Sentences with phrase «entire issue of climate»

-LSB-...] a famous quote from CRU's Phil Jones to Warwick Hughes that pretty much sums up the entire issue of climate -LSB-...]

Not exact matches

The entire climate was positive and the attitudes of the presenters to not only want to make us aware of the issues, but to suggest that the answers / solutions are within.»

«They also speak to larger issues facing the entire world, including failing infrastructures, climate change, natural disasters, and the tensions between the needs of individuals and small communities on the one hand and national or international social policies on the other.

The entire issue is devoted to the topic of climate change science and policy options.

I didn't yet watch the entire session, but I'm wondering if anyone made a case regarding the lack of any long term worsening trend in climate change related issues (sea level rise, glacier melt, tropical systems, floods, extreme drought, tornadoes, etc) comparing pre 1950 (the consensus view of the birth of any potentially observable human footprint on GW) to post 1950?

The answer may lie in Plan B — reframing the entire climate issue as one of national decision - making and self - interest, rather than global treaty - writing.

In short: It's not fair to count an organization's entire spending (much less its entire income) when measuring the size of its effort on the climate change issue.

Beyond the present danger, scientists warn that — unless the issue of climate change is addressed — we could see the breakup of larger ice shelves, which could have a destabilizing effect on the entire region and possibly the world.

One is the issue of global carbon budgets for the entire world needed to prevent dangerous climate change.

What these people haven't yet grasped is that this line of argument — that there is absolutely no doubt what impacts a changing climate will bring and they are all terrible bad impacts — has likely driven the highest number of people questioning the entire field than any other single issue.

It's backward strategically The entire assessment issue of Climate Change is about a risk range — what the likely range of ultimate response is, and what general probabilities are of each.

From my experience watching the climate science issue advance over the years, what I continually see is people, like yourself who have clear expertise in a specific area, believing that they understand the entire breadth of the climate change issue when, in actuality, they understand very little of the other broader elements of the global climate system that come into play.

When an entire issue has every appearance of looking like it's steered by emotionally - driven figurative lynch mobs whose goal is to achieve «climate justice» by any means possible, including negating facts from critics through character assassination, you have one very serious problem on your hands.

The entire climate change issue has been fabricated on the basis of these models through the introduction of a CO2 forcing parameter that has no physical basis and was fraudulently created for the sole purpose of relating CO2 emissions to global temperature when no such relationship possibly existed.

IMO it's not particularly sensible to frame the entire issue in terms of the small chance of «climate catastrophe» because then we risk having the rug abruptly pulled out from under our policies when someone proves that the catastrophe is less likely than was previously thought: — RRB - Also, arguing over the precise threshold probability for particular outcomes risks turning into angels - on - pins stuff.

This is why sceptics are vilified — almost the entire political establishment, in its total and utter cowardice, has closed ranks in defence of itself, on the issue of climate change.

Business Green reports that the entire last episode of Blue Planet II is dedicated to humanity's impact on the oceans, exploring a myriad of issues including climate change, plastics pollution, overfishing and even noise pollution too.

Probably the most disappointing article in the entire issue is by one of the country's leading climate experts, «The worst - case scenario: Stephen Schneider explores what a world with 1,000 parts per million of CO2 in its atmosphere might look like.»

But then, we could ask if people who genuinely fit the old definition of journalists — such as those seen on the PBS Newshour — are committing acts of journalism when they don't report half the story of global warming, and can't answer the direct question of why they've apparently excluded skeptic climate scientists» lengthy and detailed viewpoints from their program for the entire 20 year time their news outlet has been discussing the issue.

The most unforgiveable unethical behavior surrounding the entire issue of «hiding the decline» and similar biases in published research, is when climate change scientists who know about their — «cherry picking the data», — biased and selective presentation of all data pertinent to published paper conclusions, and — outright errors in their data and peer - reviewed papers, don't speak out loudly in the media outlets that have misled the general public in reporting about their flawed, misleading research, as well as, associated journals and professional societies, to stop politicians and government regulators from using their flawed and misleading research results to pass laws and regulations that have severe effects on the prosperity and quality of life of their fellow citizens of the US and the world.