Not exact matches
Although the
global warming signal is relatively weak today in most of the planet (outside of the Arctic), our best
science indicates that the
warming will greatly increase by the end of the century.»
The study often cited by the people who do not «believe» in a
global warming is the one by Christy and Spencer that
indicates a weak trend, whereas other studies (Mears et al.; Vinnikov & Grody
Science 2003 vol 302; Prabhakara et al. 1998; Fu et al..
«Climate
science experts who publish mostly on climate change and climate scientists who publish mostly on other topics were the two groups most likely to be convinced that humans have contributed to
global warming, with 93 % of each group
indicating their concurrence.»
Polls
indicate that a lot of people who know little of the
science say
global warming is not happening.
While President Bush's recent public statements seem to
indicate that he may also be falling for
global warming junk
science so far, he's only for voluntary cuts in greenhouse gas emissions as well as «technology - based solutions.
Global warming science facts from new research
indicates that ENSO will not become a permanent feature as speculated by the IPCC's resident AGW alarmists - the massive climate phenomenon will remain variable
While the climate
science establishment continues its costly and misallocated efforts against «catastrophic»
global warming, the empirical evidence
indicates the worlds» elites are pursuing a laughably ludicrous Don Quixote quest against an imaginary climate - evil.
Sound
science — supported by objective, real - world data —
indicates humans are not creating a
global warming crisis.
On Sept. 17, the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change released Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical
Science, or CCR - 2, containing more than 1,000 pages of scientific research
indicating global warming is not an impending crisis.
It would be an enormous relief if the recent attacks on the
science of
global warming actually
indicated that we do not face an unimaginable calamity requiring large - scale, preventive measures to protect human civilization as we know it.
«Climate
science» as it is used by warmists implies adherence to a set of beliefs: (1) Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations will
warm the Earth's surface and atmosphere; (2) Human production of CO2 is producing significant increases in CO2 concentration; (3) The rate of rise of temperature in the 20th and 21st centuries is unprecedented compared to the rates of change of temperature in the previous two millennia and this can only be due to rising greenhouse gas concentrations; (4) The climate of the 19th century was ideal and may be taken as a standard to compare against any current climate; (5)
global climate models, while still not perfect, are good enough to
indicate that continued use of fossil fuels at projected rates in the 21st century will cause the CO2 concentration to rise to a high level by 2100 (possibly 700 to 900 ppm); (6) The
global average temperature under this condition will rise more than 3 °C from the late 19th century ideal; (7) The negative impact on humanity of such a rise will be enormous; (8) The only alternative to such a disaster is to immediately and sharply reduce CO2 emissions (reducing emissions in 2050 by 80 % compared to today's rate) and continue further reductions after 2050; (9) Even with such draconian CO2 reductions, the CO2 concentration is likely to reach at least 450 to 500 ppm by 2100 resulting in significant damage to humanity; (10) Such reductions in CO2 emissions are technically feasible and economically affordable while providing adequate energy to a growing world population that is increasingly industrializing.
The
science indicates the Russian drought was not caused by
global warming: http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/09/natural-causes-drove-russian-heat-wave-study-finds/ Sure,
global warming has the potential to reduce crop output, but the information posted here has nothing to do with
global warming.
So yes, I emphatically stand my my statements, and if you find that «alarmist» it may simply be a consequence of the fact that the
science indicates that the ecophysiological effects of
global warming will be alarming - to put it mildly...
So, if we take what the best
science gives us, we find that pretty close to half of the
warming that is currently
indicated by the extant
global temperature datasets may be from influences other than anthropogenic greenhouse gas increases — perhaps a bit less, perhaps a bit more.
Finally, there is this recent article
indicating the forever changing «settled
science» in regards to the predicted influence of CO2 on
global warming.
But when I look at the single figure in Kevin Trenberth's recent
Science paper («Uncertainty in Hurricanes and
Global Warming», vol 308, 1753 - 54) the mean SSTA averaged over the tropical Atlantic («10 N to 20 N excluding the Caribbean west of 80 W») sure doesn't
indicate recent cooling.
Much of the public argument against the
science indicating that our greenhouse gas emissions are driving
global warming has been carried by lobbyists and paid spokesmen who attempt to reposition
global warming as theory rather than fact.