Sentences with phrase «not against climate action»

Not exact matches

Bill Hare, who leads a group of top climate scientists and economists at Berlin - based Climate Analytics who helped produce the UNEP gap report, said Geden's accusations «could not be more wrong» and lumped the researcher in with climate skeptics and other naysayers «who systematically downplay the risks of climate change and argue against action to reduce emissions on spurious and ill - founded grounds.climate scientists and economists at Berlin - based Climate Analytics who helped produce the UNEP gap report, said Geden's accusations «could not be more wrong» and lumped the researcher in with climate skeptics and other naysayers «who systematically downplay the risks of climate change and argue against action to reduce emissions on spurious and ill - founded grounds.Climate Analytics who helped produce the UNEP gap report, said Geden's accusations «could not be more wrong» and lumped the researcher in with climate skeptics and other naysayers «who systematically downplay the risks of climate change and argue against action to reduce emissions on spurious and ill - founded grounds.climate skeptics and other naysayers «who systematically downplay the risks of climate change and argue against action to reduce emissions on spurious and ill - founded grounds.climate change and argue against action to reduce emissions on spurious and ill - founded grounds.»

«She also serves on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, but again I have not seen clear signs of leadership on energy issues, other than a pattern of consistent votes in favor of fossil fuels and against taking action on climate change,» Squillace said.

«The Clean Air Act mandates you have to take action,» he said «The moral of that story is we would expect president - elect Trump to move against current climate policy but not make a lot of tangible headway immediately.»

Leading doctors are backing legal action against UK government ministers on the grounds that they have not fulfilled their commitments to cutting carbon emissions in line with the Climate Change Act of 2008 and the Paris Agreement objective of limiting warming to 1.5?

«The Climate Science Legal Defense Fund was established to make sure that these legal claims are not viewed as an action against one scientist or institution but as actions against the scientific endeavor as a whole.»

Those main conclusions are that climate is changing in ways unusual against the backdrop of natural variability; that human activities are responsible for most of this unusual change; that significant harm to human well - being is already occurring as a result; and that far larger --- perhaps catastrophic — damages will ensue if serious remedial action is not started soon.

To argue, or even suggest, that [human action, including alterations in landscapes and emissions of greenhouse gases] «can»» or even doesn't, or even «may not» affect climate is in essence to argue against the very basic of geophysics and chemistry itself.

UPDATE: CHEMTRAILS CONFIRMED: Climate Scientist Admits Jets Are «Dumping Aerosols» Original Post: Geoengineering Watch 4/1/2014: Four thousand Swedish Citizens file $ 60 million class Action suit against Swedish government for not responding to questions about covert geoengineering, aka Chemtrails.

«If we don't take immediate action against climate change, we are in grave danger of disruptive and devastating changes,» said Kim Carstensen, the Head of WWF Global Climate Initclimate change, we are in grave danger of disruptive and devastating changes,» said Kim Carstensen, the Head of WWF Global Climate InitClimate Initiative.

He urges the delegates to fight against the climate crisis not by talking, but through concrete actions.

Instead, Martha Rudolph, who is one of the leading health and environmental regulators in the state as director of environmental programs for the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, recommended «taking baby steps» on pushing climate action and cautioned that the City of Boulder's potential climate lawsuit against oil and gas developers might not be the best approach in pushing an environmental agenda.

It's also certainly to be expected that there are some interests who would not want to take action against climate change.

«Uncertainty» about whether or not something (very costly), which we do (in the «uncertain» attempt to change our climate from an «uncertain» model - generated threat) will have «uncertain» unintended negative consequences, which could be much more severe than the «uncertain» threat we are attempting to mitigate against in the first place, seems to ba a reasonable justification for NOT doing this mitigating actinot something (very costly), which we do (in the «uncertain» attempt to change our climate from an «uncertain» model - generated threat) will have «uncertain» unintended negative consequences, which could be much more severe than the «uncertain» threat we are attempting to mitigate against in the first place, seems to ba a reasonable justification for NOT doing this mitigating actiNOT doing this mitigating action.

