Sentences with phrase «about global warming claims»

However, there is nothing baseless about global warming claims.

The truth about the global warming claims was sufficient to undermine them.

Not exact matches

The views of a visiting pope, respected by Catholics and many non-Catholics alike as a moral and spiritual leader of great prominence, will not make persons now unconcerned about global warming suddenly begin to grow concerned, nor even make skeptics of religious freedom begin to take its claims more seriously.

Lomborg, a Danish political scientist with a background in statistics, argues in his text that claims made by environmentalists about global warming, overpopulation, energy, deforestation, species loss, water shortages, and a variety of other issues are exaggerations unsupported by a proper analysis of environmental data.

People who claim we can stop worrying about global warming on the basis of a cooler year or a cooler decade — or just on questionable predictions of cooling — are as naive as a child mistaking a falling tide, or a spring low tide, for a real long - term fall in sea level.

«Australian scientists have rejected claims a multi-national climate change body is set to revise down its previous warnings about the rate of global warming.

The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30 % over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming.

Balling claimed to know «nothing» about the Pacific Research Institute even though PRI and published his book promoting global warming doubt:

In the paper Gray makes many extravagant claims about how supposed changes in the THC accounted for various 20th century climate changes («I judge our present global ocean circulation conditions to be similar to that of the period of the early 1940s when the globe had shown great warming since 1910, and there was concern as to whether this 1910 - 1940 global warming would continue.

Cuccinelli cites the Kremlin organ RIA Novosti to «prove» that western climate scientists are LYING about global warming, but during the 2010 forest fires, Andrei Areshev, a lunatic attached to a Russian Foreign Ministry drunk tank, even claimed right in this same RIA Novosti that those sneaky U.S. climate scientists were CAUSING global warming by beaming secret climate weapons at Russia!

The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 [carbon dioxide] in the atmosphere have increased by about 30 percent over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming.

Sustainable Energy — Without the Hot Air by David MacKay (free): If you're confused by all the conflicting claims about global warming and alternative energy sources, this book, by a Cambridge physicist, will, um, clear the air.

[Response: Anyone who has looked at the actual record (linked by Joel) can only regard the claim that «global warming stopped in 1998» as either ludicrous or a deliberate deception — even more so if one knows about the powerful El Niño that occured in 1998.

Having read other material on the consequences and relationships of CCN's and lifetimes regarding papers that have been written, it seems that a lot of the papers coming from the Svensmark angle, so to speak, are not conclusive enough of definitive impact in the impact potentials for global warming, to jsutify the claims made by Svensmark, or the press about his, or similar, work.

A revealing look at RC's «real science:» When SecularAnimist posts a dubious claim (# 87) about the cause and effects of global warming, it remains here.

Only tonight I heard a Russian scientist say about global warming: «People claim that there is not enough evidence to act.

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.

Some sceptics are even using their press - releases about «2007 likely to be warmest year», «2009 in top 5 warmest years», to claim that global warming is being exaggerated.

I just was watching your interview with Michael Shellenberger and reading / listening up on this whole «centrist environmentalist» concept and I have to say, I take issue with people claiming the longtime «left» environmental movement was all about being a culture of restriction and somehow not in tune with the idea that this global warming crisis could lead to newer, alternative, healthy economics of another kind.

In 2004, the Dane made his name as a green contrarian with his bestselling book The Skeptical Environmentalist, and outraged scientists and green groups around the world by arguing that many claims about global warming, overpopulation, energy resources, deforestation, species loss and water shortages are not supported by analysis.

Since a commenter mentioned the medieval vineyards in England, I've been engaged on a quixotic quest to discover the truth about the oft - cited, but seldom thought through, claim that the existence of said vineyards a thousand years ago implies that a «Medieval Warm Period «was obviously warmer than the current climate (and by implication that human - caused global warming is not occuring).

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.

In Shellenberger's variant, you need to add the words «in China» to any claim about the role of an energy technology or policy in fighting global warming and see if it still holds up.

For an administration that has packed its regulatory agencies with people who want to claim that global warming isn't really a problem, Bush's vague prognostications about technological solutions are consistent with a general desire to do as little as possible to make real changes.

There has been a bit of excitement and confusion this week about a new paper in Nature Geoscience, claiming that we can still limit global warming to below 1.5 °C above preindustrial temperatures, whilst emitting another ~ 800 Gigatons of carbon dioxide.

