Sentences with phrase «global warming claims in»

The latest: «Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man - Made Global Warming Claims in 2007.»

The Minority on the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Commitee (read James Inhofe (R - Exxon)-RRB- has just released a «report»: 0ver 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man - Made Global Warming Claims in 2007.

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man - Made Global Warming Claims in 2007.

Not exact matches

And again: The IPCC claimed that there was an increase in extreme weather conditions as a result of human - induced global warming.

New York City sued five major oil companies, claiming they have contributed to global warming, and also announced it will sell off billions in fossil fuel investments from the city's pension funds.

«In the wake of the terror attacks in Paris, claiming that attempting to «solve» global warming is even more urgent is baseless and absurIn the wake of the terror attacks in Paris, claiming that attempting to «solve» global warming is even more urgent is baseless and absurin Paris, claiming that attempting to «solve» global warming is even more urgent is baseless and absurd.

Like others in the incoming administration, Mulvaney is also a skeptic on climate, referring to «baseless claims regarding global warming» on his 2010 election campaign website (archived here).

However, Bellamy has become a prominent global warming sceptic and has made a number of notable claims in the media.

Western leaders began to leave Copenhagen in the early hours of Saturday morning, claiming to have secured a global agreement to keep global warming below two degrees Celsius.

But that hasn't stopped British newspaper The Mail on Sunday trying to resurrect a dead duck: this time claiming that scientists at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) played fast and loose with data on a well - regarded 2015 paper in Science that definitively showed there was no pause in global warming.

Climate scientists have been stirred to ridicule claims in an upcoming Hollywood blockbuster that global warming could trigger a new ice age, a scenario also put forward in a controversial report to the US military.

Lomborg, a Danish political scientist with a background in statistics, argues in his text that claims made by environmentalists about global warming, overpopulation, energy, deforestation, species loss, water shortages, and a variety of other issues are exaggerations unsupported by a proper analysis of environmental data.

People who claim we can stop worrying about global warming on the basis of a cooler year or a cooler decade — or just on questionable predictions of cooling — are as naive as a child mistaking a falling tide, or a spring low tide, for a real long - term fall in sea level.

«This would be consistent with the elite cues hypothesis, in that we would expect political leaders who deny anthropogenic global warming to claim victory during unseasonably cold periods or amplify their denial during unseasonably warm periods that invite challenge to their worldview,» says Bohr.

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 main claims of fact he makes in support of his contention that Global Warming science is an «idealogy, underpinned by false assumptions» are:

A headline in the Daily Mail claims that Phil Jones, ex-director of the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, said «there has been no global warming since 1995».

There is a slight irony in people rushing to claim that the glacier changes on Mars are a sure sign of global warming, while not being swayed by the much more persuasive analogous phenomena here on Earth...

In other words, they claim that any global warming over the past few decades can be explained by El Niño activity.

In the paper Gray makes many extravagant claims about how supposed changes in the THC accounted for various 20th century climate changes («I judge our present global ocean circulation conditions to be similar to that of the period of the early 1940s when the globe had shown great warming since 1910, and there was concern as to whether this 1910 - 1940 global warming would continuIn the paper Gray makes many extravagant claims about how supposed changes in the THC accounted for various 20th century climate changes («I judge our present global ocean circulation conditions to be similar to that of the period of the early 1940s when the globe had shown great warming since 1910, and there was concern as to whether this 1910 - 1940 global warming would continuin the THC accounted for various 20th century climate changes («I judge our present global ocean circulation conditions to be similar to that of the period of the early 1940s when the globe had shown great warming since 1910, and there was concern as to whether this 1910 - 1940 global warming would continue.

In the same breath, Bast both claimed global warming is not happening and that if it was happening it would not be a threat to life on earth.

Cuccinelli cites the Kremlin organ RIA Novosti to «prove» that western climate scientists are LYING about global warming, but during the 2010 forest fires, Andrei Areshev, a lunatic attached to a Russian Foreign Ministry drunk tank, even claimed right in this same RIA Novosti that those sneaky U.S. climate scientists were CAUSING global warming by beaming secret climate weapons at Russia!

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.

Today, in times of resource scarcity, global warming and impending nuclear conflict, this claim is being boldly asserted once again — in the form, however, of a private - sector undertaking driven primarily by US tech billionaires from the new space industry, not least — as they claim — in order to secure the survival of mankind against home - made planetary collapse.

I think this is useful for evaluating emission (and other tangential) reports claims / stories that might lead folks to think we are making significant progress in responding to global warming.

The selective use of data has all been on the denier side, when they claim that «global warming stopped in 1998!»

