Sentences with phrase «whether about greenhouse gas»

Not exact matches

There's plenty of warranted skepticism about whether the two countries, which together emit 40 % of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, will ever agree to actual cuts.

After all, he reasons, if the Senate passes some type of domestic legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the debate about whether the United States should sign a treaty would then focus on the likely actions of other countries.

Specifically on the issue of global warming from greenhouse gases and climate change, the conference reached a consensus on the likelihood of a rise in the global mean temperature of between 2.7 - 8 degrees F (1.5 - 4.5 degrees C) by about 2050, but not on whether such warming has begun.

In the climate debate, that's why persistent calls for those who care about stabilizing the concentration of greenhouse gases to pick a number, whether 350.org's favorite or Joe Romm's, are in my view a waste of time.

When Gort first visited in 1951, it spent little effort on climate change issues, focusing on other aspects of our planet instead: Gort returned in 2012 to answer puny human climatologist questions about whether climate change caused particular weather phenomena by making an obvious point: rather than struggle with theoretical analysis, you can simply use your Climate Changeometer to remove all the excess greenhouse gases and aerosols above natural levels and then measure the outcome.

Whether talking about this thermal IR from the sun OR the back radiation said to be caused by greenhouse gases.

Wouldn't that be more interesting than getting people — who are quite frankly in denial and in the minority — to argue against scientists about whether the greenhouse gas effect is even true?

«A global freeze will come about regardless of whether or not industrialized countries put a cap on their greenhouse gas emissions.

Yet when US federal climate change legislation was under consideration between 2009 and 2010, there was almost no public discussion about whether proposed US climate change legislation would reduce US greenhouse gas emissions to levels that represent the US fair share of safe global emissions.

If the alarmists are wrong about even one or two of them, human greenhouse gas emissions move out of the realm of a nuisance requiring a response — whether by governments or via a (presently nonexistent) global property rights regime — and into the realm of speculation.

Or about whether a certain greenhouse gas is a significant cause of global warming.

And although he has to deal with internal squabbles about whether cap and trade or a carbon tax is the best way to bring down greenhouse gas emissions, at least the Obama team does agree on the goal.

Supporters said the accord puts off for now fierce political debates about how or even whether to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and other gases that collect in the atmosphere and create a greenhouse effect that warms the earth's surface.

If we're serious about putting the brakes on global warming, the question is not whether we should put a value on greenhouse gas pollution, but how we should do it.

But he's cagy about whether that means EPA would again reach for a market - based approach to address greenhouse gases.

There is no disagreement among climate scientists about whether humans are warming the Earth by burning fossil fuels and polluting the atmosphere with greenhouse gases.

In the 1970s, a few scientists wondered whether the cooling effect from aerosols would be greater than the heating produced from greenhouse gases, and some popular publications ran articles about a new Ice Age.