However keen you may be to demonstrate my arguments are misleading, I am afraid to report I am simply a scientist who feels stongly about protecting our natural environment, and who agrees global warming is a potential risk, but yet who remains unconvinced by the generally alarmist claims that the end of the world is nigh.

Come on you soil experts, you must be able to document this before making any kind of reasonable global warming claim about grasslands.

We've seen a bizarre (well, if you know the climate denialist scene, not so bizarre) misreporting about Millar et al., focusing on the claim that climate models have supposedly overestimated global warming.

He is skeptical about the claim that polar bears «will be decimated by global warming as their icy habitat melts.»

It puts Dick in the right company, so far as his claims about global warming go.

It'd be nice if Lindzen gave his reader some way of checking the claims he makes about persecution - was Tennekes dismissed because he questioned the scientific underpinnings of global warming, or just after?

Six scientists focused on how tornadoes might be affected by global warming last week criticized the central claim in «The Truth About Tornadoes,» a recent Op - Ed article asserting there was a measurable decline in strong tornadoes.

Luntz worried about seriously in a memo during Bush's first term that the Republicans were exposed because of their stand on the environment: Luntz claimed that «Voters believe [d] that there [was] no consensus about global warming within the scientific community... [and that]..

Moreover, the flooding pattern could well be cyclical, so his claim did nothing at all to help those scientists and others who are worried about global warming, and with good reason.

At the time, my focus was Muller's overarching point about recent overstatements of a link between global warming and tornado patterns, not his claim of a decline.

Milloy further claims that the observed global warming of 0.6 - 0.8 C over the 20th Century is «well within the natural variation in average global temperature, which in the case of the Arctic, for example, is a range of about 3 degrees Centigrade».

Neil confronted them with the claim that the Antarctic ice is getting thicker, and asked them to explain how this was compatible with global warming; he also talked about mean temperatures and the trend in the same since 1998 (see the programme from about 7 minutes in, and also from about 9m 15s in).

Uncertainty about the extent of future global warming is in itself an indicator of serious climate change to come, scientists have claimed.

More than 650 scientists from around the world dispute the claims made by the United Nations and former Vice President Al Gore about global warming, saying that science does not support that climate change is a manmade phenomenon, according to a posting on the Senate environmental committee's press blog.

The fraud is to claim a global warming of 0.2 deg C per decade when about 0.12 deg C per decade is due to the warming phase of the multidecadal oscillation.

Agence Presse France has published a whopper about Global Warming, titled «Climate refugees — the growing army without a name», in which we get the claims of a UN Climate Committee that «50 million» will be homeless because of Global Warming «by 2010».

Global warming believers need only to counter dry recitations of skeptic science material with assertions about the numbers of «IPCC scientists», declare this to be the settled consensus opinion, then claim there is leaked memo evidence proving skeptics are paid industry money to «reposition global warming as theory rather than fact» — hoodwink the public, in other Global warming believers need only to counter dry recitations of skeptic science material with assertions about the numbers of «IPCC scientists», declare this to be the settled consensus opinion, then claim there is leaked memo evidence proving skeptics are paid industry money to «reposition global warming as theory rather than fact» — hoodwink the public, in other global warming as theory rather than fact» — hoodwink the public, in other words.

Interestingly, Wood and his team are not making any grand claims about the long - term potential of cloud brightening to stave - off global warming.

It's clear that Smith doesn't understand, willfully or otherwise, even the most basic ideas about global warming; he still claims global temperatures haven't risen since 1998, for example, sticking to a «pause» in warming that we know, and have known for some time, doesn't exist.

The main basis for the claim that there has been «unusual» global warming since the late 19th century is that the global temperature estimates constructed from weather station records suggest a warming trend of about 0.8 - 1.0 °C since about 1880.

In the early 1990s, a group of sceptics claimed that Roger Revelle, one of the first climate scientists, had changed his mind about global warming and no longer believed it was a serious problem.

A graph we posted back in April shows the danger of looking at ENO to substantiate claims made about anthropogenic global warming.

His comment was singled out by skeptics, who claimed scientists were covering up the truth about global warming.

There have long been strong doubts about this claim and it has now been shown that global warming in recent decades can be explained entirely by natural factors that humans and their governments have no influence over except possibly by highly speculative and controversial geoengineering.

It's possible that the New York Yankees winning the world series could trigger a mass extinction but that idea is just as ridiculous, and just as unobserved as making up claims about extinction and global warming without any evidence.