Sentences with phrase «potential threat to the environment»

Around the world, the popularity of strained yoghurt is creating growing volumes of acid whey, which is both hard to handle and a potential threat to the environment.

Not exact matches

Regulation has increased the credibility of the trade, and it is more secure for the traders to trade in a regulated environment than the previous market settings which were permissive and allowed scam brokers to present as a potential threat to the business.

Entrusted with creating healthy living and learning environments for our clients and their employees and customers, we needed to develop a safer solution to reduce potential threats.

A recent meta - analysis of 11 studies that investigated the association of bed - sharing and SIDS revealed a summary OR of 2.88 (95 % confidence interval [CI]: 1.99 — 4.18) with bed - sharing.158 Furthermore, bed - sharing in an adult bed not designed for infant safety exposes the infant to additional risks for accidental injury and death, such as suffocation, asphyxia, entrapment, falls, and strangulation.159, 160 Infants, particularly those in the first 3 months of life and those born prematurely and / or with low birth weight, are at highest risk, 161 possibly because immature motor skills and muscle strength make it difficult to escape potential threats.158 In recent years, the concern among public health officials about bed - sharing has increased, because there have been increased reports of SUIDs occurring in high - risk sleep environments, particularly bed - sharing and / or sleeping on a couch or armchair.162, — , 165

Other research in political psychology suggests that the no campaign has had a much easier job — those inclined to political conservatism are more likely to have a «negativity bias» in their response to environmental stimuli — conservatives have more of a physiological reaction to potential threats in the environment and subsequently devote more psychological resources towards dealing with them: conservatives, quite literately, see more things that could go wrong than liberals.

BASC Northern Ireland Director Tommy Mayne said: «BASC welcomes the opportunity to submit evidence to the Environment Committee and while we welcome some aspects of the Marine Bill which will benefit marine life and biodiversity, we are greatly concerned about certain clauses within the draft Bill that pose a potential threat to wildfowling and other rural activities.

Federal regulators described PFOA as «a chemical or material that is characterized by a perceived, potential, or real threat to human health or the environment or by a lack of published health standards» in the March 2014 document.

Hazardous waste is waste that poses substantial or potential threats to public health or the environment and generally exhibits one or more of the these characteristics: ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity or toxicity.

The National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity has defined DURC as «life sciences research that, based on current understanding, can be reasonably anticipated to provide knowledge, information, products, or technologies that could be directly misapplied to pose a significant threat with broad potential consequences to public health and safety, agricultural crops and other plants, animals, the environment, materiel, or national security».

The researchers say the potential threat to wildlife and the environment should not be underestimated.

It is not a good term to use to describe those who are rationally skeptical of the (not yet scientifically validated) premise that AGW, caused principally by the human emissions of CO2, has been the primary cause of past warming and that it represents a serious potential threat for humanity and the environment.

In a recent training with renowned neuroscientist Rick Hanson, he explained that our inherited negativity bias is an outdated tendency that kept early humans and human ancestors alerted to potential threats in the environment.

With reference to the PSHE education, Citizenship, Science and English curricula at Key Stage 3 (England, Northern Ireland, Wales) and Third Level (Scotland), students will learn about the natural and human threats to the island and its potential impact on the environment in a range of thought provoking classroom and homework activities.

Explore how school leaders can create a school environment that makes it safe to report potential threats and how policy recommendations related to crisis and trauma response may be implemented effectively in your school or district.

Only through vigilant monitoring of the geopolitical landscape with its volatile markets, disruptive technologies, and unpredictable environments can organizations hope to identify potential threats and opportunities before they arrive squarely on top of them with insufficient time to respond.

Your cat's sense of smell provides him with important information, helping him to both detect potential threats and feel secure in his environment.

Straws in that wind might include Google, which networks memory, and the augcog systems that the military (and companies like GM and Ford on the civilian side) are developing that network perception and consciousness (what military augcog does is scan battlefield environments, identify potential threats, prioritize them, and feed information to the soldier as (s) he is able to comprehend it.

As part of a larger class known as perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs), the EPA put them in the bucket of «emerging contaminants» — chemicals or materials that are characterized by «a perceived, potential, or real threat to human health or the environment.»

But «the science is not settled» that AGW, caused principally by CO2, has been the primary cause of warming since 1950 and, thus, represents a serious potential threat to humanity and our environment, unless steps are taken now to curtail CO2 emissions.

This voluntary CO2 reduction plan would get you and others in the UK, who are rationally skeptical of the premise that AGW represents a serious potential threat, off the hook, while allowing Royal Society president, Sir Paul Nurse, UK environment secretary, Caroline Spelman, and other supporters of the «dangerous AGW» premise to «do their thing to save the planet».

this represents a serious potential threat to humanity and our environment from anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the range of 1.8 °C to 6.4 °C by the end of this century with increase in global sea level of up to 0.59 meters [AR4 WGI SPM, p. 13]

AGW, caused principally by human CO2 emissions, has been the primary cause of observed warming and represents a serious potential threat to humanity and our environment

How has this process been followed for AGW or, more specifically, for the premise that the observed warming since the modern record started has been caused principally by AGW and that this represents a serious potential threat to humanity and our environment (let's call this the «dangerous AGW» hypothesis or dAGW, which Trenberth would like to see as the «null hypothesis»)?

