Sentences with phrase «claims of action on climate change»

Only 7 % of respondents in the UK believe a company's claims of action on climate change.

Not exact matches

These inaccuracies are merely the topline claims most commonly recycled by the media and proponents of government - imposed action on climate change.

Many of these stories twisted Brulle's finding into an even more extreme claim, exemplified in this Guardian headline: «Conservative groups spend $ 1bn a year to fight action on climate change.»

Earlier last year, following an article reviewing 6 (also alarmist) books on the environment including Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, Nicholas Stern's report, and George Monbiot's Heat, we discovered that, inconveniently, May had taken a few liberties with the facts himself, citing a single study, referenced in the Stern Report to make the claim that» 15 — 40 per cent of species «were vulnerable to extinction at just 2 degrees of warming, and that oil companies were responsible for a conspiracy to spread misinformation, and prevent action on climate change.

The opponents of climate change policies have largely succeeded in opposing proposed climate change law and policy by claiming that government action on climate change should be opposed because: (1) it will impose unacceptable costs on national economics or specific industries and destroy jobs, (2) there is too much scientific uncertainty to warrant government action, or (3) it would be unfair and ineffective for nations like the United States to adopt expensive climate policies as long as China or India fail to adopt serious greenhouse gas emissions reductions policies.

Are you aware that the claim frequently made by opponents of US and other national action on climate change that if the country acts to reduce its ghg emissions and China or other developing country does not act it will make no difference because climate change will still happen is not true because ghg emissions from nations exceeding their fair share of safe global emissions are responsible for rising atmospheric concentrations of ghgs?

The opponents of climate change policies have succeeded in opposing proposed climate change law and policy by claiming that government action on climate change should be opposed because: (1) it will impose unacceptable costs on national economics or specific industries and destroy jobs, (2) there is too much scientific uncertainty to warrant government action, or (3) it would be unfair and ineffective for nations like the United States to adopt expensive climate policies as long as China or India fail to adopt serious greenhouse gas emissions reductions policies.

Therefore in the US, to determine the actual reasons for domestic action on climate change it is not sufficient to examine the claims of the administrative branch of government alone, one must examine the arguments made by opponents of climate change that have successfully blocked stronger climate change action by the government.

But a sober reading of the literature put out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) does not support the alarmist message or the claim that immediate and drastic action is needed to mitigate climate Climate Change (IPCC) does not support the alarmist message or the claim that immediate and drastic action is needed to mitigate climate cChange (IPCC) does not support the alarmist message or the claim that immediate and drastic action is needed to mitigate climate climate changechange.

Arguments in opposition to action on climate change based upon the claim that the United States acting alone will not significantly reduce the threat of climate change fails any ethical test because all nations have a duty to act to reduce their emissions to their fair share without regard to what other nations do.

If you claim that the climate change impacts predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have not reached a level of scientific certainty that warrants action, do you agree that climate change impacts predicted by IPCC could be wrong in both directions, potentially leading to even harsher adverse impacts than those preclimate change impacts predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have not reached a level of scientific certainty that warrants action, do you agree that climate change impacts predicted by IPCC could be wrong in both directions, potentially leading to even harsher adverse impacts than those predchange impacts predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have not reached a level of scientific certainty that warrants action, do you agree that climate change impacts predicted by IPCC could be wrong in both directions, potentially leading to even harsher adverse impacts than those preClimate Change (IPCC) have not reached a level of scientific certainty that warrants action, do you agree that climate change impacts predicted by IPCC could be wrong in both directions, potentially leading to even harsher adverse impacts than those predChange (IPCC) have not reached a level of scientific certainty that warrants action, do you agree that climate change impacts predicted by IPCC could be wrong in both directions, potentially leading to even harsher adverse impacts than those preclimate change impacts predicted by IPCC could be wrong in both directions, potentially leading to even harsher adverse impacts than those predchange impacts predicted by IPCC could be wrong in both directions, potentially leading to even harsher adverse impacts than those predicted?

The scientists sent their letter, dated October 29, in response to a letter the Senators received from the American Association for the Advancement of Science claiming a «consensus» of the scientific community on climate change and asserting that «immediate and drastic action is needed to avert a climactic catastrophe.»

The 1,018 - page report convincingly and systematically challenges IPCC claims that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing «dangerous» global warming and climate change; that IPCC computer models can be relied on for alarming climate forecasts and scenarios; and that we need to take immediate, drastic action to prevent «unprecedented» climate and weather events that are no more frequent or unusual than what humans have had to adapt to and deal with for thousands of years.

In the last few years we realised something important: there is a huge climate movement in Europe on the local and national levels, fighting for the environment, educating people on the environment, resisting dirty energy projects, promoting democratic clean energy... But there is very little cross-border connection between groups and movements, which allows decision makers and the media to water down the size and importance of our movements, and claim that there isn't enough public pressure for action on climate change.

The Zurich - based firm, in an examination of the consequences of globalization of class actions on insurers, said, «We expect, however, that climate change - related liability will develop more quickly than asbestos - related claims and believe the frequency and sustainability of climate change - related litigation could become a significant issue within the next couple of years...»

A recurring theme of the green argument for «urgent» and «strong» action on climate change — usually also an argument for circumventing the democratic process — is the claim that «science says... -LCB- insert fatuous pseudo-scientific statement here -RCB-».