[Response: Anyone who has looked at the actual record (linked by Joel) can only regard the claim that «global warming stopped in 1998» as either ludicrous or a deliberate deception — even more so if one knows about the powerful El Niño that occured in 1998.

What we mean by premature is that there is no evidence in the literature to support a claim that global warming has resulted in demonstrable effects on hurricane impacts, whether they are measured in terms of economics or otherwise.

Yet AGW advocates claim that the doubling of CO2 levels will invariably, due to iron clad physical laws, result in 2 degrees (or more) of global warming.

There is no doubt that some environmentalists make exaggerated claims on global warming, but when was the last time these were shown in a major news outlet?

This also goes for the faux scientists who echo their claims in denying the reality of global warming.

A recent story in the Guardian claims that new calculations reduce the uncertainty associated with a global warming:

Having read other material on the consequences and relationships of CCN's and lifetimes regarding papers that have been written, it seems that a lot of the papers coming from the Svensmark angle, so to speak, are not conclusive enough of definitive impact in the impact potentials for global warming, to jsutify the claims made by Svensmark, or the press about his, or similar, work.

This is similar to how the denier claims of no global warming, or of no anthropogenic influence upon warming, or of low climate sensitivity, depend on all observational data being wrong in the same direction.

Pat (post # 29) claims there is a «terrific imbalance in public perceptions» and that «everyone knows that global warming is real, serious and potentially catastrophic».

Before those claiming that global warming stopped in 1998 have a field day with this figure, they should appreciate that our total volume time series and the naïve thickness time series are entirely consistent.

There is very little science behind the claim that a doubling of CO2 will cause one degree C. of warming — which even if true, adds up to a mere one degree C. of global warming in about 200 years, assuming CO2 levels increase 2 ppm per year, and the hypothesis is correct.

Some sceptics are even using their press - releases about «2007 likely to be warmest year», «2009 in top 5 warmest years», to claim that global warming is being exaggerated.

I just was watching your interview with Michael Shellenberger and reading / listening up on this whole «centrist environmentalist» concept and I have to say, I take issue with people claiming the longtime «left» environmental movement was all about being a culture of restriction and somehow not in tune with the idea that this global warming crisis could lead to newer, alternative, healthy economics of another kind.

In 2004, the Dane made his name as a green contrarian with his bestselling book The Skeptical Environmentalist, and outraged scientists and green groups around the world by arguing that many claims about global warming, overpopulation, energy resources, deforestation, species loss and water shortages are not supported by analysis.

There are claimed 60 year cycles in ice cover which could mask global warming for a time.

We will at some point post something on the climate / hurricane arguments, but a basic fact is that there is a huge difference between claiming that global warming trends will tend, statistically, to lead to more / larger hurricanes, and attributing specific events in specific years to such causes.

Since a commenter mentioned the medieval vineyards in England, I've been engaged on a quixotic quest to discover the truth about the oft - cited, but seldom thought through, claim that the existence of said vineyards a thousand years ago implies that a «Medieval Warm Period «was obviously warmer than the current climate (and by implication that human - caused global warming is not occuring).

In Shellenberger's variant, you need to add the words «in China» to any claim about the role of an energy technology or policy in fighting global warming and see if it still holds uIn Shellenberger's variant, you need to add the words «in China» to any claim about the role of an energy technology or policy in fighting global warming and see if it still holds uin China» to any claim about the role of an energy technology or policy in fighting global warming and see if it still holds uin fighting global warming and see if it still holds up.

Yet we know well that our current flooding predictions will be entirely obsolete in less than two decades, as thousands of miles of coastlines are slowly claimed by rising seas, due both to coastal subsidence and global warming.

In other words, we can and should note that we are probably hitting the 400 ppm barrier, but then later when we drop slightly below, temporarily, 400ppm, the climate science denialists will be all over that claiming that there is no global warming.

Most bizarre new contrarian claim: «Global warming stopped in 1998».

:: We Can Solve It Al Gore Al Gore Readies Sequel to «An Inconvenient Truth» Al Gore Announces Big Climate Change Ad Campaign Climate Change Climate Change Melting Glaciers, Shrinking Harvests in China and India Global Warming Changes to Snowmelt Patterns in Western US Could Have Larger Impact Than Previously Thought Renewable Energy Solar Power to Reach Parity by 2015, New Study Claims Second Siemens Wind Turbine Plant to Open in Illinois

There has been a bit of excitement and confusion this week about a new paper in Nature Geoscience, claiming that we can still limit global warming to below 1.5 °C above preindustrial temperatures, whilst emitting another ~ 800 Gigatons of carbon dioxide.

-- it's interesting for the pictures showing how different roof and wall paints / colors collect heat, though it's a bit odd in claiming this is the cause of global warming.