Sentences with phrase «of doing something about global warming»

Given that we only have one chance to get this right before it's too late, our top priority must be to make sure that we do not settle prematurely and sign a weak bill into law in the name of doing something about global warming.

From the standpoint of doing something about global warming, the uncertainties are irrelevant unless we don't care what kind of world we leave for future generations - of humans and polar bears.

Not exact matches

Biello: What I was surprised by in my own kind of interviews and interactions with people was, how aware everybody I spoke to, from people in the most remote villages to, you know, sophisticated urbanites, were aware of global warming and had a fairly progressive view of action that needed to be taken to do something about that now.

Nearly 40 percent of Americans are part of categories called the «alarmed» or «concerned,» meaning they are more likely to say global warming is man - made and are motivated to do something about it.

But, noted Nancy Knowlton of the Smithsonian Institution National Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C., «If we do want to have reefs around by 2050, we are going to have to do something about carbon dioxide» to slow global warming and acidification.

But taken as a whole I accept the idea of anthropogenic global warming and that we need to do something about relatively soon.

If global warming is only caused by burning of fossil fuels then it may be possible for humans to do something about global warming.

It's a review of a University of Minnesota social sciences seminar on «how to get the world to stop talking and do something about global warming.»

After seven years, in the White House, is it possible Republicans are finally considering doing something right about the serious consequences of human - induced global warming and climate change in order to salvage the 2008 Presidential and Congressional elections?

I used to be hoping that people would somehow get together under the general umbrella of «we've got to start doing something about the human causes of global warming.»

I'll give an example because a) I want to show the traditional use of «heat and light» and some other points I've made but b) this page too has slipped in a fake fisics meme, much as a lot of papers do giving real research results which then slip in something about «global warming» or carbon dioxide» to justify their grant..

Since the proportions in Australia deeply concerned about the possibly catastrophic effects of anthropogenic global warming (however much warming there actually is) are probably about the same as in the USA, how is it that President Trump can ignore something in his country that no one in ours seems to be able to do?

That fact is why I think so many people cleave to the CO2 theory of global warming, we can do something about that.

I find the global warming arguments extremely compelling, but I notice something peculiar — that we seem to forget that long before «AGW» became a common topic, we saw many causes for alarm over the downside of doing so little to hedge our bets about energy sources, and back then we had little concept of the potential of China, e.g., to match and raise our own carbon fuel appetite.

Thus as Ding et al. (2011) concluded, if a larger percentage of people realized that there is a scientific consensus on the issue amongst the group they trust most on the subject, more people would believe that humans are causing global warming, and more people would demand that we do something about it.

The Mayor of New York Michael Bloomberg, a political independent, just endorsed President Obama for re-election because Bloomberg thinks Obama will do something about global warming.

Since that time three or four years ago, there has been no comfortable way for the scientific community to raise the spectre of serious uncertainty about the forecasts of climatic disaster... It can no longer escape prime responsibility if it should turn out in the end that doing something in the name of mitigation of global warming is the costliest scientific mistake ever visited on humanity.

The trap was set in the late 1970s or thereabouts when the environmental movement first realised that doing something about global warming would play to quite a number of its social agendas.

In this era of global warming, it is inoperative, because the whole point of controlling greenhouse - gas emissions is to do something about the weather.

Senator Kaine claims that 70 % of Virginians agree with the «scientific consensus» that catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is real and that «it is urgent that we do something about it.»

Rather, its roots lie in a misanthropic agenda engineered by the environmental movement in the mid 1970's, who realised that doing something about «global warming» would play to quite a number of the Lefts social agendas.

A misanthropic agenda engineered by the environmental movement in the mid 1970's, who realised that doing something about «global warming» would play to quite a number of its social agendas.

In short, that treatise provided the proverbial under - the - hood look at the inner workings of today's state - of - the - art climate models that provide the basis for the belief that global warming is a problem and that something must be done about it.

He isn't a climate - change denier; he says he was «on the side of those who believed in anthropogenic global warming and who believed something ought to be done about it».

The Cancun global warming and wealth redistribution summit concluded last week, with little to show for two weeks of talking in 5 - star hotels and restaurants, other than vague promises that countries will try to do something meaningful about the «threat» of «dangerous» climate change.

We often hear the claim that the science of climate change is settled, that there is general agreement that humans have been causing most of the recent warming trend, and that it will all end in global disaster unless we «do something about it».

As one person put it, «the cheerleaders for doing something about global warming seem to be largely the cheerleaders for many causes of which I disapprove».

«This is dead - serious business,» wrote climate activist and 350.org founder Bill McKibben in his initial «call to arms» back in May, «a signal moment in the gathering fight of human beings to do something about global warming before it's too late to do anything but watch.»

«When it comes down to doing something about global warming, it quickly turns out to be kind of expensive and certain people... would look out and say, «Wow, global warming, that's going to be nice.

If human CO2 does actually have something to due with increasing the rate of global warming, whatever scientific evidence you wish to choose shows that the puny amount we add, (less GHG than what termites emit), not only doesn't amount to anything worth worrying about at all — it is so small that it is IMPOSSIBLE to have an effect worth worrying about.

But opposition to doing something about anthropogenic global warming comes largely (although not entirely) from two different sources: fossil fuel interests and the ideology of libertarianism.

In an email to the Guardian he says: «Climate change is no longer something we can aim to do something about in a few decades» time, and that we must not only urgently reduce CO2 emissions but must urgently examine other ways of slowing global warming, such as the various geoengineering ideas that have been put forward.»

My kids are saying «Dad, you've done something about global warming,»» says Phil Adams, president of Worcester, Mass. — based World Energy, Inc., the company that ran the auction.

I can't find the context of the text fragment used as an example of the «minimizes» subset of Level 6 in Table 2 but the most likely reading of the fragment by itself is that it assumes that humans are causing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations to increase and that this is causing or contributing to global warming, so the fragment does say (or at least imply) something about human attribution.