Sentences with phrase «people view climate»

Imagery and visual cues can play a role in how people view climate change and can increase concern so long as the imagery does not appeal to negative emotions such as fear.

Many people view climate change as a partisan issue.

«In many of the specifics of the way people view climate change — for instance, seeing it as a moral issue and understanding that climate change is going to hurt people in developing countries and the world's poor the most — we saw really large shifts.»

Not exact matches

Unlike the previous government, the NDP has intentionally sought to bring together a group of people with diverse and differing political views and expertise to advise on the implementation of Alberta's Climate Change plans.

For someone to strap on a back pack full of explosives and kill hundreds if not thousands of people, the reality of that person is so far removed from «your» world - view and we as a whole, are so far apart, that unfortunately more lives will continue to be needlessly lost in relationship to the theo - political climates and it's twisted religions and ideologies.

People under 40 side strongly with the climate - change view, while voters over 40 are evenly divided.

Update / note: To be clear, I'm not asking for views whether or not climate change is true, if we have the ability to change it for good or bad, what evidence exists, whether people want or oppose change, or anything like that.

But only when viewed from the perspective of climate protection: «Fundamentally, it's a good thing that people don't allow themselves to be easily influenced,» stresses Bernauer.

While large - scale climate research models offer a systems view of what the transport sector, for example, could contribute to climate protection in comparison to the energy sector, the study presented in Science, however, examines transport - related issues within the sector by using more recent and more specific data on how people commute and travel.

Kahan said the new findings affirm a growing body of work on how people come to their views on climate change.

He has investigated people's conflicting views on climate change, new technologies and other areas where public perceptions trail scientific consensus.

«For example, [Secretary of State] Rex Tillerson comes from the energy industry, has evolved his view on climate and he could be a quite influential person,» said Arya.

At this point, people's views on climate change are most likely to be influenced by what their neighbors and friends think, he said.

The programme also featured discussions of climate science, health, economics and the views of indigenous and vulnerable peoples.

It is possible that treatment of that nature could be meted out to any persons expressing sceptical views about the so called climate consensus.

In 1998, Tony Lupo boasted that climate skeptics outnumbered the consensus view that global warming is happening and caused by people, proclaiming, «there is no scientific consensus whether global warming is a fact and is occurring.»

My take from this interview: if a person is already convinced there is no climate change, then a flood may just seem «natural», and their views may not be changed.

The Climate Change of Love & Money The current economic crisis and political upheaval may have all the attention right now, but government isn't the only thing facing inevitable change... The way people view arranged relationships is...

The idea that people who share your views on climate change do not engage in childish name calling is just plain silly.

Famed for its wildlife, lush climate, spectacular views, and the protected seaway known as the inside passage, the region has attracted humans since the first people crossed from Asia thousands of years ago.

They offer detailed insights into lay people's views on climate change and energy, and unique input on how to implement global policies to deal with these issues.

«We all must be wary of any system that creates a climate where students are viewed as part of the pay equation, rather than young people who deserve a high quality education that prepares them for their future,» says Bill Raabe, NEA's director of Collective Bargaining and Member Benefits.

Then head south along the lake to try warmer - climate reds, which are the focus of both the irreverent up - and - comer Church & State Wines (tastings $ 7 per person) and the regional leader Black Hills Estate Winery (tastings $ 10 per person), which occupies an airy, glass - walled space with sweeping views of the valley.

W Retreat Koh Samui enjoys a superb location right on the seafront between Maenam and Bophut beaches on Koh Samui north coast.The hotel is set in a tranquil area and offers a perfect home away from home for people looking for an ultra-chic relaxing and intimate accommodation choice.W Retreat hosts 75 all - private pool villas categorized with exotic names as following: Jungle Oasis, Tropical Oasis, Ocean View Escape, Ocean Front Haven, Wow Jungle Oasis, Wow Ocean Haven, and Extreme Wow Ocean Haven.Each villa has stylishly custom - made furnished and provided with state - of - the - art amenities including two television sets, DVD / CD player, Yamaha sound system, individual climate control, work desk, outdoor rain shower, sun lounges, mini-bar, Illy coffee machine, wired and wireless internet connection, and safety deposit box.

You don't seem to understand that, with a less than half - baked understanding of climate science, you've stumbled into a discussion with some extremely knowledgeable people, and then wonder why they don't buy into your «equal time for opposing views» viewpoint.

It's probably conservatives trying to seize the attack ground in view of a possible pending debate about climate change in Washington, but the chorus of denialist opinion is so coordinated and their «logic» so simple it is convincing many, even among educated people (science PhDs) who can not be bothered to look deep into things but try to form an opinion based on a few journalistic pieces.

