Sentences with phrase «control climate change make»

Lack of agreement as to the factors that control climate change make it particularly difficult to assess current trends.

Not exact matches

Political scientist Keith Brownsey of Mount Royal University argues the Liberals paid close attention to the many fumbles made by Harper's Tories on the energy file: failing to build solid relationships with First Nations, allowing environmental groups to seize the public - relations initiative, not asserting federal authority and handing provinces like B.C. and Quebec control of the political agenda, keeping Canada outside of the international consensus on climate change, and ignoring legitimate criticisms of the federal review process.

In addition, he said, emerging threats like climate change, cyber-attacks, and internet - connected control systems make the water systems even more vulnerable.

And that makes controlling O3 pollution from fossil fuel burning as important for climate change as it is for human and plant health.

«A better understanding of the controls on reef development in the past will allow us to make better predictions about which reefs may be most vulnerable to climate change in the future.»

Short of controlling climate change, efforts to help the coral, such as providing reef structures, will not make up the difference either.

I no longer get bent out of shape about CUE's lack of buttons because I can change the volume from the steering - wheel controls and make Bluetooth calls with voice commands, and I don't change the climate - control temperature more than a couple of times during my drive.

Lights on the air vents change briefly when the temperature of the car's climate control is made warmer or colder.

Currently, the Infotainment system is designed to show you the status of the climate control change you made.

For starters, the visual controls make it easy for you to select and change your climate, access your GPS, and connect with your Bluetooth, all through using an 8 - inch color touchscreen.

Climate happens in a man - made, climate - controlled enclosure, with a river that changes from being friendly to hClimate happens in a man - made, climate - controlled enclosure, with a river that changes from being friendly to hclimate - controlled enclosure, with a river that changes from being friendly to harmful.

In announcing an interest in content that «reroutes its form» at the final Lunch Bytes in London before reading Augustine's «make - up tutorial that is also subliminally a climate change awareness campaign, or a self - defence for women pep talk», excerpted from Danklands, Childs expanded on an interest in physical space mediated by the online, in a Google Maps still of the Melbourne Docklands where it's secret Control Pond Q is hidden from virtual view.

This is OK when you can completely control the replicability of a situation (eg changing the CO2 in a glass bottle) but rather more difficult in the case of the planet you are living on, when the inferences have to be made on the basis of both what happens in a glass bottle (physics) and what the observed behaviour of the unique subject (the planetary climate system) has been in terms of recent observations and its geological history.

«Our investigation found that during the fall of 2004 through early 2006, the NASA Headquarters Office of Public Affairs managed the topic of climate change in a manner that reduced, marginalized, or mischaracterized climate change science made available to the general public through those particular media over which the Office of Public Affairs had control (i.e., news releases and media access).

a) they don't believe the premise of man - made climate change: they don't think scientific data collected to date is adequate to prove conclusively that any type of man - made event can result in either the recent fluxuations in climate or the anticipated kinds of drastic climate change, therefore CO2 control would be ineffective at solving the problem b) they don't believe CO2 alone is responsible: they think other variables are as or more likely to be the catalysts or causes for the scientific data collected to date on climate change therefore CO2 control would be ineffective at solving the problem c) they believe government efforts to curb CO2 emissions will fail resulting in an unprecedented waste of money and worse economic conditions.

But it makes no sense to reject CO2 as a primary driver of climate change today because it looks, through the foggy glasses of time, like CO2 has not always completely controlled climate changes in the past.

Estimates made assuming no change in regulatory controls or population characteristics have ranged from 1,000 to 4,300 additional premature deaths nationally per year by 2050 from combined ozone and particle health effects.151, 9,152 There is less certainty in the responses of airborne particles to climate change than there is about the response of ozone.

Therefore my point (which I have made many time previously) is DO NOT EXPECT an x change in the climate from given x changes in items that control the climate.

