Sentences with phrase «warming theory states»

Not exact matches

It also examines various theories about the cause of food allergies, including the «hygiene hypothesis» (i.e., our children's environments are too sterile) and the theory that vitamin D may play a role (doctors in cold states write three to four times as many prescriptions for epinephrine than doctors in warm states).

The bill's text, if passed into state law, would protect teachers from discipline if they «help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught,» namely, «biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.»

Geologists studying a region in the Mexican state of Veracruz have discovered evidence to explain the origin of the Wilcox Formation, one of Mexico's most productive oil plays, as well as support for the theory that water levels in the Gulf of Mexico dropped dramatically as it was separated from the rest of the world's oceans and Earth entered a period of extreme warming.

Lindzen was allowed to print his «Iris Theory» (stating that global warming might end because of a natural increase in cooling - type clouds and less water vapor - a heat - trapping greenhouse gas) in Geophysical Research Letters (Jun. 26, 2001 - a legitimate peer - reviewed journal).

It's not the best - researched global - warming theory, but it could be the most horrifying to certain fans of college football: Environmentalists said Friday that climate change might push the growing range of Ohio's iconic buckeye tree out of the state, leaving it for archrival Michigan.

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.

On a slightly tangential topic, what is the state of the «global warming will cause a permanent el nino» theory

Patrick J. Michaels, a University of Virginia professor and state climatologist since 1980, has been a leading skeptic of global warming theories.

On the other hand, the AGW theory states that OLR decrease means warming.

You appear to have your knickers all twisted about the generally accepted greenhouse theory, which states that GH gases (primarily water vapor, plus some smaller ones, such as CO2) keep our planet warmer than it would otherwise be if they were not in our atmosphere.

To be classified as rejecting, an article had to clearly and explicitly state that the theory of global warming is false or, as happened in a few cases, that some other process better explains the observed warming.

-- denying that the tropospheric land and sea temperature anomaly (UAH) has warmed more slowly than that at the surface (HadCRUT3)(although it should warm more rapidly according to the GH theory) and even stating exactly the opposite

However, you need to distinguish between the fact that the globe is warming and has been for some time, and the «AGW theory», which states that the post-1950 warming is caused by rising CO2 levels.

That is, it is endorsement or rejection of a specific theory which states, in part, that anthropogenic factors are responsible for greater than 50 % of warming since 1950.

The AGW theory also states that the lack of warming from 1945 - 1970 and 1995 - 2011 are caused by... well... the theory's not real clear on that part.

The theory states, humans are causing C02 to rise, which is making the Earths climate to warm.

The theory states that as the Earth warms, more water vapor will be in the air.

Just yesterday, a peer reviewed paper was published which shows that the positive feedbacks that global warming theory depends on to predict a climate catastrophe, have been up until now vastly over stated.

In 2007, he had this slide # 39 in his Powerpoint presentation which stated «Journalists must deal with powerful disinformation campaigns... Goal is to «reposition global warming as theory, rather than fact,» according to author Ross Gelbspan.»

... In light of their recent findings, Davies et al. say there is «little support for the existence of a «permanent El Niño»... that there was robust ENSO variability in past «greenhouse» episodes and that future warming will be unlikely to promote a permanent El Niño state,» which point they also emphasize in the final sentence of their abstract, where they say that their evidence for robust Late Cretaceous ENSO variability «does not support the theory of a «permanent El Niño,»» [Andrew Davies, Alan E.S. Kemp, Graham P. Weedon, John A. Barron 2012: Geology]

Traditional anthropogenic theory of currently observed global warming states that release of carbon dioxide into atmosphere (partially as a result of utilization of fossil fuels) leads to an increase in atmospheric temperature because the molecules of CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) absorb the infrared radiation from the Earth's surface.

It's not the best - researched global - warming theory, but it could be the most horrifying to certain fans of college football: Environmentalists said Friday that climate change might push the growing range of Ohio's iconic buckeye tree out of the state, leaving it for archrival Michigan.

Novelist Michael Crichton, in State of Fear, ends with an appendix comparing the theory of global warming to the theory of eugenics — the belief, prominently promoted by Nazis, that the gene pool of the human species was degenerating due to higher reproductive rates of «inferior» people.

Also, the basic theory behind the scientific argument i.e. increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere due to humans burning fossil fuels will lead (and is leading) to global warming which will change the climate, is not being stated often enough in the media.

Not only does the states» «asserted fear of global warming stands in stark contrast to the position they took throughout this litigation,» but the states» approach in this argument is to claim an «entirely new injury (and thus, an entirely new theory of standing)» in a response to other arguments.

As a massive blanket of arctic air brings twenty - year record cold temperatures to the United States, it's not surprising to see the Church of Global Warming in full - on shrieking panic mode, screaming at the top of their lungs that a blast of cold weather doesn't disprove their theories.

By John Hayward — As a massive blanket of arctic air brings twenty - year record cold temperatures to the United States, it's not surprising to see the Church of Global Warming in full - on shrieking panic mode, screaming at the top of their lungs that a blast of cold weather doesn't disprove their theories.

Collectively and pursuant to statutory authority, under the direction of these Executive Offices, the USGCRP directed an effort statutorily dedicated in part to studying the state of the science and its uncertainties surrounding the theory of «global warming» or «climate change,» ultimately producing the National Assessment.

This public relations firm clearly stated that the aim of the campaign was to «reposition global warming as theory rather than fact».

ICE's stated goal was to reposition global warming as theory (not fact).»

Case in point: the Ohio State researchers who claim that a warmer climate produces more violence - this «new» theory that hotter temperatures cause more aggression has been easily debunked before (and debunking this theory is kinda like shooting politically correct fish in a barrel).

To state it plainly, the theory that Planet Earth is headed toward a death spiral caused by anthropogenic global warming, or AGW, has no empirical basis to back it up.

The ICE's stated aim was to «reposition global warming as theory rather than fact.»

On page 3 Postma states that anthropogenic global warming means a general warming of the atmosphere theorized to be human emission of carbon dioxide (CO2), which is then theorized to cause a strengthening of the effect of the Greenhouse Theory, which actually causes said warming.

Entertaining how the NRDC played a role of some sort with one of the global warming nuisance lawsuits, the Connecticut v American Electric Power, while another of those global warming nuisance lawsuits, Comer v. Murphy Oil had wording within its documents stating «The API [American Petroleum Institute] and other Oil Company Defendants have engaged in concerted financial activity — far in excess of $ 1 million — in furtherance of a tortious civil conspiracy to «reposition global warming as theory rather than fact» — details I described in my previous blog post.

The first line sounds more like a letter to Penthouse than a scientific paper (you know, the classic «I never thought something like this would happen to me, but last Saturday night...) What caused me to delete the email (fortunately it was still in the trash so I could go back and find these quotes) was the line «findings in this paper could nt be more damaging to manmade global warming theory or the the thousands of climate scientists...» No academic in his right mind would state his / her conclusions in this manner, and even if they did, not editor or advisor would let it slip by.

Virginia state climatologist Patrick MIchaels was fired from his job because he did not support catastrophic man - made global warming theory.