If that hurts the cause of spreading understanding of
the problem of anthropogenic global warming, then that's unfortunate.
Through their statement on climate change, Buddhist leaders have crossed this boundary into an area in which, it seems to me, they lack knowledge both of the alleged
problems of anthropogenic global warming and of the best policies that might be adopted to deal with an always uncertain future.
Not exact matches
Secondly, while there are indeed lots
of other unsustainable human impacts on ecosystems and the Earth's biosphere generally, the rapidly escalating effects
of anthropogenic global warming threaten to overwhelm all
of those other
problems in the very near future, with devastating impacts not only for human civilization and the human species, but for all life on Earth, for a long, long time.
The site is not for everybody; certainly people who want to argue the question
of whether AGW (
anthropogenic global warming) is or isn't a
problem will find nothing to engage with on our site.
Today, I'll illustrate how Keating's subsequent diatribe against me is little more than a microcosm
of the larger
problem plaguing the political side
of the
anthropogenic global warming (AGW) issue.
I'm going to venture out on a limb here and say that the Institute
of Economic Analysis is primarily concerned about the economic
problems with combatting
anthropogenic global warming.
Dr. Pachauri pointed out that it was yet another consequence
of Anthropogenic Global Warming and that if he donated large sums
of money to him and The Goracle his
problem might go away.
The coupling
of the sea level rise
problem and its solutions with
anthropogenic global warming and emissions reductions is unfortunate.
Evidently he just doesn't get the fact that the reason there's a
problem is because most
of us with gray matter inside our cranium have figured out that
anthropogenic global warming is a fraud and a hoax.
We must forget the obsession with
global anthropogenic greenhouse
warming alone plus the implementation
of draconian
global mitigation actions and shift our attention to local and regional climate and weather - related issues and any actionable adaptation measures that can be planned and implemented in order to avoid potential
problems.
In an Orwellian exercise in doublespeak, the authors
of the text, including well - known proponents
of abortion and population control like the UN's Jeffrey Sachs, make an attempt to conflate the bogeyman
of extreme
anthropogenic global warming with the very real
problem of environmental pollution.
The theory
of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is also not a
problem for most sceptics.
This has caused a
problem for the skeptical community, because the majority
of scientific skeptics accept the consensus
of scientific opinion on
anthropogenic global warming (AGW).
Concern with relatively small effects
of possible
anthropogenic caused
global warming is a misplaced distraction, and will probably lead to the public losing confidence in scientists, and could weaken the support needed when real
problems occur.»
The underlying
problem in all
of this is that a large number
of scientists have an incredibly strong vested interest in the «existence»
of anthropogenic global warming.
A severe credibility
problem for proponents
of anthropogenic global warming is the challenge that models can't forecast beyond 72 hours, but they're certain about much longer forecasts.
However, I haven't noticed any discussion
of the
problems with the purported link between
anthropogenic green house gas (AGHG) emissions and
global warming.
Climate skeptics struggle with getting the majority
of people to understand the
problems with the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC)
anthropogenic global warming (AGW) story.
On the contrary, by effectively and accurately communicating the current scientific understanding
of anthropogenic global warming, Al Gore's movie contributed powerfully to better «
global understanding»
of the nature, severity and urgency
of the
problem.
Even if most climate scientists agree on the
anthropogenic causes
of global warming, that doesn't imply that the best way to deal with the
problem is through drastic cuts in greenhouse emissions.