Sentences with phrase «about aspects of global warming»

If a policy prescription does not account for the real complexity in the climate system, and real gaps in knowledge about aspects of global warming that matter most, is it likely that the public and lawmakers will pursue a big transformation of lifestyles and economic norms to curb CO2 emissions in a growing world still more than 85 percent dependent on burning fossil fuels to drive economies?

Skeptical Science (https://www.skepticalscience.com) has articles about every aspect of global warming you could think of, and some you couldn't, explaining how the science works and skilfully and rationally debunking the global warming doubters» or contrarians» arguments.

'' [The Heartland Institute] has never demonized scientists who disagree with its positions, never broken the law, and never lied about any aspect of global warming... or any other issue for that matter.»

Not exact matches

Facts and anecdotes examine the historic, scientific, economic, political, cultural, and literary aspects of coal, as well as the current debates about energy consumption, developing nations, and global warming.

Well I wanted to let you know that Petcurean has recently launched a brand new line of pet food called «Gather», and the idea behind Gather is to provide food for dogs and cats with sustainability and transparency and organic ingredients are the key aspects of the brand, and we know that one of the biggest trends right now in both the human and pet food arenas are... global warming, climate change, extremes in weather, it's all on their minds, so we just launched Gather in August of this year and we'll be starting to stress the food to reach all stores in October, so we're really excited about that.

That said, although I believe I understand what he is saying (and I agree with him regarding the confusion, lost credibility, and inaccuracies that often result when many current weather events are claimed to be a direct result of global warming), I have a few comments about some aspects of his recent post.

«The most discouraging aspect of the statements out of Japan, for many experts, was seeing the persistent gap between what science is saying about global warming and what countries are doing.»

What we know about global warming comes from thousands of scientists pouring over countless data sets, conducting experiments to figure out how the climate works and scrutinizing every aspect of each other's work.

Mark Bowen, the author of «Censoring Science: Inside the Political Attack on Dr. James Hansen and the Truth About Global Warming» (Fresh Air interview) said he was initially skeptical about the investigation, but was pleasantly surprised that it captured not only the basic violations of the public trust, but also dealt with «the subtler aspects of censorship — the delaying of information, the sorts of intimidation that cause self censorship.&rAbout Global Warming» (Fresh Air interview) said he was initially skeptical about the investigation, but was pleasantly surprised that it captured not only the basic violations of the public trust, but also dealt with «the subtler aspects of censorship — the delaying of information, the sorts of intimidation that cause self censorship.&rabout the investigation, but was pleasantly surprised that it captured not only the basic violations of the public trust, but also dealt with «the subtler aspects of censorship — the delaying of information, the sorts of intimidation that cause self censorship.»

Or is Paul defending against the charge by making a numbers argument — the scientists in question are on the same side as the consensus, so to challenge any aspect of global warming science or politics is to make a statement about «the majority of scientists» (many of whom are in fact social scientists)?

I doubt anyone in the Senate or employed by the Senate has spent 1 % of the time that most denizens have spent learning about all the aspects of global warming.

That is the aspect of this whole farce that will have future historians most puzzled about the Great Global Warming hysteria.

And I don't often question your reasoning w / r / t the science, per se, but on your arguments w / r / t the social aspects of the debate and on a few occasions, the rhetoric of your scientific arguments (such as your acceptance of arguments about a «pause» in «global warming.»

I understand the more subtle aspect of global warming means more hot days and more cold winters from time to time, but there are two main things that make we wonder about the veracity of the Anthropogenic Global Warming global warming means more hot days and more cold winters from time to time, but there are two main things that make we wonder about the veracity of the Anthropogenic Global Warmingwarming means more hot days and more cold winters from time to time, but there are two main things that make we wonder about the veracity of the Anthropogenic Global Warming Global WarmingWarming group.

Why on earth Mr Lacis raves on about the ins and outs of the technical issues under discussion in the area of climate science / global warming when it is the issue of the ethical and legal aspects of Gleick's actions that are the immediate issue.

Global warming is going to change just about every aspect of our lives — but one of the earliest, clearest impacts is the surging sea.

Global Warming, as an aspect of Climate Change, is not about what will one day become obscure albeit accurate references by individuals with polished prose, in obscure journals.