenic changes in the Earth system that may herald the emergence of a new geological epoch, the Anthropocene (9, 10), the global changes caused by human use of land are generally portrayed as the result of an unchecked and accelerating process that is mostly recent in origin (11) and therefore presents an impending catastrophe for humanity, the biosphere, and the Earth system in general (3, 12).

By «a theory that didn't suit the people who follow this site» you must be referring to the Alarmists» idea that our C02 is causing all manner of global disasters, and will, if not curtailed lead to global catastrophe, meaning we must immediately change our sources of energy to far more expensive ones, costing trillions.

In the current drought and heat, causing wildfire and the most severe of storms, we have seen something of the global warming catastrophe that looks likely to literally engulf us.

Gavin Schmidt can parse his words and insist on his «interpretation» as much as he wishes but his meaning is absolutely clear — despite his «uncertainty» post made after «climategate» had outed him: that global warming is happening, that this is caused, in the main, by human made GHGs, that, if mankind does not halt these GHGs, catastrophe will follow and that this is «settled science» and the «consensus».

Perhaps we're saying the same thing in opposite ways, but it seems to me that knowing that 95 % of a catastrophe is not attributable to global warming is valuable because it focuses attention on the other, more important, root causes and ways to deal with them.

Oliver Tickell, for instance, writes that a global warming causing a 4C temperature increase by the end of the century would be a «catastrophe» and the beginning of the «extinction» of the human race.

What I deny is the catastrophe — the proposition that man - made global warming ** will cause catastrophic climate changes whose adverse affects will outweigh both the benefits of warming as well as the costs of mitigation.

One side, supported by environmentalists, warns of an imminent apocalypse and global catastrophe caused by our own tinkering with nature.

But of course that has nothing to do with the only issue that matters: will an increase in CO2 cause runaway global warming and climate catastrophe?