Sentences with phrase «if global warming science»

If global warming science is so «settled», why did global warming stop 15 years ago, contrary to all «consensus» predictions?

Not exact matches

If ever there was an instance of politics co-opting and corrupting science, and vice versa, it is the global - warming issue.

If Science say Irene is caused by global warming; & If Religion say it is an «act of God» whether in warning or punishment; & If Humanism say we have a problem - let's find a solution together.

If they think global warming is irrefutable science, they are probably liberal.

The science says that industrial states like New York must get to 100 % clean energy and zero net greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 if the planet is to avert runaway global warming and climate catastrophe,» Hawkins said.

«The result is not a surprise, but if you look at the global climate models that have been used to analyze what the planet looked like 20,000 years ago — the same models used to predict global warming in the future — they are doing, on average, a very good job reproducing how cold it was in Antarctica,» said first author Kurt Cuffey, a glaciologist at the University of California, Berkeley, and professor of geography and of earth and planetary sciences.

The rapid northerly shifts in spawning may offer a preview of future conditions if ocean warming continues, according to the new study published in Global Change Biology by scientists from the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, Oregon State University and NOAA Fisheries» Northwest Fisheries Science Center.

If science can nail climate change as a probable cause of deadly weather events, like the heatwave that hit Europe in the summer of 2003, then global warming becomes a matter for product liability law.

If the science is settled and the threat is urgent, why has global warming become a soap opera?

If countries abide by the Paris Agreement global warming target of 1.5 degrees Celsius, potential fish catches could increase by six million metric tons per year, according to a new study published in Science.

Climate contrarians seem to have scored no points with the panel, leaving climate science still squarely behind curbing greenhouse gas emissions if the most serious consequences of global warming are to be avoided.

One example of this is the «motivated rejection of science»; if you are personally convinced that global warming is a hoax, you are likely to reject any scientific information to the contrary — regardless of its accuracy.

The purpose is to take a broader view, to reach across boundaries and strive towards a common goal, realizing that science and technology will not suffice to reach a 2 °C target for global warming if citizens do not accept to change their behaviors as well and act accordingly.

If it were just global warming, I'd roll my eyes at the quaintly outdated science, just like swamp Venus.

If science is subjective, then RC has no claim to being any more truthful than WUWT and Global Warming really is a hoax.

Re # 10 The USGS was walked up to the wall back in the mid 90's and told in no uncertain terms that if they kept addressing environmental science and failed to sing the oil industry line (on remaining petroleum reserves as well as on the issue of global warming), then they would be dissolved, flushed, kaput — the Congressional funding would be cut off.

If you are looking at the same report as me, it opens «We have become incresingly concerned that EPA and many other agencies and counties have paid too little attention to the science of global warming....»

A simplistic conclusion of the style «if ice ages are natural, the current global warming must also be natural» is not science (sorry).

Even if you reject the policy prescriptions or science interpretations of the Global Warming Policy Forum, the director, Benny Peiser, is an energetic aggregator of climate coverage that you might otherwise miss.

Now, if there's a single take - away from this summary, it would be that the science on the relationship between fossil fuel combustion, rising atmospheric carbon dioxide, and global warming and climate change was really settled by 1979.

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.

If science advocacy has to include statements such as «Alas, as with most over-simplified global warming claptrap, more thought goes into coming up with the alarmist concept than in actually looking into whether or not it is true», then I don't think it belongs in the discussion.

This is not meant to imply that scientist can not inform society of the scientifically supported consequence if a particular course of action (e.g., global warming) but if this is to remain in the sphere of science and not advocacy, then the hypotheses must remain falsifiable.

If any readers will be attending and want to say hi, I will be giving a talk on «Science blogging: RealClimate.org and the Global Warming debate «on Friday (PA53A, 13:40, MCS 309).

So if they are an advocate against global warming science, and a paper comes out that suits that agenda but may be tentative, they'll hype the hell out of it — and the same on the other side...

The post starts off wondering if there may have been a recent decline in public concern over global warming and then considers if a simpler method of communicating the science would help.

If Mann had wanted to point to an opposite end to the spectrum of ways in which scientists can contribute to public discourse on global warming science and risks, a better choice (in my view) would have been Susan Solomon's handling of the rollout of the 2007 science report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

In an interview of Crichton published in a U.K. newspaper a few days ago, he stated that he might endorse the Kyoto Treaty, or something similar, 10 years from now IF the science, at that point, more strongly supports the global warming theory than he believes it does now.

Suppose that the science is not settled (whatever that means), how does it follow that «It is probable that the case for anthropogenic warming will not hold up» If you don't know enough to claim that global warming is real, then how can you know enough to claim that AWG won't hold up?

If you are not impressed by the science so far, perhaps it's because none of the sources you rely on have adequately communicated the implications of global warming.

The science is clear to me and to most experts in the various fields associated with climate science: Humans are causing most of the observed global warming in the past several decades and, if we continue emitting GHGs under a «business as usual» scenario, it will become increasingly difficult and costly to adapt to the changes that are likely to occur.

