Sentences with phrase «people think about climate change»

What people think about climate change or climate science really does depend on the situation outside their window.

«When people think about climate change, most of the time they're thinking about ecological or economic consequences,» Marzeion told Live Science.

Not exact matches

«It is absurd to leave someone in charge of a department whose role is to protect the country from a growing climate crisis who himself believes that «people get very emotional about this subject, and I think we should just accept that the climate has been changing for centuries».

When most people think about wildlife in a changing climate, they think of polar bears clinging to melting ice, but even species who have adapted to tropical weather are being impacted by the changes to their environment.

«I think scientists have seriously underestimated the importance of explaining what we know about climate change and climate variability in ways that are understandable to most people,» Lubchenco told reporters in a wide - ranging interview to mark her first anniversary on the job.

«We had hypothesized that thinking about climate change in any way would incline people to donate more to climate change but that's not what happened.

Put another way, asking people to think about how they themselves contribute to climate change had a similar effect on donations as asking people to think about brushing their teeth or going to work every day.

People only consistently gave more when we encouraged them to think about the collective causes of climate change.»

«If you ask people what they think about climate change — not global warming — we find that the partisan gap shrinks by about 30 percent,» he said.

«I think I'm about as young as you can get for being a person who started in glaciology at a time when climate change was not a primary part of the conversation,» says Moon, who is 35.

«It's one that can be immediately applied in the U.K., and it can help inform how people think about similar species and land management and climate change in other areas.»

In a not so festive season when we've all been thinking hard about a lot of terrible thinkings like corrupt governments and oligarchies, sexual misconduct and systemic isms that make life such an oppressive mess for so many people (and damage everyone — even the opporessors — since we all are truly in this life together) as well as the terror of both climate change and this particular cold snap (I'm super sick right now, yay!)

People all over the world are already experiencing the impact of climate change, and we need to think about that as well.

Bugert shared that their regional EcoChallenge was a perfect «activity to pull in people who are not yet thinking about climate change or being environmentally responsible.»

I think we need to be concerned about where meteorologists, and many people who listen to them, are getting their educations about climate change and global warming from.

I find it funny that people (and British judges) are so keen to keep us from thinking about connections to climatic events and climate change.

But I think the discussion right now is about people realizing that geo - engineering is one of the many solutions that we have to take a look at, and that at very low cost it could provide us with a bridge of a couple of decades and an insurance policy against unlikely catastrophic climate change.

There is ample evidence that society is unwilling to take the significant steps necessary to stop or reverse anthropogenic climate change, therefore we need to think about how people will live in a future, warmer world.

122, Bob (Sphaerica): I think that I more or less agree with you, except that I haven't seen the tiniest bit of action taken on climate change in the U.S., so it's hard to worry much about people «demonizing CO2 ″ or «ANY of the efforts made by politicians» because there is nothing to see.

As Craven points out, what will save us isn't the spread of personal shifts in consumption; it's the spread, among well - meaning people, of a new way to think about the risks of climate change.

I think that I more or less agree with you, except that I haven't seen the tiniest bit of action taken on climate change in the U.S., so it's hard to worry much about people «demonizing CO2» or «ANY of the efforts made by politicians» because there is nothing to see.

People who lean right — especially those who are libertarian — hear about climate change and start thinking, to their horror, about government.

It's «Don't Even Think About It: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Ignore Climate Change,» by George Marshall, whose work on how disasters reinforce peoples» identities was explored here.

Most of the contexts in which people are thinking about climate change today are like the first of these two.

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

I would like to have thought there was space for the environment in that mix, even though these issues are still often seen by journalists weaned on politics as a sidenote (remember Candy Crowley «s post-debate comment about «all you climate change people»?).

This year the theme of Earth Hour is based around what you will do when the lights go back on, so essentially getting people to think about the longer term changes they as individuals can make to their own lives to help halt climate change.

Do you really think that you can extrapolate from questions on opinions about whether climate change is predominantly anthropogenic in nature to demographic characteristics of people who «speak out» as «climate contrarians» camp, or who are «leftists?»

It's understandable how, if a person had never once consulted a scientific paper or sat down for a serious, ideology - free conversation about climate change with one of the overwhelming majority of scientists who agree that man - made climate change is a real, observable phenomenon, he could be confused into thinking that the greatest challenge of our time is comparable to the medieval superstitious that arose in the absence of scientific understanding.

«It's actually effective to communicate to people about climate change, where they might think they experience it, which is in their lives in their neighborhoods, in their locality.

People who follow the «climate change» mantra know exactly what to think and feel about the topic but have no concept of the facts.

«What's really been exciting to me about this last 10 - year period is that it has made people think about decadal variability much more carefully than they probably have before,» said Susan Solomon, an atmospheric chemist and former lead author of the United Nations» climate change report, during a recent visit to MIT.

Andersen: People often get caught up in thinking about geoengineering strictly in the context of human - caused climate change.

I think overall, the average consensus is about 70 percent of scientists agree on climate change, but that figure is even lower among economic geologists (47 percent) and people working in the petroleum industry.

This question brings to the fore something that is fundamental and pervasive: that what we are doing is finding ways for people to understand and think about climate - change.

Hear from young people around the world — India, China, New Zealand, and the United States — on how they're feeling about climate change, and what they think we can do to better care for each other and our fragile planet.

Although we all know the facts; most people do not think climate change is anything to worry about; believe that their governments will take care of things; or that international agreement on emissions reductions will be effective.

People can read about it at theleap.org, which is really about connecting the dots between racial injustice, climate change, austerity, migration justice, and developing a holistic, transformative agenda, which I think is most urgent — the most urgent project for progressives with or without climate change.

A number of papers were written, people thought about it, but it never gained the acceptance that the current climate change scenarios have.

But he also believes the site can serve people who aren't sure what to think about climate change.

So when discussing climate change with the people in your life who don't understand its urgency, ask them to think about why they believe the planet isn't warming and why we don't need to act.

In a letter to Attorney General Loretta Lynch last year, 20 climate scientists urged her to use federal racketeering laws to prosecute corporations and think tanks that have «deceived the American people about the risks of climate change.»

Those who push using RICO laws against «corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change» («other organizations» meaning conservative think tanks and any skeptic climate scientist having any association with such entities) are likely emboldened because they've never before encountered push - back on the very core of their accusation.

I think most people are drawing the wrong lessons from society's growing concern about climate change.

And I'm worried that if governments keep saying what they're doing is organized at stopping warming at 2 - degrees, then the people who are actually on the front lines of climate change — coastal cities, farmers and so on — are going to think about preparing for a world that's 2 degrees warmer, when in reality the evidence seem to suggest they should be preparing for a world that [has warmed] a lot more than 2 degrees.

For instance, Parncutt asks us to think about doing something wrong (executing people who deny climate change) to correct a greater wrong (preventing the deaths of people from climate change).

People will continue to read about it and think about the climate change problem.

To be honest I think this is less of a problem than people simply ignoring / denying Anthromorphic climate change because they don't like and they don't understand the arguments about it!

After all, if he is worried about the rising proportion of British people who do not think the world's climate is changing he might want to think about why some people might — on his view — stick their heads in the sand.

But what really got peoples» attention was what he said about climate change: «I think there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects.