Not exact matches
But merely enumerating the strength of consensus around the
fact that humans cause
climate change is largely irrelevant to the more
important business of deciding what to do
about it.
Hulme also suggested that, in reference to a paper by John Cook, «merely enumerating the strength of consensus around the
fact that humans cause
climate change is largely irrelevant to the more
important business of deciding what to do
about it.»
from Mann et al: Esoteric and academic arguments
about the response of the atmosphere to a doubling of CO2 may be interesting for those steeped in the peer - reviewed literature, but for the public and policy makers the
important and unfortunate
fact is that
climate change is continuing unabated.
Esoteric and academic arguments
about the response of the atmosphere to a doubling of CO2 may be interesting for those steeped in the peer - reviewed literature, but for the public and policy makers the
important and unfortunate
fact is that
climate change is continuing unabated.
Climate change is a scientific issue — it's all
about physics, and if we just explain the
facts to people, they'll understand it is
important and take action, right?