If the Authors «want to examine... loci at which scientific knowledge is made,» Why not just say what we already know as «virtually certain»: the ipcc's method is almost exclusively «computer - simulated climate science» = gigo; «Expertly» guided by demonizing CO2 and disasterizing Global Warming and spurred onward always by the ethical maxim that «We «mainstream» Climate Scientists are all gonna die from Green Back Starvation Syndrome if we don't gin up some more demonizing and disasterizing «Climate Science» before it's too late!»If the Authors «want to examine... loci at which scientific knowledge is made,» Why not just say what we already know as «virtually certain»: the ipcc's method is almost exclusively «computer - simulated climate science» = gigo; «Expertly» guided by demonizing CO2 and disasterizing Global Warming and spurred onward always by the ethical maxim that «We «mainstream» Climate Scientists are all gonna die from Green Back Starvation Syndrome if we don't gin up some more demonizing and disasterizing «Climate Science» before it's too late!&science» = gigo; «Expertly» guided by demonizing CO2 and disasterizing Global Warming and spurred onward always by the ethical maxim that «We «mainstream» Climate Scientists are all gonna die from Green Back Starvation Syndrome if we don't gin up some more demonizing and disasterizing «Climate Science» before it's too late!»if we don't gin up some more demonizing and disasterizing «Climate Science» before it's too late!&Science» before it's too late!»?

What The Science Says: If anyone claims to be part of the 97 %, it means they disagree with the contrarian argument that humans are having a minimal impact on global warming.

If you're defending Michael Mann, you're not defending science, or defending climate science, or theories on global warming or anything else.

This is consistent with the latest science, which says global emissions should be between 40 and 70 % below 2010 levels in 2050, reaching net - zero between 2080 and 2100, if warming is to be limited to two degrees above pre-industrial temperatures.

And to the point that Dr Curry is making, if we want to get politics out of the science of global warming then would it be so bad if we were to politely ask the UN to butt out?

Just to add the appropriate emphasis to what the past 164 years of empirical science tell us, the «C3» estimator replica above also reveals what would happen to «global warming» if the entire U.S. economy shuts down for one year, eliminating some 5.8 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion - again, it's a nothing - significant outcome for the climate.

If so, how would you compare the way the two handled and portrayed the science of global warming?

If the incoming powers - to - be are uneducated in climate science, let those concerned about global warming make their case, show their facts, convince skeptical people through reason and persuasion.

The end - of - the - world prognostications from the Left of global warming catastrophe that never came but, the Left never cared if they were right or wrong about that and it does not worry them that the EPA prefers politics to science.

• Gore used opinions of government scientists whose work can not verified • The practice of rainmaking is more art than a science • The practice of stopping global warming is more politics than science • Making rain is local • Stopping warming is global • Rainmakers are positive blaming neither man nor nature for a lack of rain • Warm stoppers are negative blaming humanity for causing warming • Rainmakers do not get paid if they do not produce • Warm stoppers are paid to create alarm about warming

Big Oil and Big Coal funded sympathetic think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the Competitive Enterprise Institute and also outright front groups with names like Friends of Science and the Global Climate Coalition, all of which came up with an endless stream of arguments for why global warming wasn't happening and even if it was, nothing should be done aboGlobal Climate Coalition, all of which came up with an endless stream of arguments for why global warming wasn't happening and even if it was, nothing should be done aboglobal warming wasn't happening and even if it was, nothing should be done about it.

The multiple harms that global warming is causing, especially to human access to adequate food supplies, will only increase if the science deniers continue to provide politicians with excuses to do nothing about the problem, while the media remains nearly silent.

This is how the liberal fascists of the Left, who first took over the environmental movement, then began to use global warming to take over the civil discourse, even if it meant destroying science.

From Donald Trump to Sean Hannity to Harold Hamm to Sen. Jim Inhofe (R - Exxon), one of the favorite global warming science denial idiocies is «Ha... if there's so much warming, why's there snow outside.»

If you want to know what I think about the science of climate change, then you should read what Mojib (if my name weren't Mojib Latif it would be global warming) Latif has to say about the relationship between natural variability and long - term climate change (which includes, very prominently, the discussion about natural variability «swamping» mean surface temperature on a short - term basisIf you want to know what I think about the science of climate change, then you should read what Mojib (if my name weren't Mojib Latif it would be global warming) Latif has to say about the relationship between natural variability and long - term climate change (which includes, very prominently, the discussion about natural variability «swamping» mean surface temperature on a short - term basisif my name weren't Mojib Latif it would be global warming) Latif has to say about the relationship between natural variability and long - term climate change (which includes, very prominently, the discussion about natural variability «swamping» mean surface temperature on a short - term basis).

Mr. Dickson wrote passionately about several areas in climate science that troubled him, including: first, the idea that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that climate change is real, caused by humans, and a threat; second, the idea that government agencies had manipulated temperature records to fit a narrative of warming; and third, that China is developing its coal resources so fast that nothing short of radical population control will save us, if burning fossil fuels really does cause global warming.

What's your course of action to save your global warming agenda, particularly if you can't dispute refute science - based / statistic analysis - based material from one of your fiercest critics and his associates?

If only the entire heterogeneous Human Caused Co2 Induced Global Warming Climate Science mass would get some humility and start speaking with their inside voices.

These organisations take a consistent line on climate change: that the science is contradictory, the scientists are split, environmentalists are charlatans, liars or lunatics, and if governments took action to prevent global warming, they would be endangering the global economy for no good reason.