Sentences with phrase «problem than global warming»

The hole in the ozone layer is a totally different problem than global warming.

Not exact matches

In the particularly difficult question of global warming, thus far most economists have argued that it will be more efficient to respond to the problems caused by global warming as they occur than to make serious efforts to reduce it, since these efforts would slow economic growth.

Think of it this way: The problem isn't that Global Warming is a religion rather than a science; the problem is that it's an incompetent religion.

Oxfam adds there is «growing scientific evidence» that biofuels are exacerbating global warming trends, rather than helping reduce the problem.

Holdren said global warming is a «dangerous misnomer» for a problem far more complicated than a rise in temperature.

The implicit assumption here is that the problem will turn out to be less serious than the models predict; thus, any carbon we have chosen to leave in the ground out of fear for the consequences of global warming will have gone uncombusted for nothing.

I wish we spend more time debating the problem of oil depletion, which is much more meaningful and relevant, rather than global warming, which is irrelevant and meaningless and purely hypothetical.

Yet U.N. climate negotiations have largely ignored the acidification problem, focusing instead on the goal of curbing global warming to less than 2 °C (3.6 °F).

I am also aware of how this may well mean that climatological models may well be predicting lower global warming change than in actually occuring, i.e. the warming problem is more serious than it appears.

Both strategies are designed to emphasize that the problem is far more threatening than the phrase «global warming» alone implies.

Democrats with a college degree were significantly more convinced global warming was a problem than were Democrats who didn't go to college.

«I just happen to be publishing an article by a scientist who lives on Tuvalu and who shows that the real problems already being experienced by people there (salination, sinking because of sand excavation) while ascribed by politicians seeking aid to global warming, are in fact due to over population, natural local causes and above (sic) development on what is little more than a floating patch of sand in the Pacific.»

That may soon be of bigger concern than global warming especially in underdeveloped countries, where germs in such wastes get spread haphazardly and may lead to major health problems.

If environmental groups and their backers want to see concrete progress on limiting the risk that humans will propel dangerous global warming, they may need more than just additional money and better organization, but also a hard look at core strategies and a philosophy that has long cast climate change as primarily a conventional pollution problem, not a technology problem.

But my larger point is this: Scientists understand key aspects of the problem much better than someone who brands the whole thing (global warming) as «uncertain» probably thinks or wants to believe.

So for laypersons a true negative (we do nothing to reduce GH emissions, and GW is not happening) would be much worse economically & re other environmental problems, than a false positive (we abate global warming, when it is not happening).

Alternative energy is a joke, which doesn't take into account anything other than the fact that they burn clean as the so - called environmentalists want to believe that the only problem that exists today is global warming (nevermind the other problems exist, nevermind that mining is ruining our world as well, nevermind that cell phone towers are killing between 5 and 50 million migratory song birds every year or that dams are killing the salmon off, no none of this matters apparently).

a Greenpeace research project highlighting the more than a decade - long campaign by Exxon - funded front groups — and the scientists they work with — to deny the urgency of the scientific consensus on global warming and delay action to fix the problem.

Global warming initially got a lot of publicity from a minor drought at the end of the 80's I believe (minor compared to the dust bowl years), since then there hasn't been much unusual drought wise in the US (ie the droughts that have happened have been even less serious than the end of 80's situtation, let alone by comparison with the dust bowl years), but this hasn't exactly caused any problems.

I would submit to you that to the extent that we have a global warming problem, and you want to say that there's no global warming problem, I think that you must agree with me that we have a problem with a billion human beings having Tuberculosis, with three and a half billion human beings living on less than $ 5 a day, with three to four billion human beings not having access to reliable water supply, safe water supplies, that we are pushing the carrying capacity of this planet pretty hard.

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.

A sprawling area spanning the Arctic Circle with a population of less than 50,000, Canada's Northwest Territories has spent more than $ 140 million in the last two years responding to problems linked to global warming, the territory's finance minister said.

As I've said on several occasions here and elsewhere, the major problem with global warming believers» enslavement to the «reposition global warming as theory rather than fact» phrase is that it is not in any way proof of an arrangement between between skeptics and industry officials involving payments made for false climate assessments.

The implicit assumption here is that the problem will turn out to be less serious than the models predict; thus, any carbon we have chosen to leave in the ground out of fear for the consequences of global warming will have gone uncombusted for nothing.

A change in local rainfall may affect human society more than a change in global temperature, so we should beware of equating the size of the projected global warming with the potential seriousness of the climate change problem.

Perhaps we are helping global warming and if the entire world or at least more than 2/3 of the population cut back we could delay the problem for another generation possibly more.

Among Democrats, more than eight in 10 say global warming is a serious problem, 65 percent want the federal government to do more about it and 57 percent believe most scientists agree on whether global warming is happening.

In which case, a story reporting James Hansen's claim that global warming will «result in a rise in sea level measured in metres within a century» will be put in the AGW dominant / exclusive categories, while a story along the lines of «global warming unlikely to cause significant problems to New York City in the near future» will find itself in one of the sceptic categories — even though the latter is closer than the former to the IPCC position.

