Sentences with phrase «people other than climate»

In short, do people other than climate scientist and regular visitors to real climate understand that its all bunk?

Not exact matches

It's hard to think about anything other than the current political climate and all of the horror that is being inflicted upon people, from this ban to the struggle of so many other people in this country, but it's important to rest and stay focused and spend some time re-energizing yourself.

In the Philippines and other tropical climates, where the ambiance air temperature is much higher than North America, people traditionally have not refrigerated coconut oil.

People who had initially written about climate change in collective terms were still willing to donate more than the others, even several days later.

For Wisconsin's snowshoe hares, climate change now ranks as an even bigger menace than the bulldozing, paving and other destructive things people have done to northern forests.

People who live in these type of settings often have BMR's that are 5 - 20 % higher than those in other climates.

Rather than alluring to the obvious shocking facts and events affecting our planet and way of life, audiences actually see Al Gore for what he's really doing in real life «being the most influential person of his generation» inspiring others to take up arms in the fight for Climate and how the world's democracies are politically unwise when it comes to using the actual solutions.

Exceptional As most people looking at reviews will be company car drivers, things you should know: It accelerates faster than most company cars (8 seconds, quite achievable) It is more economical than most company cars BIK is okay (good CO2 figures, but relatively expensive list) Standard equipment is odd, good specification in some ways, annoying in others (+ = PDC, auto lights / wipers, dual zone climate, iDrive, lowered 10 mm - = worst stereo ever, non-foldable rear seat, no storage, analogue iPod connector, 16 wheels look... well, just look at them) Standard suspension is merely adequate, weight transfer between fast sweeping bends is noticeable No LSD, so doesn't enjoy getting the back end out particularly If it is your own cash, buy a better spec version!

If it's presented properly, it should be understandable by people with a technical background other than climate science — and there are quite a few of those people — and many of them are on the conservative side of politics.

Raising livestock contributes to climate change and environmental degradation in other ways as well: it takes far more grain and land to produce a calorie of food for humans by feeding grains to animals than directly to people.

This tribal theory applies to peoples political affiliations such as liberal or conservative, or membership of other social groups, and we know liberals do tend to accept climate science more than conservatives from polls by Pew Research etc, although its not black and white.

So it's utterly unremarkable to find 49 people, including astronauts and engineers, who would publicly reject James Hansen's view of the dangers posed by unabated emissions of carbon dioxide, or the Obama administration's approach to the space agency's research programs, news releases and other forms of public output on climate, which is markedly different than that of the last Bush administration.

With vast economic, political, and eco-problems (other than climate change) to ponder, and with the challenges of making a living and raising a family in increasingly daunting circumstances, the attention of many people is on a lot of other things in addition to climate change.

On the other hand, if the climate scientists are right about AGW happening, and the contrarians are wrong, and we act as if AGW is not happening, then not only will we lose all those other benefits, but we will allow the world to sink into great catastrophe (greater than you may think, when we figure how people may start turning nasty against each other as their material lives deteriorate — Katrina gave us a microcosm of that).

Conscious that while our nations lie at the climate frontline and will disproportionately feel the impacts of global warming, in the end climate change will threaten the sustainable development and, ultimately, the survival of all states and peoples — the fate of the most vulnerable will be the fate of the world; and convinced that our acute vulnerability not only allows us to perceive the threat of climate change more clearly than others, but also provides us with the clarity of vision to understand the steps that must be taken to protect the Earth's climate system and the determination to see the job done;

3) Ad Hominem (questioning the motive rather than the facts): The fact that some people use the issue of climate change to pursue other agendas has no relevance to the accuracy of the science.

In other words people thought they talked about climate change twice as much — or more — than they actually did with anyone.

Warmings are localized; under the laws of physics,; if some part of the planet gets warmer than normal — other part INSTANTLY gets colder than normal — it's called» extreme weather / climate» Yes, climate is the weather; global warmings / global coolings are inside people's heads, not outside.

5) To what extent is climate science different than any other research field, or even any other profession, w / r / t the level of «intimidation» people feel about expressing their opinions when they run against more prevalent viewpoints within their profession?

But I guess I'm also more determined than ever to continue communicating about climate change and communicating how to communicate about climate change to empower other people to talk about it in an effective way.

And so the people who have approached us are interested in branching out to other communities in the country who have different kinds of climate effects than those that are affecting the coastal communities.»

But it does suggest that if both sides of the debate paid close attention to the social consequences of policies, rather than the present intractable debate on the reality of AGW, then we might get to a point where we can agree on some action — you might think it is pointless with regard to the climate (but a substantial proportion of people think it will), but if it produces some other good outcomes it might be ok.

But it does suggest that if both sides of the debate paid close attention to the social consequences of policies, rather than the present intractable debate on the reality of AGW, then we might get to a point where we can agree on some action — you might think it is pointless with regard to the climate (but a substantial proportion of people think it will), but if it produces some other good outcomes it might be OK.

«Because Americans are high resource consumers in a country with a large, rapidly growing population base, the U.S. has a much bigger «per - person» impact on global climate change than any other nation.»

My climate enemies have done scientific and other academic frauds; they've destroyed, withheld and pretended to misplace scientific data in order to prevent the human race discovering things about nature; they've forged documents to frame people they don't like; mendaciously and publicly accused innocent people of deplorable crimes that carry prison sentences; betrayed the trust reposed in their professions by fraudulently abrogating to themselves the magical competence to diagnose entire swathes of the (perfectly healthy) population with thought disorders just to score points in an academic bitch fight; deliberately and self - servingly lied to * massive * audiences about the way science itself works — than which I can't for the life of me think of a greater crime against humanity in the recent history of the developed world, can you Joe?

