Sentences with phrase «of dangerous climate»

The current state of affairs looks ever more scandalous when one realizes that the computer - model - generated predictions of dangerous climate consequences have failed the test of time.

The shame is that this win has come too late to save us from some degree of dangerous climate change.

It is hoped that COP21 will produce a new global agreement on climate change, aimed at reducing global greenhouse gas emissions and thus avoiding the threat of dangerous climate change.

The particular functional form of the acceleration is not well constrained yet, but a faster than exponetial increase is not ruled out and would put us in the regime of dangerous climate change much sooner than other projections might.

«There is no evidence yet» of dangerous climate change, the National Academy of Sciences declared in 1991.

For its next report the IPCC revised its procedures, stung by criticism from people who denied any prospect of dangerous climate change.

I agree, both on your analogy and on the real - world example of dealing with the risk of dangerous climate change.

Murdoch cited as his motivation evidence of dangerous climate changes, employee input and the positive experience at News Corp. - controlled U.K. satellite TV provider BSkyB, which already is carbon neutral.

To avoid, or at least reduce, the risk of dangerous climate change with impacts such as these, it is necessary to:

Again, all of your social considerations go right out the window when we are talking about culpability for taking us over the threshold of dangerous climate change.

While a host of dangerous climate change impacts have already begun to cause death and destruction and to exact a toll on human populations across the globe — a fact that Mr. Tillerson has been unwilling to acknowledge — there is no doubt that it is our children, their children, and future generations that will bear the brunt of suffering as a result of our increasingly climate - disrupted world.

«An alliance of pro-carbon sceptics and fundamentalists is retarding 11th hour attempts at mitigation of dangerous climate change,» according to Andrew Glikson from the Australian National University.

It aims to provide independent and authoritative evidence on the relationship between actions which can strengthen economic performance and those which reduce the risk of dangerous climate change.

The benefits of an intensified energy quest would go far beyond cutting the risks of dangerous climate change, said Roger H. Bezdek, an economist at Management Information Systems, a consulting group.

... surely an important difference this time is that it is the scientific consensus... is saying quite categorically that if we wait until utterly definitive evidence emerges of dangerous climate change it will be too late to do anything about it.

However, surely an important difference this time is that it is the scientific consensus that is warning us of the dangers of continuing emissions of carbon dioxide, and that this consensus is saying quite categorically that if we wait until utterly definitive evidence emerges of dangerous climate change it will be too late to do anything about it.

But worst of all is your flippant remark «those suffering as a result of dangerous climate change» (i.e. nobody)» What about the people suffering from increased droughts, or floods, or sea - level rises?

Kumi Naidoo, director of Greenpeace International, said that «The Polish government has done its best to turn these talks into a showcase for the coal industry», and that «backsliding by Japan, Australia and Canada» was a «slap in the face to those suffering as a result of dangerous climate change» (i.e. nobody).

Even if we think the danger of climate change to be unlikely — what kind of risk assessment would say that even a small chance of dangerous climate change would not merit such an expenditure?

In November of 2006, Dr. Paul Baer, EcoEquity's Research Director, working together with Dr Michael Mastrandrea, published High Stakes: Designing emissions pathways to reduce the risk of dangerous climate change.

I suspect that may be why my questions are being avoided by the believers of dangerous climate change and the advocates of carbon pricing policies.

Proper risk management therefore mandates that we must take action to mitigate the threat of dangerous climate change.

Some countries are clearly not serious about our common endeavor to address the threat of dangerous climate change.

That is, it is not sufficient to simply examine what happened in Cancun without seeing Cancun in the context of the twenty - year negotiating history whose goal has been the prevention of dangerous climate change and the harms that each year of delay in agreeing to a global deal exacerbate.

The Met Office has since released yet another analysis — Risks of Dangerous Climate Change.

The resulting compromise safeguards the vested interests of global dependency on fossil sources of energy, while constraining the capacity of the international community to take any effective action to deal with the threat of dangerous climate change.»

This says that it is at least arguable that investing in fossil fuels could be said to be irreconcilable with the intentions behind charities concerned with the environment, health, poverty reduction, and «the consequences of dangerous climate change».

Which is why, if we don't change direction, and radically, we'll soon experience the sharpening realities of dangerous climate change.

«But these liquid fuels emit even more carbon dioxide than oil, so the end of oil can mean an increase in coal and even more carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere, and even more rapid onset of dangerous climate change.»

First there is a procedural similarity between CDR and SRM: both are deliberate interventions to reduce the likelihood and extent of dangerous climate change undertaken after the greenhouse gases expected to drive dangerous change have been released.

Amongst climate scientists and advocates of climate policy, a growing recognition is taking hold that the current trajectory of global emissions will almost certainly lead us to a world of dangerous climate change impacts.

On the one hand you have something that is superficially simple, certain and easy for the public and journalists and politicians to understand («our carbon dioxide emissions are definitely the cause of dangerous climate change and reducing them will definitely solve the problem») and on the other hand something that is complex, nuanced, uncertain and...»

People don't want to «solve» dangerous climate change because they do not see, do not experience, any evidence of dangerous climate change.

Our elected representatives are choosing to allow corporations to put us all at greater risk of dangerous climate impacts every time they approve new climate - damaging projects, like new coal, oil, or gas projects.

You may well feel that there is not a quality of science to support non-belief in evolution that is similar in quality to the science that supports non-belief that ACO2 poses a risk of dangerous climate change, but many people who don't «believe» in evolution feel their viewpoint is absolutely supported by «quality» science.

«You may well feel that there is not a quality of science to support non-belief in evolution that is similar in quality to the science that supports non-belief that ACO2 poses a risk of dangerous climate change...»

The threat of dangerous climate change fits perfectly into this scenario and becomes a buzz word for them to include in their overall defense narrative.

«We need to stop debating the existence of tipping points in the Arctic and start managing the reality of dangerous climate change.

In our model this threshold is below 2 °C, a threshold often used by policy makers in their definition of dangerous climate change27, although the quantitative nature of our results carries significant uncertainty.

That doesn't obviate the need to curb such emissions and the prospect of dangerous climate warming in the short run, Dr. Crowley said.

The 1993 tax was pursued mainly as a source of revenue to cut the deficit, not a means of reducing American dependence on foreign oil and cutting risks of dangerous climate change.

With an 80 % reduction in GHGs by 2050 we have a 50 % chance of dangerous climate change or runaway global warming.

GHG - reducing technologies with carbon trading and carbon taxes can accelerate decarbonisation, reduce the risks of dangerous climate change, and contribute to economic development and human well being.

The mid range warmings will tip well into the realm of dangerous climate change, and the upper range; well it is pretty much game over for the world as we know it.

The smallest warming / sea level rise in TAR figure 5 will place a wide range of human and natural systems under very considerable pressure (and based on estimates of the melt - down point for greenland place us teetering on the edge of dangerous climate change).

These questions would not be so serious, except that the paper is to appear in SCIENCE and thus will be taken as evidence against the prospect of dangerous climate change.

With it the countries of the world have recognised that they all have to work together to tackle the shared problem of dangerous climate change caused by human activities.

The Paris agreement will help reduce the chances of dangerous climate change — though by exactly how much is hard to quantify.

Every reduction in emissions contributes to the prevention of dangerous climate change.

Implementing key policies and investments in those three systems — from phasing out fossil fuels to stopping deforestation to ramping up energy efficiency — could deliver at least half of the emissions cuts needed by 2030 to lower the risk of dangerous climate change, said Jeremy Oppenheim, the report's program director.