Sentences with phrase «anthropogenic global warming claim»

This study from Science Online from 2008 titled «Northern Hemisphere Controls on Tropical Southeast African Climate During the Past 60,000 Years» also leaves me wondering about the anthropogenic global warming claim and also seems to back up my thought that CO2 is not driving this.

While believers in anthropogenic global warming claim the climate is on a new trajectory with continuous warming, there is an alternative scientific literature that recognises these 60 - year cycles.

The science behind evolutionism is as weak as the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming claims!

Not exact matches

«This would be consistent with the elite cues hypothesis, in that we would expect political leaders who deny anthropogenic global warming to claim victory during unseasonably cold periods or amplify their denial during unseasonably warm periods that invite challenge to their worldview,» says Bohr.

Do these ocean findings finally lay to rest any arguments against anthropogenic global warming, according to news coverage claims?

One of his reasons to claim that «the risk of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming appears to be so low that it is not currently worth doing anything to try to control it» is that he uses a very low value for the climate sensitivity based on non-reviewed «studies», while ignoring the peer - reviewed work.

This is similar to how the denier claims of no global warming, or of no anthropogenic influence upon warming, or of low climate sensitivity, depend on all observational data being wrong in the same direction.

The two kinds of climate change are sometimes confounded by non-experts — e.g., when it is claimed that DO events represent a much larger and more rapid climate change than anthropogenic global warming.

The point I am trying to make is «when it is claimed that DO events represent a much larger and more rapid climate change than anthropogenic global warming,» perhaps DO events do cause rapid regional climate change larger and more rapid than anthropogenic global warming generally.

One of his reasons to claim that «the risk of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming appears to be so low that it is not currently worth doing anything to try to control it» is that he uses a very low value for the climate sensitivity based on non-reviewed «studies», while ignoring the peer - reviewed work.

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?

Surely you have more to present than that to support your claim, ``... the duration of the current positve phase of the PDO over the last 30 years... can very much be linked (albeit not with absolute certainty) to anthropogenic global warming.»

It claims to be the first of its kind, but there have been one or two others like it, such as the now universally - discredited Stern Report, which used the same unscientific rhetoric of «market failure» together with overstatements of the imagined consequences of anthropogenic «global warming» as a substitute for rigorous economic analysis.

One might first note, as The New American has reported before, that «consensus» itself is often manipulated, a good example being the debunked claim that «97 percent of scientists affirm anthropogenic global warming.»

However, claiming an overwhelming scientific justification for the Plan based upon anthropogenic global warming does a disservice both to climate science and to the policy process.

A paper by John Cook and colleagues published in May 2013 claimed that of the 4,000 peer - reviewed papers they surveyed expressing a position on anthropogenic global warming, «97.1 % endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming».

The new report — the first of three comprehensive studies to come out this year — makes one of the strongest claims yet in support of the hypothesis that human activity, namely the relentless pumping of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, is what's behind climate change — an effect climate scientists refer to as anthropogenic global warming.

Their main claim is that unless human CO2 emissions are controlled, catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) will result.

Speaking of Albert Einstein, he had an answer for those continually trying to claim that there is a consensus for their flawed, unproven hypothesis regarding anthropogenic global warming, climate change or what ever the charlatans now call it: «Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of the truth» Albert Einstein.

By Noel Sheppard One of the world's leading promoters of the anthropogenic global warming myth claimed Monday he is convinced the e-mail messages involved in the growing international scandal ClimateGate «are genuine,» and he's «dismayed and deeply shaken by them.»

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

In a recent article in Skeptical Inquirer, geologist and writer James Lawrence Powell, claims that there is a 99.99 % scientific consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).

Despite his views on anthropogenic global warming and dislike of environmentalists, Watts claims to be a «green» who drives an electric car and has installed solar panels on his house.

Now that the US has greatly increased sources of oil and natural gas thanks to drilling using new technology (thus obviating the need for depending on the Middle East), renewable energy advocates have fallen back on their claims that fossil fuel use must be reduced to avoid catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.

Such a report must refrain from ignoring basic scientific practices, as the SPM authors blatantly do when claiming to be able to quantify with high precision their confidence in the impact of anthropogenic C02 emissions on global warming.

But to top it all off, they made a claim of Anthropogenic (man made) Global Warming caused by C02.

