Sentences with phrase «think about this fossil»

«If Nye's followers and their networks are made aware of a live event or recording in which Nye's position is shown to be unscientific (and immoral) and are exposed to a pro-human, big picture way of thinking about fossil fuels, it could create a measurable shift in how the youth view fossil fuels,» Epstein wrote in the email, shared by Robert Bradley Jr. at MasterResource.

Portfolio 21 has published a paper called Managing Investment Portfolios Without Fossil Fuel Stocks to explain its thinking about fossil fuels.

Not exact matches

Musk has a financial incentive for wanting the U.S. to start thinking progressively about transitioning from fossil fuel.

«I believe that full and fair disclosures by Peabody and other fossil fuel companies will lead investors to think long and hard about the damage these companies are doing to our planet.»

Think about it: First Solar is developing technology to create clean, renewable power from the sun that is cost competitive with fossil fuels.

The misconception about the lack of transitional fossils is perpetuated in part by a common way of thinking about categories.

Of course, we may be wrong to think that we truly remembered those long - lost almost - humans: Perhaps instead they were only speculative imaginings to explain old bones and arrowheads, fossils and mysterious cave paintings — just as our own stories about Neanderthals are also, mostly, fantasies.

To say, as Joe says, that «God making evolution appear undirected is similar to the idea that he planted dinosaur fossils and created geological strata to fool us into thinking the earth has been around more than 6,000 years,» is in my view completely to misunderstand what scientists and ordinary people mean when they speak about random processes.

Bernie Sanders» campaign thinks Clinton owes the Vermont senator an apology for accusing him of «lying» about how she accepts money from the fossil fuel industry.

We think we can do a much cleaner alternative, and if the governor is serious about moving away from burning fossil fuels that he should be using the Empire State Plaza as a model.»

Actually if you calculate, you think about those 600 fossil fuel power plants, and if you calculate how much money is spent to purchase the fuel, that's the big thing that people don't really think about.

The editors respond: We thought the numbers in Dukes's study were fascinating for what they reveal about the amount of raw biomass needed to create a gallon of gasoline; however, due to space constraints, we could not go into greater detail about fossil - fuel production and energy usage.

That mobilized me to think about when we burn fossil fuels or dump garbage, there is no way it just goes somewhere else.»

«Mammal - like reptile survived much longer than thought: Fossils in Japan overturn widely accepted theory about tritylodontid extinction.»

The Morocco fossils indicate that humankind's emergence involved populations across much of Africa, and started about 100,000 years earlier than previously thought, says paleoanthropologist Jean - Jacques Hublin of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany.

So over decades, I had read all sorts of stories about people who had gone out into the wilds and explored the unknown, and I thought that if we could just focus on the central experiences of their lives, I could condense all sorts of stories into just chapter length tales and put a bunch of them together, sort of show the whole arc of the discovery of the idea of evolution and really where we stand today, right up to very recent things like Neanderthal DNA and the discovery of some recent transitional fossils.

Most of the CO2 comes from fossil fuel burning; about 1/6 from deforestation I think — William]

And I will say to the fossil fuel industries if you're out there, think about making your mission energy production rather than fossil fuel extraction and burning.

This fossil is a partial skull with very thick bones thought to be an archaic Homo sapiens (sometimes classified as Homo heidelbergensis), and about 200,000 to 300,000 years old.

Human Fossils: Thinking about the Evidence.

Everything's Cool (Unrated) Cautionary documentary exposes the efforts of the fossil fuel industry lobby and conservative think tanks to manufacture an artificial debate about global warming in the face of irrefutable proof of the phenomenon provided by responsible members of the scientific community.

just something to decorate my house with but I had no money but found out I could sell fruit to him for money and while I was doing this I was thinking (They could have just made it how you can have jobs instead of this crap) and I finally was able to buy his furniture and I bought a wobblina but I thought it was ceramic, not a doll so I sold it back and got a shovel instead and used it to dig up stuff and tried to sell that stuff and did and then bought some clothing and more tools and got some more fossils and turned them in to the museum and went to the cafe and when I bought some coffee I was like whaaaat!?! I paid 200 bells just to hear a generic term about how my avatar liked some coffee, I thought you would be able to have a conversation with him about life or something (You know that stuff people talk about on movies when they're in bars and stuff) and then after that I went straight to the city and went to the marquee to get some emotions.

But mark my words, right - wingers will start screaming about compensation when all those shiny new gas - fired power plants they're building are threatened with closure when we start thinking seriously about building a modern grid that can shuttle electricity instead of curtailing renewable generation in one area while simultaneously turning on fossils in another.

Most of the CO2 comes from fossil fuel burning; about 1/6 from deforestation I think — William]

I think that your expectation about demands for compensation for «premature» retirements of fossil - fueled generation capacity is probably correct.