Lewandowsky falsely linked climate skeptics to moon landing hoaxism, and free marketeers to rejection of beliefs they overwhelmingly endorsed, so I guess an enterprising lawyer could think about a class action civil suit for libel (I'm not sure if there's ever been a class action libel action), against the researchers and the journal.

Philip Shabecoff I think the time has come to bring charges of crimes against humanity against trump, his satraps, Exxon, all all the others in power who profess not to believe in climate change and who are blocking meaningful action to spare us and our posterity from the worst disasters that inevitably will come.

PARENTEAU: It's testing these theories which are very similar against a body of state law, in different states as you just mentioned, and so it's probing, it's trying to find a breakthrough case where you can find a state supreme court willing to make a really bold decision finding not only a right to a healthy environment, or a safe climate, stable climate, but also finding a duty on the part of the government to take real tangible action to address that.

No, I wouldn't have believed it either, till I learned via Lorrie Goldstein about the extraordinary criminal action brought in Canada by a bunch of eco-fascistic litigants against three climate skeptical organisations.

«Perhaps if they had spent more time and money diversifying their business rather than on lobbying against climate action and sowing the seeds of doubt about the science, they might not have joined the long (and ever growing) list of bankrupt global coal companies.»

Inasmuch as it is the IPCC brief and raison d'être to ascertain the impact and negative consequences of human - induced climate change and identify actions to mitigate against these, it is not at all surprising that IPCC would present a view that leans toward exaggerated negative impacts and consequences, in order to assure the continued need for its very existence.

While trade - offs are inevitable, science can help identify compatible water management actions that not only buffer against the worst effects of climate change, but meet ecosystem needs while satisfying human demands, says Joshua Viers

Climate change is real as I have often said and we should take strong action against it but these fires are certainly not a function of climate Climate change is real as I have often said and we should take strong action against it but these fires are certainly not a function of climate climate change.

Most of the new Republicans in the Senate deny the scientific consensus on man - made climate change, and are determined not to allow strong action against its main cause: the burning of fossil fuels.

This attitude towards uncertainty is not atypical: numerous news commentators have cited uncertainty about the severity of climate change in support of their stance against taking any mitigative action.

Given all that I've dug up on the origins of the «industry - corrupted skeptic climate scientists» accusation, I'd call it a can't - lose wager if you bet that the «e-mail message circulated at a U.S. climate research lab» which Myanna Lahsen referred to owes its «funded by the oil and coal industry» accusation against skeptic climate scientists to Gelbspan / Ozone Action.

In outspending the party machinery, the Koch network is hedging their bets against the fact that the public wants action on climate while providing a major incentive to candidates and congressional allies to not only hold the line on climate denial but hamper any actions or proposals coming out of the EPA or the White House.

They can just say, «even if climate change is a problem, we can't afford to take action against it,» and that might be enough to stall any and all action.

To be fair, Wheelan admits that the decision of those who agree that action should be taken against climate change «does not suggest certainty about the science of global warming.»

We're big fans of simple steps (and not just because they're easily caught on video), and encourage you to visit CoolMove.org to learn more about the actions you can take (and record) to do your part against climate change.

Jon wrote a very interesting paper in which he argued that even if the skeptic narratives are correct, the old narratives I was telling wasn't an argument against climate action.

Not only that, according to the wider community of carbon experts and as noted in the Stern Review (2006), forest sequestration is recognized as a necessary component of the actions we must take against climate change.

Looking around the world, the greatest action being taken against climate change is not about altruism or in the name of equity.

This makes the arguments against taking actions against climate change not just wrong, but dangerous,» Dr. Gleick said in his written testimony.

In fact, notwithstanding that it is one of the wealthiest countries in the world, and one of the top five per - capita polluters, Canada says it won't lift a finger against climate change unless the big emitters in the developing world first commit to taking action.

By Order dated November 30, 2016, the plaintiff was granted leave to discontinue against Proheat Canada, Proheat Mechanical Systems Inc. and Espar Climate Control Systems as these entities are not proper defendants to the action.