Sentences with phrase «warming as a serious threat»

However, the result is that while fully half of Democrats see global warming as a serious threat, this is true of less than a third of Republicans.

Addressing a UN summit on climate change, he deemed global warming as serious a threat to international health as nuclear proliferation and terrorism, arguing that, in the long term, it «has the potential to kill everybody.»

Not exact matches

A note came back from the Apollo 9 astronaut Rusty Schweickart, who has lately been pressing for the United States to intensify efforts to limit a danger both far more concretely understood than global warming and far less in vogue as a serious threat — the reality that a very large rock will inevitably head on a collision course for Earth.

I am able to suppose for the first time that these self - proclaimed masters of the universe will shortly stand out as an ominously looming threat to humanity, every bit as serious a threat to human wellbeing as global warming.

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»)?

There has been moderate growth in the percentage of Americans viewing global warming as «a serious threat» to themselves or their way of life during their lifetimes, from 25 % in 1997 to 40 % this year.

The final global warming question in Gallup's annual environment survey deals with the crucial issue of whether global warming is seen as posing a serious threat.

A 2015 poll of African Americans found that 60 percent ranked global warming as a serious issue, and 67 percent said that actions should be taken to reduce the threat of global warming.

If Congress and the Obama administration are serious about treating global warming as a pressing economic and ecological threat, coal will struggle to remain relevant.

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

When Lomborg presents himself as occupying the middle ground we have to ask what the «middle ground» is when the vast preponderance of scientific evidence tells us that the globe is warming and climate change presents a serious threat to the future.

Cobb's statements are very revealing as to the things one must believe in order to think there is a serious threat from human induced global warming.

They therefore concluded that global warming «must be viewed as a serious threat to global stability and should be elevated beyond a scientific debate.»

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.

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.

Specifically, Democrats increasingly view global warming as already here (accurate), and believe that it will pose a serious threat in their life time (also accurate), compared with the 2017 annual survey.

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»

As you can see, people who say global warming is real but not a serious threat are more likely to oppose genocide.

Quite simply, its adoption will establish that United States is serious about averting the threat of global warming, that coal's future as a primary fuel is coming to an end, and that the US utility sector is poised to go through the most fundamental changes in 90 years.