Sentences with phrase «warming debate then»

Not exact matches

The global warming debate rages over which evidence is included and excluded, how that evidence is framed, and then how it's interpreted.

In so far as some sceptics and deniers are proclaiming that carbon dioxide - induced anthropogenic global warming may be «the scientific fraud of the century» then surely the issues surrounding it must be the scientific debate of the century.

After the «main debate» is over, which I believe it should be, then you can haggle all you want about how much warming will occur.

He then refers to «Dr. Crichton, a medical doctor and scientist» and his work of fiction «State of Fear», and says this book is «designed to bring some sanity to the global warming debate».

After the «main debate» is over, which I believe it should be, then you can haggle all you want about how much warming will occur.

If it could be stated that we completely understand why it is getting warmer, then that phase of the debate would be over.

The risks need to be assessed and then there needs to be dialogue among nations to determine which is the greater risk (Global Warming is right or Global Warming is wrong) before jumping to solutions.Cuuerntly the noise generated by the current polarized debate (see many comments above) obscures the evaluation of risks associated with both sides of the issue.

It seems somewhat disingenuous for the book's authors to continue assert that there is an ongoing debate regarding whether global warming is caused by humans, and then use pre-1998 references to make this case.

After setting up the public global warming debate, Cameron and his negotiator then changed formats multiple times and initially said it would be open to the media and then said he would only participate if it was private with no recording devices.

I agree with your comment that the apparent benefits of warming should be included in any Govt report, which can then be debated together with the much better known concerns.

The debate is about whether the increase in warming is small, medium or (unlikely in my mind) large, and then whether we should be further bankrupting already bankrupt societies to only slightly affect that rate of warming, whatever it is.

It's interesting — it occurs to me that if a formal debate is not about the truth, but about winning — then this global warming debate we didn't have, ie the one that was already over — what was it actually about?

This disagreement ties into the debate over man - made global warming, because if the Current Warm Period is not that unusual, then man - made global warming could be either (1) superimposed over considerable «natural global warming» or (2) non-existent (in which case global warming would have nothing to do with our «carbon footprint»).

Facts about a debate that's turned up more questions than answers,» includes a statement by then Exxon CEO Lee Raymond trumping up uncertainty in the science behind global warming as well as the cost of a carbon - restricted market.

Then I saw the Great Global Warming Hoax documentary, and saw there that the debate was not over, that there were perfectly credible and educated researchers who had a difference of opinion.

Consider that one can be an arguably disinterested observer by having reasoned from the climate focused science debate that when compared to the natural variations of all the dynamics of the Earth Atmospheric System (EAS) then there is at most a small and relatively insignificant warming from historic levels of CO2 from burning fossil fuels.

Mooney then wrote another excellent book Storm World, about the hurricane and global warming debate.

If someone is interested in debating the magnitude of sensitivity, then there is a working assumption of the basic mechanism of increased ACO2 = global warming.

C'est tout — no science, but curiosity re dangers of global warming led me to climate debate daily and arguments fer both sides, especially Steve McIntyre and Jeff Id... then on ter the sainted Judith, Max Anacker, oh and kim.)

What is often forgotten is that the UN established the IPCC in 1988 only because of the then raging scientific debate over the veracity of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis.

The debate is sort of encapsulated in two quotes: One is Robert Kennedy Jr. saying that if people only had the facts about global warming and understood how urgent this issue was, then they would take action, the right policies would come up and people would support the right candidates.

The criminal aspect is not only the failure of the alarmsits to observe these basic facts bu the Hockeystick fraud giving hundreds of times the weighting to faulty Bristlecone pine proxy data as to other sets in order to give a desired result, the blatant tampering of Data to warm the past with extremely dubious reasons, the NZ NWA scandal where they demonstrably altered data to fit the alarmist agenda, the Darwin Australia tampering, the crude attempt to prove a «hotspot» by making the base temperature representation red and thus appear hot in a now debunked graph etc Then there's the Nazi / Stalin / Lenin / Maoesque attempts to silence debate.

Of course, this has been readily apparent to those involved in the climate wars - Obama keeps losing the global warming debate, so he deceives and then does end - runs around the Constitution.

Moreover, as I've argued here previously, the emphasis, or hope that science can conclusively answer the debate about global warming almost concedes to the alarmist / precautionary perspective that, if «climate change is happening», then so the policies are justified.

«Avatar» director James Cameron double - dared global warming disaster skeptics to debate him — then morphed into a chicken and cackled off when they accepted his increasingly ludicrous debate terms, calling his critics «swine» as he headed for the hills.

Even if the warming is, say, 6; then the debate is over policy.

Since then, Curry has been a prominent critic of global warming alarmism, taking part in debates and even testifying before Congress.

I mean if, as Nurse is now suggesting, the scientific mainstream understanding of global warming is that it's happening but that it's open to debate how significant it is then doesn't this completely contradict pretty much everything he, the Royal Society, and its two previous presidents Lords Rees and May have been doing this last decade or more to stoke up the Anthropogenic Global Warming scare for all they'rewarming is that it's happening but that it's open to debate how significant it is then doesn't this completely contradict pretty much everything he, the Royal Society, and its two previous presidents Lords Rees and May have been doing this last decade or more to stoke up the Anthropogenic Global Warming scare for all they'reWarming scare for all they're worth?

Global warming, then, is no longer an issue for scientific debate.

But since an honest and comprehensive debate would most likely result in a public rejection of the «dangerous man - made global warming» conjecture, then as usual there won't be any real debate.

Then thereâ $ ™ s the pesky issue of â $ œconsensus.â $ Alarmists typically counter any fact - based global warming argument with the assertion that the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has already ruled on the issue, and therefore â $ œthe science is settledâ $ and â $ œthe debate is over.â $ â $ œMild winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms, â $ IPCC claimed in its 2001 Third Assessment.

In 1998, then climate realist and energy libertarian Jerry Taylor wrote a piece, «Global Warming: The Anatomy of a Debate,» that piggybacked on the late, great Public Choice economist William Niskanen.

It was an old debate in nuclear policy, but remarkably similar to another debate that was just then getting underway: how should we address global warming from the greenhouse effect?

The author starts off by talking about humanitarian issues and makes the specific point about addressing all other angles «other than a debate over whether global warming contributed to the floods» and then promptly spends a whole page quoting those who have done just that.

Then, replace «salt» with global warming and fears of too much CO2 as appropriate and you end up with a revealing new and quite readable article about the current climate change debate.

If you want to give debate a real try, then try explaining the inconvenient fact that while CO2 has been rising fast over the past century, global warming since the LIA has been right on the same long - term trend line, with no acceleration.

Peter Whale says: August 14, 2010 at 11:25 am Could someone on either side of the debate give me what weather conditions over an agreed period of time, that would then turn the observations so that they could be called climate, which would then either confirm catastrophic warming or confirm natural cause and variation =======================================================

Could someone on either side of the debate give me what weather conditions over an agreed period of time, that would then turn the observations so that they could be called climate, which would then either confirm catastrophic warming or confirm natural cause and variation.