Sentences with phrase «n't deal with global warming»

In it they argued that the politics that dealt with acid rain and smog can't deal with global warming.

If you can not deal with climate change under capitalism, you certainly can not deal with global warming, full stop.

Not exact matches

He and Gingrich don't disagree on evolution and manmade global warming probably happening, but the ex-governor does have a firmer grasp on what's required to deal with the economic crisis of our time.

At the same time, nation states are slowly recognizing their interdependence and that great issues, such as global warming, poverty, drug abuse and international terrorism can not be dealt with by one country on its own.

Yesterday, the Conservatives criticised the government's plans to deal with global warming, arguing that cutting carbon emissions by 60 per cent by 2050, as is proposed in the new climate change bill, was not enough.

«That's a strategy we really didn't know birds could do, and that could potentially help them deal with global warming,» she adds.

But he is convinced that we are not thinking the problem through correctly and are, in fact, lost in a kind of green fog about how best to deal with global warming and other major environmental threats.

Although it is not a specialized language tool — its Web site deals more with projects on global warming, natural disasters, weather, water, and digital storytelling — it does help connect thousands of classrooms in 200 countries.

But all kidding aside, this is an article about perceptions and willingness to deal with a long - term issues, not a verification or denial of global warming.

The United States and our friends in Europe can not alone deal with the threat of global warming.

There are then at least three independent lines of evidence that confirm we are not dealing with a slowdown in the global warming trend, but rather with progressive global warming with superimposed natural variability:

I often hear nuclear advocates proclaiming that «nuclear is THE solution to global warming» and that «no one can be serious about dealing with global warming if they don't support expanded use of nuclear power» but I have never heard any nuclear advocate lay out a plan showing how many nuclear power plants would have to be built in what period of time to have a significant impact on GHG emissions.

That's why I don't want to have to deal with global warming».

Global warming, on the other hand, is far less of an immediate threat, many of its effects can not be reversed no matter what we do, the cost of attempting such a reversal could destroy the economies of emerging nations and make their development impossible — and it is a slow moving threat, that governments can plan to deal with over time.

* global warming is not significantly affected by human activity but governments expend resources and disrupt social order and economies to reduce human impact but make no provisions for dealing with the effects of warming.

* The government insists that dealing with global warming is way down the priority list and since our economy is booming because of mineral exports (including heaps of coal don't you know) we should concentrate on that and not get too worried about the water situation.

Journalists dealing with global warming and similar issues would do well to focus on the points of deep consensus, generate stories containing voices that illuminate instead of confuse, convey the complex without putting readers (or editors) to sleep, and cast science in its role as a signpost pointing toward possible futures, not as a font of crystalline answers.

Mark Bowen, the author of «Censoring Science: Inside the Political Attack on Dr. James Hansen and the Truth About Global Warming» (Fresh Air interview) said he was initially skeptical about the investigation, but was pleasantly surprised that it captured not only the basic violations of the public trust, but also dealt with «the subtler aspects of censorship — the delaying of information, the sorts of intimidation that cause self censorship.»

Apparently being «indifferent,» synonymous with «callous» and «uncaring,» is indistinguishable from not wanting to «deal with global warming» because you simply do not accept CAGW or even AGW and / or don't accept there are any consequences that need to be immediately dealt with.

Real - American engineers deal with the realities of the laws of physics; understanding it and using it to advantage our nation and it's people... and, not to the advantage of politicians waging a global warming scam to line their pockets and enslave the human race.

I refer, not to any warming of the planet that may or may not be occurring, but to the world's apparently serious and broadly shared belief in dangerous, man - made global warming and of equally serious attempts to implement policies of enforced decarbonisation to deal with it.

Distorting subsidies not only do damage economic now, they strangle any possibility of dealing logically with new challenges like resource depletion and global warming.

Scientists already feel that the second part of the IPCC report, which addresses the consequences of global warming, is not as sound as the first part, which deals with the underlying physical factors contributing to climate change.

But although i've thrown some «myths» on the table, why can't you agree with me that global warming is not a big deal and positive in alot of aspects.

I hope you realize how stupid the supposition that coral bleaching doesn't happen without global warming and that corals can deal with long and short term variations, but not a modest trend is.

And as suspected, climate campaigners Greenpeace are present, while actual scientific experts are thin on the ground: not one attendee deals with attribution science, the physics of global warming.

Older Germans and French, not young people, are the most supportive of rich countries taking the greatest responsibility in dealing with global warming.

Others discussed how to deal with skeptics, some displaying a hostility to contrarians that seemed surprising to people who haven't followed the growing nastiness of the fight against global - warming science, which has come to resemble the fights over abortion and evolution.

It will not be possible to solve global warming without dealing with the dramatic global and local inequalities in carbon emissions and the wealth created from them.

Once such an IPCC exposition of the assumptions, complications and uncertainties of climate models was constructed and made public, it would immediately have to lead, in my view, to more questions from the informed public such as what does calculating a mean global temperature change mean to individuals who have to deal with local conditions and not a global average and what are the assumptions, complications and uncertainties that the models contain when it comes to determining the detrimental and beneficial effects of a «global» warming in localized areas of the globe.

Klein argues that unregulated corporations and elected politicians can not do what is necessary to deal with global warming.

The main reason is that it includes not climate scientists who research how to deal with «man made global warming» assuming that it is a fact, exactly like the IPCC does.

It's been a great help for me when dealing with so - called Global Warming Skeptics... But I found it really doesn't matter how many proofs you show these people, nothing ever changes.

You can disagree with me all you like on whether or not you think global warming is man made; on how much we should spend to deal with it; on whether mankind is a cancer on the earth or a force for good; on any number of issues.

Reflecting on the birth of a politics capable of dealing with global warming, Bill McKibben, the author of the seminal 1989 book The End of Nature, wrote, «If it has success, it won't be environmentalism anymore.

I would note that because the issue of politics is a large one on the topic, a great deal of scientists (addressed with the drama effect discussion a little) might studiously avoid quantification, or even mentioning «global warming» or «global climate change» so as not to get dragged into defending their paper on a political, rather than scientific basis.

«The Chinese are not worried that dealing with global warming will lock them out of economic growth in the 21st century — the Chinese know that dealing with global warming is THE key to economic growth in the 21st century.»

We wrote a book with the intention of laying out the broad philosophical outlines for a different kind of politics that can address the things that we have to do and address not only global warming but the other large issues that we have to deal with in this new century.

Yet even then they failed to answer your question, since I see quite a few names there that have publicly stated that global warming is real (even if they can't deal with the cause).

Even if most climate scientists agree on the anthropogenic causes of global warming, that doesn't imply that the best way to deal with the problem is through drastic cuts in greenhouse emissions.

Perhaps we're saying the same thing in opposite ways, but it seems to me that knowing that 95 % of a catastrophe is not attributable to global warming is valuable because it focuses attention on the other, more important, root causes and ways to deal with them.

Having just seen the Carter op - ed, I note that he doesn't claim that there is no climate change, merely no global warming, and then he warns of global cooling and calls for action to deal with that problem.

This doesn't seem very likely, but it would be impossible if both global warming and peak oil aren't dealt with.

If you can not deal with climate change under capitalism, you certainlcannot deal with global warming, full stop.

Gregory Willits, an avowed global warming worrier, recently wrote in a December Orlando Sentinel piece that «We are not capable of addressing climate change» (meaning we can't stop it), so «Let's accept climate change and deal with it in a big way.»

WASHINGTON — U.S. automakers and a top union official pledged Wednesday to work with Congress to find new ways of dealing with global warming but declared their industry could not bear the burden alone.