The most recent report (PDF) on climate science from the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change made clear that we still don't know how sensitive the climate system is to CO2, nor what disruptive feedbacks may emerge as ecosystems dry out, ice caps disappear and permafrost melts — all of which potentially could accelerate warming beyond human cclimate science from the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change made clear that we still don't know how sensitive the climate system is to CO2, nor what disruptive feedbacks may emerge as ecosystems dry out, ice caps disappear and permafrost melts — all of which potentially could accelerate warming beyond human cClimate Change made clear that we still don't know how sensitive the climate system is to CO2, nor what disruptive feedbacks may emerge as ecosystems dry out, ice caps disappear and permafrost melts — all of which potentially could accelerate warming beyond human cclimate system is to CO2, nor what disruptive feedbacks may emerge as ecosystems dry out, ice caps disappear and permafrost melts — all of which potentially could accelerate warming beyond human control.

«Let's see some really meaningful action by the government to address environmental issues created by man - made climate change instead of repeatedly lying to us that they've got it all under control and could do even better if our pensioners, sick and unemployed would stop squeezing the public purse.»

The IPCC report says greenhouse gases need to be cut 70 % before 2050 to control climate change, and the job will become harder and more expensive unless the transformation is made within 15 years.

The advocates have expressed their displeasure with the economic results (IIRC you had it posted here about advocates wanting to change the future value to something unrealistic to make the window 100 to years compared to the 30 to 50 years in current analysis), and are proposing political solutions in the flavor of stopping CO2, not controlling the effects of climate change.

To see how well this relationship holds for the model's NAO in the absence of climate change, we make use of the 2200 - year coupled (CESM1) pre-industrial control simulation described in Sect. 2.1.

The CERN Cloud study suggests cosmic radiation (variation of which, of course, would depend on other variables — I suppose there is no end to this question unless you believe in a supernatural being that controls it all, and even then you'd have to ask why that supernatural being would choose to make changes in cosmic radiation to determine the independent variable, and of course, then you'd have to ask why that supernatural being was created, etc.) but offers no solid evidence that correlates changes in cosmic radiation to measures of change in our climate.

The religious zealot global warming folks don't understand that the climate is always changing and that government control and taxation makes no differences.

like the ubiquitous excuse that if all hell breaks loose with the storm of the day we can just blame climate change as a necessary new factor that makes things more out of control than before (so don't blame me on how I do my job)....

From there, a reporter can explain that errors were nonetheless made, which should remind the world of three things: that the exact timing and scale of certain impacts of climate change are subject to a lot of uncertainty; that some scientists will behave defensively, even to the point of negligence, when they feel threatened; and that all quality control - systems sometimes fail.

As discussed in my book, Environmentalism Gone Mad, «green energy» (basically wind and solar) and its supposed major selling point («controlling» climate change) has never made much economic or scientific sense.

Perhaps, like the final added voice that let others besides Horton hear the pleas from Whoville, our resistance in the PNW may be just the extra little bit that makes coal so expensive that a single new coal plant won't be built and that will be the change that prevents the climate from spinning totally out of control.

And you still haven't answered the question as to what is the ideal climate, how does it differ from today's climate, who determined the ideal climate, what factors were evaluated in making the determination, what evidence confirms that the controls on anthropogenic CO2 proposed by the climate experts would indeed establish and maintain the optimum climate, and whether the the political, economic, and social changes that would be required to do the controlling would on balance be less harmful than the effects of the postulated (but unsubstantiated) climate changes.

THe UK - based Scientific Alliance takes issue with claims of links between Atlantic hurricanes and so - called «man - made global warming» (aka climate change): «But no amount of moral blackmail will enable us to tune the climate to our liking when long term natural processes are underway, about which we understand very little and can not control.»

Rather, it was made as part of a speech delivered this week at the annual meeting of the American Meteorological Society, by Dr. Richard Jackson, a pediatrician and a professor at the Fielding School of Public Health at the University of California, Los Angeles (of note, Jackson has also held prominent posts at the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), which has just abruptly canceled a conference addressing the public health implications of climate change out of fear that the event would be problematic for the new administration).

And though the panelists never really delved deeply into the issue of how women's empowerment could combat climate change, that this was the case was mentioned throughout (perhaps since education acts as a population control, and leads to better decision making abilities in general).

He can't he's a disciple in the new religion of climate change that was only created to make those «greeners» rich because they control the hydrocarbon markets.