Those arguing that the fossil fuel greenhouse is unstoppable because of hard - wired human short - term greed, scientific illiteracy and failure of technological imagination may have a point, But think about this: Building seawalls, massively air conditioning new habitats inland and dealing with a flood of environmental refugees as the planet warms with take a huge chunk of additional energy in itself.

If you are so concerned about the world's poor, then I think it would be only fair if the rich countries (who created the mess) went cold turkey on carbon so the poor still can use cheap fossil fuel.

I suspect that we will be hearing a lot more about hydrogen cars too; the fossil fuel companies might well fund a fake «hydrogen economy» because the cheapest hydrogen is made by steam reforming of natural gas; people think that this is somehow better than just running a car on CNG.

«Researching Don't Even Think About It, which I see as the most important book published on climate change in the past few years, George Marshall discovered that there has not been a single proposal, debate or even position paper on limiting fossil fuel production put forward during international climate negotiations.

What i» am talking about is that when we use fossil fuels we release GHG's but also generate heat which escapes to the atmosphere, think of a car engine or an airconditioner for example.

At least I have given some commentary, and I think about 2 % globally is ok medium term, but less in western countries, and more in poor countries, and it needs to be certain types of growth (eg not use of fossil fuels or massive quantities of fertilisers and the like).

Please think about this, if you build a economy depanding on fossil fuel, the oil used off, that will be a damage to your ecomony.

If we are going to make a transition, for example, from fossil fuels to nuclear energy or to solar energy or to wind energy, if you think about that as a major source of energy during the next 50 years from now, you better start right now.

I think the issue about fossil fuel «subsidies» which keeps popping up among the True Believers, needs further explanation, though.

Specifically, there's a case for avoiding continued dependence on fossil fuels that persuades me regardless of what scientists think they know about the long - term human impact on our climate.

Experts have long warned of the devastating consequences of unrestrained burning of fossil fuels, but findings of a new study should get people and governments worldwide to think about the impacts of carbon emission.

Did they think about the wisdom of their company's plans to build massive new fossil - fuel infrastructure?

After hearing from the totally independent and unbiased politicians and think tankers, it's about time the fossil fuel industry perspective was offered here today.

In 1995, in what is thought to be the first conference promoting climate science denial in Britain, the CEI's then president Fred Smith joined another US guest from the Atlas Economic Research Foundation for a series of talks that undermined warnings about the impacts of fossil fuels on the climate.

The next level is 903ppm on current trends it will take us about 257 years to get there, do you think we will still be using fossil fuels as our main source of energy in 2267?

Think about Africa who can't afford fossil fuels now or especially in the future as its price goes up.

As a best guess I'd say the sensitivity is most likely to be in the range 1.5 + / - 0.5 degrees C. I think it is very unlikely to be as high as 3 degrees C. Limitations on fossil fuel availabilty and a sensitivity in this range will limit further «anthropogenic» warming to below about +1.2 degrees C forever.

However, I would like them to think more critically about the fossil - fuel inputs that they use in their models.

Laframboise's trip has been organised by free market think tank the Institute of Public Affairs, which has a long history of promoting doubt about the science of human - caused climate change and the risks of the unmitigated burning of fossil fuels.

Conservative think tanks in the United States are a sort of «ground zero» for the production of doubt about the links between fossil fuel burning and dangerous climate change.

I don't think it's a game to say that you can't argue about the cost of fossil fuels without a full accounting.

As the head of the Regulatory Unit at the Institute for Public Affairs, a right - wing think tank with close ties to greenhouse sceptics, Moran's role has been to support the Government and the fossil fuel corporations with anti-environmental opinions about climate science, the costs of emission reductions and the pitfalls of renewable energy.

Here is an example of what I'm getting at: * Climate change is a myth or conspiracy - The temperature record is phony - the consensus is just politics * Climate change is unproven - The models are wrong - One hundred years isn't enough evidence * It's not our fault - Volcano's emit way more CO2 - It could be natural variation * A warmer climate is nothing to worry about - It was warmer in the middle ages - A warmer climate is a good thing * Mitigation will destroy the economy - We don't know enough to act - Reducing fossil fuel will destroy us * It's too late or someone else's problem - Kyoto is too little too late - The US absorbs more CO2 than it emits This is very rough example, but if you think it is headed in the right direction, I'd be happy to go through your guide in more detail and come up with something concrete - just give me the word.

You just need to think about where we were and how far we have come and realize that fossil fuels have been the root cause of the most extraordinary and rapid change in the human condition.

He has written about phasing out fossil fuels in 50 - 100 years, though I think he came up short of actually advocating that as an appropriate timeline.