Sentences with phrase «even believe in climate change»

«With the Trump administration in place, people who don't necessarily even believe in climate change, I'm really worried whether the money will even be there,» said Councilman Donovan Richards, a Democrat whose district includes parts of Rockaway.

Not exact matches

«Even if you don't believe in climate change, the North American continent historically has had frequent and severe droughts,» Lall said.

«You don't even need to believe in climate change and carbon and all that stuff,» says Keller, who supports a mandatory 10 - to 15 - year phaseout of fossil - fuel imports.

«A full reading of Bernstein's email reveals an important point ---- his assertion that, in the 1980s, we never denied the possible role of human activity as a cause for climate change, and he further makes clear that, at that point in time, there was a great deal of uncertainty and lack of understanding of climate change, even among leading scientists and experts,» said Keil, adding that today, Exxon «believes the risk of climate change is clear, and warrants action.»

Although it will be incredibly difficult to ever match his contributions on the pitch, it's vitally important for a former club legend, like Henry, to publicly address his concerns regarding the direction of this club... regardless of those who still feel that Henry has some sort of agenda due to the backlash he received following earlier comments he made on air regarding Arsenal, he has an intimate understanding of the game, he knows the fans are being hosed and he feels some sense of obligation, both professionally and personally, to tell it like he sees it... much like I've continually expressed over the last couple months, this team isn't evolving under this current ownership / management team... instead we are currently experiencing a «stagnant» phase in our club's storied history... a fact that can't be hidden by simply changing the formation or bringing in one or two individuals... this team needs fundamental change in the way it conducts business both on and off the pitch or it will continue to slowly devolve into a second tier club... regardless of the euphoria surrounding our escape act on Friday evening, as it stands, this club is more likely to be fighting for a Europa League spot for the foreseeable future than a top 4 finish... we can't hope for the failures of others to secure our place in the top 4, we need to be the manufacturers of our own success by doing whatever is necessary to evolve as an organization... if Wenger, Gazidis and Kroenke can't take the necessary steps following the debacle they manufactured last season, their removal is imperative for our future success... unfortunately, I strongly believe that either they don't know how to proceed in the present economic climate or they are unwilling to do whatever it takes to turn this ship around... just look at the current state of our squad, none of our world class players are under contract beyond this season, we have a ridiculous wage bill considering the results, we can't sell our deadwood because we've mismanaged our personnel decisions and contractual obligations, we haven't properly cultivated our younger talent and we might have become one of the worst clubs ever when it comes to way we handle our transfer business, which under Dein was one of our greatest assets... it's time to get things right!!!

Those numbers are even higher when only those who believe in climate change are asked.

Still, he believes there's room for the candidates to talk in positive terms about climate change, even if it's driven by strategies of self - promotion.

Too many of the citizens of the US and Britain still believe there is substantive scientific uncertainty about climate change — even as George Bush lives in a «green,» off - grid home and now says climate change is real.

Too many of the citizens of the US and Britain still believe there is substantive scientific uncertainty about climate change — even as George Bush lives in a «green,» off - grid home and now says climate change is real.

When I talk to people about climate change (and the one time that I gave a talk on climate change at a physics colloquium), I always like to emphasize the fact that I am a PhD physicist who has spent considerable time reading up on the issue, including many of the actual papers in the peer - reviewed journals, but even with that background I still am not arrogant enough to believe that this qualifies me to have a truly independent opinion on the subject.

As numerous polls have shown, most Americans not only believe in, but want to help fight climate change — even in dark financial times.

Most likely we are already committed to at least some of these climate changes, and even if the models are wrong and these increased numbers of intense hurricanes fail to emerge in the future, Knutson and his colleagues believe that society still needs to work harder at minimizing the damage hurricanes cause.

These organizations, which include the Heartland Institute — a group that once compared those who believe in climate change with the Unabomber — have undermined public confidence in climate science so much that scientists have to defend even their most fundamental findings.

Even worse, it's all for nothing — even if carbon dioxide plays a bigger role in climate change than many scientists believe it dEven worse, it's all for nothing — even if carbon dioxide plays a bigger role in climate change than many scientists believe it deven if carbon dioxide plays a bigger role in climate change than many scientists believe it does.

In spite of increasing evidence that Anthropogenic Climate Change adversely affects Global Warming, there are many (especially Americans) who remain sceptical; with even some believing it to be a hoax

As leaders of the industrialized world continue to squabble at home over how to address the threat of climate change — and even as they battle internal factions who don't believe the science of climate change — one group of leaders has come out in favor of swift, comprehensive action to prevent global catastrophe.

Pruitt doesn't believe that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is causing climate change, even though 99 percent of scientists agree that it is.

However, I do not believe that the evidence shows the climate is so easily perturbed by small changes in atmospheric gasses or even particulates.

Apparently, even among those most disposed to «believe in» human - caused climate change, there are a substantial number of people who think «climate scientists» aren't being entirely straight with them...

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.

Yet this tag doesn't just apply to those who assert the whole concept is a fraud — such as President Trump, who has suggested it might be a ploy by the Chinese to hamstring the U.S. economy — but even to scholars like Danish author Bjorn Lomborg, who believes in climate change but thinks its impact is being deliberately exaggerated to scare the public into backing extreme and ineffective measures.

Now, I don't believe that anthropogenic climate change is an issue of first - order importance since its effects on human life even in the worst - case scenarios are mediated by severe poverty, but suppose that it was and the environmental Cassandra's were right.

There's also the question of whether the current White House is up for big, wonky crossover ideas — especially when recent polling suggests that only a small fraction of Trump voters even believe in human - caused climate change.

