Sentences with phrase «warming policy since»

So what we have now as the result of this expertariat that has been driving global warming policy since the early 1990s is a climate industrial complex that is sucking our economy dry for no benefit.»

Not exact matches

Staten Island is the only borough de Blasio lost in the 2013 mayoral election and locals haven't warmed to him or many of his more progressive policies since.

Background on the Warm Front and the successor scheme: Since 2000, when the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme was re-branded as Warm Front, with substantial additional funding and the introduction of heating measures to supplement insulation works, the scheme has formed a major element in fuel poverty policy.

Singer, founder of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, concludes that since global warming would raise maximum summer temperatures modestly while raising winter minimum temperatures significantly, it «should help reduce human death rates.»

The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30 % over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming.

The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 [carbon dioxide] in the atmosphere have increased by about 30 percent over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming.

As with the veteran climate scientist James E. Hansen, Kennel's focus on global warming grew out of a background in astrophysics, but he's been working at the interface of earth science and policy since he became the director of NASA's Mission to Earth program during the Clinton administration.

Either way, their survival depends far more on their adaptation than it does to US action, since no matter what policies we enact, there is warming already in the «pipeline» and the warming to come from the economic growth in the developing world will dwarf any attempts to limit our own emissions.

For policy - makers, the speed of climate change over the coming decades matters as much as the total long - term change, since this rate of change will determine whether human societies and natural ecosystems will be able to adapt fast enough to survive.New results indicate a warming rate of about 2.5 C per century over the coming decades (assuming no attempt is made to reduce GHG emissions).

What particularly interested me was the number of scientists who had been pushed out of CSIRO, or had left of their own volition, after being tightly censored in what they could say about global warming, and the emissions reductions that would be needed to stabilise the climate (the latter point is particularly sensitive since any actual number implies a target and government policy is opposed to targets).

In addition, the CO2 - only budget is of limited policy value since it by definition neglects many important forcing agents and is expected to significantly underestimate the warming.

«CO2 causing warming» isn't relevant from a policy perspective, since human civilization has flourished even in the presence of CO2 and warming.

Bob Carter of James Cook University in Australia wrote an article in 2006 saying that there had been no global warming since 1998 according to the most widely used measure of average global air temperatures... [and] David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation in London made the same point... Mark Lynas said in the New Statesman that Mr. Whitehouse was «wrong... We know now that it was Mr. Lynas who waswarming since 1998 according to the most widely used measure of average global air temperatures... [and] David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation in London made the same point... Mark Lynas said in the New Statesman that Mr. Whitehouse was «wrong... We know now that it was Mr. Lynas who wasWarming Policy Foundation in London made the same point... Mark Lynas said in the New Statesman that Mr. Whitehouse was «wrong... We know now that it was Mr. Lynas who was wrong.

«Since its creation in 2006 the site has done nothing but post poorly researched propaganda with a clear intent to smear respected scientists, policy analysts or groups who dare oppose an alarmist position on global warming.

Of course, logic and ethics had no chance when you were faced with defending it, since the Hockey Stick graph (the only one reproduced multiple times in color in any IPCC summary) was the primary basis for convincing the Media and Policy Makers that immediate action was needed to offset unprecedented warming, obviously caused by unprecedented increase in CO2.

Since then, the IPA has hosted a string of climate science «sceptics», including Australia's own Professor Bob Carter and Professor Ian Plimer, UK columnist James Delingpole, Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus, the US - based Cato Institute's Pat Michaels and former UK chancellor Lord Nigel Lawson, who is the chairman of the London - based Global Warming Policy Foundation.

«Since I fought fire in Alaska over 30 years ago, the planet has rapidly warmed and wildfire conditions have noticeably deteriorated,» commented Nicky Sundt, a former U.S. Forest Service smokejumper who now works on climate policy at the World Wildlife Fund, by email.

The Economist criticizes Nate Cohn at The New Republic and Brad Plumer at the Washington Post for clinging to support for policies that promise plenty of pain while offering no gain, especially since they acknowledge that time and reality have proven the predicted warming scenarios to have been false.

Although Dyson has been railing against the AGW consensus since at least 2005, his first prominent exposure in the mainstream press came in a fawning 2008 New York Review of Books piece on William Nordhaus's A Question of Balance: Weighing the Options on Global Warming Policies.

(Fwiw, I define myself as more of a «lukewarmer» since I see reasons to be concerned about warming and climate issues, but I think the imminence and magnitude of any civilizational»em ergency» are being exaggerated in many quarters — I'm more of a «policy skeptic» about the steps being proposed, if you care).

The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30 % over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming.

I think this underlines the sophistry employed by the IPCC and others when attempting to convince policy makers of how «significant» the contribution from anthropogenic greenhouse gases has been with regard to the very moderate warming we have seen since 1951.

The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 [carbon dioxide] in the atmosphere have increased by about 30 percent over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming.

There are no good reasons to make public policy based on predicted anthropogenic warming, I look at the past, as recorded, to find a warming off some 1 °C since 1910.

Since none of it is anthropogenic it is clear that AGW does not exist, predictions of a global warming catastrophe are totally wrong, and policies adapted for emission control are a criminal waste of public resources.

Since it was published four years ago in a United Nations report, hundreds of environmentalists, scientists and policy makers have used the hockey stick in presentations and brochures to make the case that human activity in the industrial era is causing dangerous global warming.

Chad Johnson has had enough of global warming hysteria shaping public policy and he wrote a letter to his state senator that has since been passed around to other legislators.

Therefore, since catastrophe is not a real threat, we are left with addressing the question: what are the costs and benefits of warming versus the costs and benefits of mitigation policies?

«I am growing weary of the variety of emotional, misleading, and policy - useless statements like «most warming since the 1950s is human caused» or «97 % of climate scientists agree humans are contributing to warming», neither of which leads to the conclusion we need to substantially increase energy prices and freeze and starve more poor people to death for the greater good.

We face such hard choices and limited policy options to avoid dangerous warming in 2016 because we have squandered the 18 years since the Kyoto Accord.

As Curry observes, an infinite number of statements could have been made, ranging from «it is extremely likely that the anthro pogenic increase in greenhouse gases has caused some warming» (not very informative, since an infinitesimally small warming is of no policy relevance) to «it is about as likely as not that greenhouse - gas - induced warming exceeds the total observed warming» (which indicates the size of the greenhouse signal, but understates our confidence in attribution).

Reductions in sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions in recent years, for cleaner air, mainly in South East Asia due to a severe manufacturing sector slowdown and pollution policy changes (1,2) may attribute to current warming, since the phenomena called global dimming is involved.

Since taking office, Bush has moved to review, weaken, or undo a host of the Clinton administration's environmental - protection policies dealing with global warming, air and water pollution, national forests, and national monuments.