I think we can all agree that climate is complex, and there are multiple facets that can be communicated, but to say that someone who communicates a different view of the situation is deliberately out to deceive people is unfortunate at best, and offensive at worst.

You'll find people who will tell you the flaws in a lot of methods (for example, issues in Mg / Ca temperature proxies) but that doesn't mean they dismiss everything out of hand, or that there views on Mg / Ca somehow means they don't believe in climate change.

The Climate Change deniers seem to be viewed by most people as similar to those who claim the CIA did 9/11.

As one metric, simply consider that Watts Up With That, arguably the most popular blog tracked by people rejecting the dominant scientific view of global warming, did not exist when the climate panel's assessments were rolled out in 2007 yet now, according to its creator, Anthony Watts, has topped 36 million page views.

This is relevant to policy discussions, because the view on Arctic tundra fits — as with so many other parts of the climate question — the overall conclusion that rising temperatures result in rising impacts on systems and resources that matter to people.

In a culture too often dominated by expediency and self - interest, I came to view climate scientists as visionaries and altruists, flawed and flummoxed like all such people who are suddenly called by forces outside themselves to excel themselves, fighting not just their own reluctance to become publicly involved, and their own ill - adaption to public and activist lives, but, ultimately, fighting for the truth in the face of falsehood, not just because truth matters in some abstract or even in moral terms, but because the fate of the Earth itself, and all who live here, is ever more obviously at stake.

The New York Times Magazine is running a long profile of Freeman Dyson, the independent - minded physicist and polymath from Princeton, N.J., who has come into the public eye of late because of his anti-consensual views of global warming — which are also different from the views of many people in the variegated assemblage of climate skeptic / denier / realists (depending on who is describing them) fighting efforts to curb greenhouse gases.

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.

The e-mails, attributed to prominent American and British climate researchers, include discussions of scientific data and whether it should be released, exchanges about how best to combat the arguments of skeptics, and casual comments — in some cases derisive — about specific people known for their skeptical views.

However, from what I've been able to learn from the people who actually do this type of research, there are simply too many variables and too many uncertainties in the field of climate science to make the sort of claims being made by advocates of the so - called «consensus» view.

The leads to a view the problem of climate change as primarily about reducing emissions (and many people who write about climate change take this view).

In the talk, Victor, trained in political science, warns against focusing too much on trying to defeat those denying the widespread view that greenhouse - driven climate change is a clear and present danger, first explaining that there are many kind of people engaged at that end of the global warming debate — including camps he calls «shills» (the professional policy delayers), «skeptics» (think Freeman Dyson) and «hobbyists.»

I said that, as a journalist, my role is, where possible, to get beyond labels and convey the context driving a person's views of climate change, whatever their stance:

Those people not contrarian to open scientific debate will be fully aware of the differing views and uncertainties in the field of climate change.

The meeting, which wraps up today, has brought together a variegated assemblage of people who reject the prevailing scientific view as reflected in the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and other scientific statements.

In my view, unfortunately, people in the younger (college - age) generation may well have to get «peaceably vocal» regarding climate change, and do some walking, and paint some signs, to bring about some healthy movement on the issue of climate change IF more of our leaders don't begin to act responsibly and maturely, soon.

So, people do care when you are opposed to their point of view, it seems, so it is quite useful to show that I work with some of the top UK climate scientists (via Tyndall), that I am involve in climate policy modelling (and climate modelling via CIAS), so I don't get any patronising comments by anonymous people who claim I should be quiet because they «read the science» while I must be a PR guy if I want to engage with people with a different opinion to myself.

If Lewandowsky was genuinely interested in why people take a different view on climate change, he wouldn't attempt to understand them through bullshit and easily manipulated surveys on the internet, on sites hosted by his colleagues and comrades.

However, 73 % of the people who said that they were aware of the «science flaws» stories stated that the media coverage had not changed their views about the risks of climate change.

News stories that provided a balanced view of climate change reduced people's beliefs that humans are at fault and also reduced the number of people who thought climate change would be bad, according to research by Stanford social psychologist Jon Krosnick.

Some people, well - known for disputing the mainstream consensus on climate science, are asking the judge to admit their views in a friend of the court brief, asserting that «there is no agreement among climatologists as to the relative contributions of Man and Nature to the global warming» of the past several decades.

The findings underscore a strong, substantive role for both party / ideological factors and issue - concern as predictors of people's views across this set of some 25 beliefs related to climate change or people's views of climate scientists.

By the way, does anyone out there still believe that the Climate Commission isn't just a mouthpiece for trumpeting Labor government policy, staffed as it is by a team of alarmists with not one single person in the clique to challenge the orthodoxy or put a contrary view?

These include views about climate change, where older adults are less likely to see human activity as a main reason behind global warming, and people's level of support for stricter emission limits for power plants to address climate change.