The bulwark claim of the anthropogenic global warm (AGW) hypothesis and the objective of the stick are that current global annual average temperatures are the warmest ever.

and which said claims of CO2 causing Anthropogenic Global Warming Climate Change (CAGW) makes no mention of the «warming» associated with the IPWarming Climate Change (CAGW) makes no mention of the «warming» associated with the IPwarming» associated with the IPGW,....

The Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) Greenhouse Effect claim is that shortwave from the Sun and not longwave thermal infrared from the Sun heats the Earth's surface, that this is mainly visible light.

In the Comment by Nuccitelli et al., they make many false and invalid criticisms of the CFC - warming theory in my recent paper, and claim that their anthropogenic forcings including CO2 would provide a better explanation of the observed global mean surface temperature (GMST) data over the past 50 years.

«I have been involved in climate change science since 1988 and by 1992 I realized there was very little science to back up the claims of anthropogenic global warming.

The public is receptive to an expose of the many mythologies and false claims associated with anthropogenic global warming and are welcoming an authoritative description of planet Earth and its ever - changing climate in readable language.

The latest attack on global warming consensus comes from Dennis Avery and Fred Singer who claim to have found 500 peer reviewed papers refuting that the last few decades of global warming are primarily anthropogenic.

In early 2008, the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) published their Petition Project, a list of names from people who all claimed to be scientists and who rejected the science behind the theory of anthropogenic (human - caused) global warming (AGW).

A key claim of the hypothesis known as anthropogenic global warming (AGW), is that human activities (particularly industry) are producing CO2 that is causing warming and climate change.

Senator Kaine claims that 70 % of Virginians agree with the «scientific consensus» that catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is real and that «it is urgent that we do something about it.»

All these years Steve has maintained a very clear (and always polite) stance: he proposed himself to audit some data, models, procedures and conclusions, while not defending or declaring any particular position about the claims made by Climate Science regarding anthropogenic climate change, global warming and other similar issues.

Ironically, just a few years ago, believers in anthropogenic (man - caused) global warming — since renamed «climate change» — claimed cold weather and snow would soon be just a memory.

Climate alarmists claim the rises in OHC, SST and TLT anomaly data are overwhelming proof of anthropogenic global warming.

The bulwark claim of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis and the objective of the stick are that current global annual average temperatures are the warmest ever.

Some of them deny it is even warming, others claim anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is a hoax, others claim that there is some magical negative feedback that will result in virtually no warming, others like Lewis cherry pick literature to delude themselves into thinking that climate sensitivity is low, while others are convinced that an ice age is imminent;)

It is my contention (and that of many others) that in fact this is the default null hypothesis and until proponents of the anthropogenic global warming hyothesis come up with some better evidence to back up their claims of imminent dangerous warming driven by co2 and a water vapour feedback to its increasing levels, the null hypothesis is the best one we have.

A second claim was low - lying inhabited Pacific islands are «being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming» and evacuations were occurring.

In attempts to counteract the temperature decrease from 1940 to 1970 while CO2 from human sources increased proponents of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) claimed it was due to human addition of sulfate aerosols.

Unhappily, this is a public issue that encompasses a huge amount of falsehoods by people who are either ignorant or dishonest claiming it is «settled science» that anthropogenic global warming will be catastrophic.

American Thinker have published an article The AGW Smoking Gun by Gary Thompson who claims to disprove a key component of anthropogenic global warming.

Peiser has long opposed mainstream science's conclusions about anthropogenic global warming; in 2005 Peiser said he had data which refuted an article published in Science Magazine, claiming 100 % of peer - reviewed research papers on climate change agreed with the scientific consensus of global warming.

Fortunately, those of us in the ever - growing «denier» community are skeptical of every claim, including those supported by data and results which debunk the crippled conjecture of anthropogenic global warming.

But, the «Original Sin» associated with the heterogeneous mess of the surface temperature record was perpetrated by James Hansen et el in the early 1980's when they decided to use the surface temperature record to prove and / or justify their «junk science» claims of CO2 causing Anthropogenic Global Warming / Climate Change.

Based on an extensive literature review, we suggest that (1) climate warming occurs with great uncertainty in the magnitude of the temperature increase; (2) both human activities and natural forces contribute to climate change, but their relative contributions are difficult to quantify; and (3) the dominant role of the increase in the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases (including CO2) in the global warming claimed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is questioned by the scientific communities because of large uncertainties in the mechanisms of natural factors and anthropogenic activities and in the sources of the increased atmospheric CO2 concentration.