The idea that public conflict over climate change persists because, even after years and years of «consensus messaging» (including a $ 300 million social - marketing campaign by Al Gore's «Alliance for Climate Protection»), ordinary Americans still just «haven't heard» yet that an overwhelming majority climate scientists believe in AGW is patently climate change persists because, even after years and years of «consensus messaging» (including a $ 300 million social - marketing campaign by Al Gore's «Alliance for Climate Protection»), ordinary Americans still just «haven't heard» yet that an overwhelming majority climate scientists believe in AGW is patently Climate Protection»), ordinary Americans still just «haven't heard» yet that an overwhelming majority climate scientists believe in AGW is patently climate scientists believe in AGW is patently absurd.

They believe that it is a sin for man to modify the earth at all, and that changing the climate in any way is wrong, even if man is not hurt substantially by this change.

Even in the face of Hurricane Sandy and more severe firestorms, the rapid loss of species, massive deforestation, and the melting glaciers and poles, most people still don't take climate change seriously enough to believe that these emergent realities ought to change human behavior.

The reasons for that are many: the timid language of scientific probabilities, which the climatologist James Hansen once called «scientific reticence» in a paper chastising scientists for editing their own observations so conscientiously that they failed to communicate how dire the threat really was; the fact that the country is dominated by a group of technocrats who believe any problem can be solved and an opposing culture that doesn't even see warming as a problem worth addressing; the way that climate denialism has made scientists even more cautious in offering speculative warnings; the simple speed of change and, also, its slowness, such that we are only seeing effects now of warming from decades past; our uncertainty about uncertainty, which the climate writer Naomi Oreskes in particular has suggested stops us from preparing as though anything worse than a median outcome were even possible; the way we assume climate change will hit hardest elsewhere, not everywhere; the smallness (two degrees) and largeness (1.8 trillion tons) and abstractness (400 parts per million) of the numbers; the discomfort of considering a problem that is very difficult, if not impossible, to solve; the altogether incomprehensible scale of that problem, which amounts to the prospect of our own annihilation; simple fear.

And since climate is changing much faster than anticipated even a few years ago, we believe the world needs to halt the rise in CO2 levels not at 500 ppm in 2054 but at 400 ppm in 2020.

Cook doesn't even pretend to know how many climate scientists believe in «significant risks associated with climate change.»

Until we do, it is totally premature to talk about any proposals to reduce human CO2 emissions in order to «change our climate», as there is no valid scientific reason to do so or to even believe that we can.

ECO believes that with increasing impacts of climate change around the world, such as the devastating floods in Pakistan earlier this year, it is undeniable that all countries are now vulnerable, even developed countries.

The folks that say «Climate - caused Holocene Mass Extinction «60 times each morning — the folks that religiously believe flying is the most stupid thing a man can do and that personally even attribute developing a grey beard to climate change: Sometimes other (in) sustainability issues worry uClimate - caused Holocene Mass Extinction «60 times each morning — the folks that religiously believe flying is the most stupid thing a man can do and that personally even attribute developing a grey beard to climate change: Sometimes other (in) sustainability issues worry uclimate change: Sometimes other (in) sustainability issues worry us more.

The idea that public conflict over climate change persists because, even after years and years of «messaging» (including a $ 300 million social - marketing campaign by Al Gore's «Alliance for Climate Protection»), ordinary Americans still just «haven't heard» yet that an overwhelming majority climate scientists believe in AGW is climate change persists because, even after years and years of «messaging» (including a $ 300 million social - marketing campaign by Al Gore's «Alliance for Climate Protection»), ordinary Americans still just «haven't heard» yet that an overwhelming majority climate scientists believe in AGW is Climate Protection»), ordinary Americans still just «haven't heard» yet that an overwhelming majority climate scientists believe in AGW is climate scientists believe in AGW is absurd.

RealClimate is wonderful, and an excellent source of reliable information.As I've said before, methane is an extremely dangerous component to global warming.Comment # 20 is correct.There is a sharp melting point to frozen methane.A huge increase in the release of methane could happen within the next 50 years.At what point in the Earth's temperature rise and the rise of co2 would a huge methane melt occur?No one has answered that definitive issue.If I ask you all at what point would huge amounts of extra methane start melting, i.e at what temperature rise of the ocean near the Artic methane ice deposits would the methane melt, or at what point in the rise of co2 concentrations in the atmosphere would the methane melt, I believe that no one could currently tell me the actual answer as to where the sharp melting point exists.Of course, once that tipping point has been reached, and billions of tons of methane outgass from what had been locked stores of methane, locked away for an eternity, it is exactly the same as the burning of stored fossil fuels which have been stored for an eternity as well.And even though methane does not have as long a life as co2, while it is around in the air it can cause other tipping points, i.e. permafrost melting, to arrive much sooner.I will reiterate what I've said before on this and other sites.Methane is a hugely underreported, underestimated risk.How about RealClimate attempts to model exactly what would happen to other tipping points, such as the melting permafrost, if indeed a huge increase in the melting of the methal hydrate ice WERE to occur within the next 50 years.My amateur guess is that the huge, albeit temporary, increase in methane over even three or four decades might push other relevent tipping points to arrive much, much, sooner than they normally would, thereby vastly incresing negative feedback mechanisms.We KNOW that quick, huge, changes occured in the Earth's climate in the past.See other relevent posts in the past from Realclimate.Climate often does not change slowly, but undergoes huge, quick, changes periodically, due to negative feedbacks accumulating, and tipping the climate to a quick change.Why should the danger from huge potential methane releases be vievwed with any less trepidation?