Sentences with phrase «arguing against global warming»

Re: # 37 — «I think # 33 is arguing against global warming (or is claiming the warming might be just an urban heat effect).»

I think # 33 is arguing against global warming (or is claiming the warming might be just an urban heat effect).

Re: # 37 — «I think # 33 is arguing against global warming (or is claiming the warming might be just an urban heat effect).»

If you want to label me a skeptic or claim that I «argue against global warming,» then so be it, but I don't consider my position as such.

So, using GISP2 data to argue against global warming is, well, stupid, or misguided, or misled, or something, but surely not scientifically sensible.

I actually watched a state legislator get up on the floor recently and argue against a global warming bill for that reason.

None of this argues against global warming.

Not exact matches

He features a video on his official Assembly website, in which he argues against a bill to curb global warming pollution, saying it would create a «burden» on businesses, and is better left to the federal government to regulate.

Also, regarding the satellite measurements: they do not themselves argue against the idea of anthropogenic global warming, as you may have suggested.

Also, regarding the satellite measurements: they do not themselves argue against the idea of anthropogenic global warming, as you may have suggested.

Arguing against the alleged human activity's impact on global warming is politically incorrect.

* My major point (in analogy to peak oil / global warming) is that the issues argue against each other.

The fact that the increase in damage cost is about as large as the increase in GDP (as recently argued at FiveThirtyEight) is certainly no strong evidence against an effect of global warming on damage cost.

In a recent survey of over 2000 peer reviewed scientific papers on global warming, the number which argued against these three claims was zero.

It is not particularly surprising that they could not find one to argue against the reality of carbon emissions - driven global warming, but it still seems a bit of an unfair difference in stature to have the position backed up by corporate - sponsored pseudoscience be represented by a member of Congress, against a man known primarily for shouting «science!»

In April 1998, Art Robinson and his organization the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, along with the Exxon - backed George C. Marshall Institute, co-published the infamous «Oregon Petition» claiming to have collected 17,000 signatories to a document arguing against the realities of global warming.

In a new screed against a free exchange of ideas on climate change, «Earther» Brian Kahn argues that those who question global warming orthodoxy have no right to voice their opinions in public.

It's refreshing to see a figure from the left arguing with such passion against global warming orthodoxy.

Arguing for or against what causes global warming isn't particularly useful, let's focus on how to improve the human condition and standards of living, indeed living for future generations and work cooperatively with nature and each other, not mindlessly pollute and degrade or diminish what we have, often to gratify wants, not just needs.

At one point Pile argues against my contention that his interpretation of «endorses global warming» is incorrect because it makes the classification system unnecessarily inconsistent by simply asserting the classification system is inconsistent.

Global warming catastrophists in fact have to argue against historical data, and say it is flawed in two ways: First, they argue there are positive feedbacks in climate that will take hold in the future and accelerate warming; and second, they argue there are other anthropogenic effects, specifically sulphate aerosols, that are masking man - made warming.

The Guardian: «Given that sea level has risen faster than predicted, if you're arguing against the dangers posed by global warming, sea level is a poor choice.»

Or Paul Driessen, the author of Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death, saying things like: «It's incredibly patronising and colonialistic to tell Africa that you can't develop because we're concerned about global warming» — while arguing that funding the fight against global warming «takes money away from spending on malaria».

Since any increase in solar energy would heat both the lower and upper atmosphere, the observed drop in upper atmospheric temperatures in the past 30 years argues against an increase in energy coming from the sun being responsible for global warming.

Cohen tries to explain this away by arguing that Exxon only funded such groups because they were against the Kyoto Protocol (which it still firmly rejects) and not because they vehemently denied the existence of global warming.

Though we would have voted for global warming — it's a bit semantic, but we've always thought peak oil and global warming have something of a cause and effect relationship, so it's a bit of apples and oranges here — it's tough to argue against the pure volatility of an oil - thirsty world when the well starts to run dry.

Along with the Exxon - backed George C. Marshall Institute, Robinson's group co-published the infamous «Oregon Petition» claiming to have collected 17,000 signatories to a document arguing against the realities of global warming.