IPCC has sold a bill of goods to «policymakers» and the general public, which states that most of past warming was caused by human GHGs (AGW) and that this represents a serious potential threat to humanity and our environment unless human GHG emissions (principally CO2) are curtailed dramatically.

NO empirical evidence to support the premise a) that most of the past warming (since ~ 1950) has been a result of increased human GHG concentrations and b) that this demonstrates a high climate sensitivity, which leads to the conclusion that c) AGW represents a potential threat to humanity and our environment.

Let's say that the postulated premise is that AGW, caused principally by human CO2 emissions, has been the primary cause of recently observed temperature increase and represents a serious potential threat to humanity and our environment.

To ignore these questions is to decide to expose human health and the environment to real risk before changing the risky behavior, that is, a decision to not act on a serious environmental threat has grave potential consequenceTo ignore these questions is to decide to expose human health and the environment to real risk before changing the risky behavior, that is, a decision to not act on a serious environmental threat has grave potential consequenceto decide to expose human health and the environment to real risk before changing the risky behavior, that is, a decision to not act on a serious environmental threat has grave potential consequenceto expose human health and the environment to real risk before changing the risky behavior, that is, a decision to not act on a serious environmental threat has grave potential consequenceto real risk before changing the risky behavior, that is, a decision to not act on a serious environmental threat has grave potential consequenceto not act on a serious environmental threat has grave potential consequences.

That's why I used the expression «represents a serious potential threat to humanity and our environment» (temperature increase by 2100 of up to 6.4 C, increased droughts, floods, tropical cyclones, heat waves, extreme high sea level plus secondary effects, such as crop failures, spread of vector diseases, loss of drinking water from melting glaciers, etc. all as listed in IPCC AR4).

this represents a serious potential threat to humanity and our environment, if actions are not undertaken to curtail GHG emissions, principally CO2

Show me (and Girma) the empirical evidence to support the CAGW hypothesis, i.e. that human GHG emissions have been the primary cause for past global warming and that this represents a serious potential threat to humanity and our environment unless these emissions are curtailed dramatically.

Thanks for clearing up your position — as I now read it (and pardon me, if I still did not understand completely) you do NOT specifically ascribe to the notion expressed by IPCC or alarmists, such as James E. Hansen, that AGW has caused most of the recent global warming and thus represents a serious potential threat to humanity and our environment.

It has rather sought to manufacture a «consensus» that AGW represents a potential threat to human society and our environment requiring remedial action (see Judith's other thread).

It appears from your posts here and elsewhere, that you are a firm supporter of the IPCC premise that a) AGW, caused principally by human CO2 emissions, has been the cause of most of the observed increase in global temperatures since the mid-20th century and b) thus represents a serious potential threat to humanity and our environment.

The IPCC hypothesis that AGW, caused principally by human CO2 emissions, has been the primary cause of past warming and that it represents a serious potential threat to humanity or our environment is an «uncorroborated hypothesis» at this time, unless one agrees with Pielke that the recent decadal lack of warming of the atmosphere (surface plus troposphere) as well as the upper ocean despite record increase in CO2 levels has falsified it, in which case it has become a «falsified hypothesis», until such time that the falsification can be refuted with empirical evidence.

Unless these data can be refuted they represent a falsification of the premise that CO2 is the principal driver of our planet's climate and that AGW is, therefore, a serious potential threat to humanity or our environment.

Many also question the scientific validity of the IPCC projections of future anthropogenic warming and its consequences, especially the IPCC premise that these are likely to result in serious negative impacts, i.e. a serious potential threat to humanity and our environment, unless actions are undertaken to curtail human GHG emissions (principally CO2).

The IPCC premise (let's call it CAGW for short) is that most of the observed warming since around 1950 was very likely [i.e. with greater than 90 % likelihood] caused by increased human GHG concentrations — AND that this constitutes a potential threat to humanity and our environment unless actions are undertaken to curtail human GHG emissions (principally CO2).

The CAGW premise can be stated as follows: «most of the warming since 1950 is more than 90 % likely to have been caused by increased human GHGs and this represents a serious potential threat to humanity and our environment, unless actions are undertaken to curtail human GHG emissions, principally CO2»

So, Bryson, you can see that the uncertainties on 2xCO2 CS are great (as Dr. Curry has stated elsewhere)-- yet they are crucial to the whole premise that AGW, caused primarily by human CO2 emissions, represents a serious potential threat to humanity or to our environment.

So, all in all, it appears highly uncertain that AGW, caused principally by human CO2 emissions, has been the primary cause of past warming, or that it represents a serious potential threat to humanity or our environment.

They do not exist at all for the hypothesis that AGW, caused principally by human CO2 emissions, has been the principal cause of past warming and thus represents a serious potential threat to humanity or our environment.

I would not call it «wishful thinking» to conclude that human CO2 additions have not caused most of past warming and, hence, do not represent a serious potential threat to humanity and our environment.

Hey, man, don't you realize that this very short statement is the key to the whole premise that «AGW, caused principally by human CO2 emissions, has been the primary cause of past warming and, thus, represents a serious potential threat to humanity and our environment»

The latter includes the intention to «reduce potential adversaries» confidence that they can gain advantage through expansion of nuclear capabilities» (p 24), and to «respond to the possible shocks of a changing threat environment» (p 14).