The citizen comments are part of The Climate Reality Project's People vs. Carbon campaign, which earlier this year gathered more than 80,000 comments in support of the EPA other recently proposed rule, which would limit carbon pollution from future power plants.

While climate change is the greatest threat, there are many other threats that, if we do not reverse them, could cause the collapse of our present global civilisation; yet far more people are concerned with beliefs that are entirely without evidentiary support than are trying to move the World toward sustainability.

Please don't hijack the science, and tell people like me, who understand most of the science (other than the intricacies of climate models) better than 99 % of US citizens, and have followed the science better than 99.8 % of US citizens, that we don't know what we are talking about.

In delaying action on climate, some people have had a much greater role than others in prolonging our addiction to fossil fuels.

Rather than trying to analyze Trump's well - established refusal to accept climate science, media should be telling stories of how climate change is happening here and now, how it's affecting real people, and how the EPA and other agencies are ripping up climate regulations.

We hear so often that climate change will be worse for the poor, but we never interrogate this claim to ask whether it might be better to address the issue of poverty than to attempt to make other people's lives better by driving less.

In arguing that the United States or other high - emitting nations need not reduce their ghg emissions to their fair share of safe global emissions based on cost, how have you considered, if at all, that all nations have agreed in international climate negotiations to take steps to limit warming to 2 degree C because warming greater than this amount will not only create harsh impacts for tens of millions of people but runs the risk of creating rapid non-linear warming that will outstrip the ability of people and nations to adapt?

D+C: The impacts of climate change make the poorest people on earth suffer more than others.

On the other hand India is home to more than 800 million poor people who are extremely vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.

Scientists surveyed people in 25 countries around the world, and found there's no country quite like the U.S, where climate denial is much more closely tied to one's political persuasion than any other country.

On the Talanoa Dialogue, Teresa Anderson, Climate policy officer, ActionAid International: «What was special about the Talanoa Dialogue was that it allowed people to engage with each other as humans with hearts, rather than as governments with agendas.

The UN Green Climate will get more than $ 10 billion of other people's money to spend, but are arguing that they shouldn't need to obey the laws and taxes that other people do.

Along with the sheer unpleasantness of the moderators at Real Climate and other alarmist blogs, the Guardian's practice of summarily banning anyone who does not follow exactly the party line as laid down by the Klimatariat has driven more people to become sceptics than any deep study of the science ever has.

It is ironic that a climate change denier should ask someone to be factual, when your entire thesis is based on deliberate misinformation and obfuscation and, apparently, it doesn't matter how many times your arguments are debunked; you people are seemingly incapable of doing anything other than repeating them.

Worst Case Climate Change consists of negative changes not seen in everyday life, other than climate scientists, and therefore it is difficult, if not impossible, for ordinary people to understand the gravity of this sitClimate Change consists of negative changes not seen in everyday life, other than climate scientists, and therefore it is difficult, if not impossible, for ordinary people to understand the gravity of this sitclimate scientists, and therefore it is difficult, if not impossible, for ordinary people to understand the gravity of this situation.

If the general public doesn't understand this then it might be in part due to poor communication by climate scientists and journalists, but what the general public might believe is not the issue here — this is a forum for people who actually take an active interest in the subject so there should be an expectation that they are rather better informed than the average man on the street, especially if they are going to make confident pronouncements about the supposed flaws in the IPCC position (and other things).

What these people haven't yet grasped is that this line of argument — that there is absolutely no doubt what impacts a changing climate will bring and they are all terrible bad impacts — has likely driven the highest number of people questioning the entire field than any other single issue.

Although recent surveys show that people in other countries are generally more concerned about climate change than the US, Americans too have nevertheless come a long way in their awareness of the crisis since the Kyoto days.

What I would like to point out is that it seems that some of the same issues you are discussing in climate science are affecting other branches of science — notably medicine: pharmaceuticals have been throwing millions at doctors and medical researchers for more than a generation, and partly as a result, about one in three people in the United States is taking prescription drugs.

They don't like to talk about the distribution of wealth at the national level, much less the global level — where, as none other than Pope Francis has recently reminded us, we owe the developing world, the poorest people on the planet, a massive ecological and climate debt.

The fact that the IPCC had been so adamantly opposed to any evidence of change in climate other than the anthropogenic contribution of CO2 into the atmosphere being the driving force, should be enough for even a lay person such as myself to raise real concern.

The efforts of myself and others have made far more climate model data available to far more people than ever before; to dismiss our efforts as «irrelevant» because of your issues with specific individuals is unfair.

It's more than climate change; it's also extraordinary burdens of toxic chemistry, mining, depletion of lakes and rivers under and above ground, ecosystem simplification, vast genocides of people and other critters, etc, etc, in systemically linked patterns that threaten major system collapse after major system collapse after major system collapse.

When there were fewer people on the Earth and we all produced only a little greenhouse gas all was well, but when our numbers multiplied and some of us started producing far more greenhouse gasses than others climates started to change.

Like ExxonMobil, Chevron also emphasizes potential conflicts rather than synergies between climate solutions and other societal goals: «As we work to address climate change, we must create solutions that balance environmental objectives with global economic growth and our aspirations for a better quality of life for people across the world.»