In the meantime, we'd have solved our global warming problem: more than a good day's work.

Better, for instance, to spend resources on the immediate problem of AIDS in Africa than the more distant one of global warming.

The problem, according to many energy analysts, is that burning pellets creates more global warming pollution than coal, not less.

Yet the emergence of global warming as an issue in the 1980s with its potential for large - scale social change needed to ameliorate its threat was seen as more threatening to conservatives in regard to industry, prosperity, life - style, and the entire American - way of life, than were traditional pollution problems.

The problem is that we are looking for the average of the actual global temperature changes for Earth where some areas warm more rapidly than others and some areas cool.

That is the problem is that the real thing that «deniers» are saying is that the conclusion of «we are all going to die» (which is a most probable true statement, we all will eventually die just not due to Global Warming) that is the political narrative on this «science» barring we give up our rights to energy production to a global authority is a hard pill to swallow unless you have real evidence rather than modeled science to go oGlobal Warming) that is the political narrative on this «science» barring we give up our rights to energy production to a global authority is a hard pill to swallow unless you have real evidence rather than modeled science to go oglobal authority is a hard pill to swallow unless you have real evidence rather than modeled science to go off of.

When I began my intensive search for anything showing the «reposition global warming» memo in its full context, what I found in just the first day was essentially wall - to - wall quotes about Ross Gelbspan's big revelation of it to the world — except for one lone exception, which was a March 13, 2008 US News & World Report article noting phrase was part of Kivalina v Exxon court case documents (more on that separate problem here) which themselves led me to the New York Times revelation of the phrase and the ICE campaign, over six years earlier than any accolades about Gelbspan's exposé.

There are more than a few problems with the claim of global warming, or climate change or extreme weather doctrine, whatever it is being marketed as this week.

Atmospheric CO2 has been almost twenty times (20X) higher than now in the «historical record», without causing runaway global warming or any other problems.

Current atmospheric CO2 levels are higher than at any time since at least a million years ago, and there is no notable scientific dissent from the consensus position that global warming is happening, is human caused, and presents a global problem.

In it, they argued that global warming is far more complex than past pollution problems.

From the administration that brought you «man - caused disaster» and «overseas contingency operation,» another terminology change is in the pipeline.The White House wants the public to start using the term «global climate disruption» in place of «global warming» — fearing the latter term oversimplifies the problem and makes it sound less dangerous than it really is.

48 Growing Energy & Environmental Concerns 58 % of Americans rank «dealing with the nation's energy problem» as a top priority in 2006, up from 40 % in 2003 87 % of Americans cite home heating and energy prices as a «very big» or «big» problem for the nation's economy 88 % of US adults respond that «energy efficient» was very important in their electronics, appliance, lighting and heating / cooling equipment purchases Gallup polls: Americans» concerns about environmental issues have increased more than 10 percentage points between 2004 and 2006 The LOHAS Consumer Report: 91 % of people are in total agreement with the statement «I care about protecting the environment» ABC News / Washington Post Poll: 79 % of Americans think global warming poses a serious threat to future generations Source: AP Source: NASA

Humanity could emit more CO2 than this budget allows — though at the risk of higher levels of global warming, with all the problems, risks, and potential horrors that entails.

We seem to have more than a homogenization problem: New study shows half of the global warming in the USA is artificial

When asked «Do you think some groups or types of Americans are more likely than other Americans to experience health problems related to global warming?»

When asked if specific health problems will become more or less common over the next 10 years in their community due to global warming, more than one third of Americans think the following conditions will become more common: air pollution, including smog (38 %); pollen - related allergies (38 %); asthma / other lung diseases (37 %); heat stroke (36 %); and bodily harm from severe storms and / or hurricanes (34 %).

The earliest media reports mentioning the phrase in 1991 didn't focus on skeptics» funding or really imply that they were anything more than logical experts to consult who were already aware of the problems in the idea of man - caused global warming.

The problem is that after more than thirty years of searching by literally thousands of scientists, no one has ever found a single verifiable metric quantifying the fraction of AGW [out of total global warming] attributable to human CO2 emissions.

Other citations within Hackney's essay do nothing to lessen the problem about any given prominent accusation against «industry - corrupted skeptics» being separated by no more than three degrees from Ross Gelbspan and those worthless non - «ICE» «reposition global warming as theory, not fact» / «older, less - educated males» / «younger, lower - income women» memo strategy / targeting phrases.

The problem is the scaremongering (global warming, radiation, etc.) induces stress — stress killed more Japanese than the Tsunami (the argument if anyone was killed by radiation is still underway).

From Fox News From the administration that brought you «man - caused disaster» and «overseas contingency operation,» another terminology change is in the pipeline.The White House wants the public to start using the term «global climate disruption» in place of «global warming» — fearing the latter term oversimplifies the problem and makes it sound less dangerous than -LSB-...]