Sentences with phrase «based global warming argument»

Then thereâ $ ™ s the pesky issue of â $ œconsensus.â $ Alarmists typically counter any fact - based global warming argument with the assertion that the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has already ruled on the issue, and therefore â $ œthe science is settledâ $ and â $ œthe debate is over.â $ â $ œMild winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms, â $ IPCC claimed in its 2001 Third Assessment.

Not exact matches

It's been remarkable to see the lengthening line of Republican politicians, particularly presidential hopefuls, chiding Pope Francis for pressing the case for action to stem global warming given how much conservatives have stressed values - based arguments on important issues in the past.

A valuable short paper that has been accepted for publication in Geophysical Research Letters (subscription required) makes a strong case against presenting any argument about human - driven global warming that's based on short - term trends (a decade or so).

The Nature commentary by Penner et al. on which this argument is based actually says that on top of the global warming caused by carbon dioxide, other short - lived pollutants (such as methane and black carbon) cause an additional warming approximately 65 % as much as CO2, and other short - lived pollutants (such as aerosols) also cause some cooling.

You say that this uncertainty is used «to argue that environmental policies based on concerns over global warming are not even worthy of support», but it seems to us that it is less the case that your objection is based on an argument made as much as the fact that they outlined a difference of opinion.

While such a «missing heat» explanation for a lack of recent warming [i.e., Trenberth's argument that just can not find it yet] is theoretically possible, I find it rather unsatisfying basing an unwavering belief in eventual catastrophic global warming on a deep - ocean mechanism so weak we can't even measure it [i.e., the coldest deep ocean waters are actually warmer than they should be by thousandths of a degree]...

See the video of Prof. Mike Hulme for a resounding challenge to political arguments for action on climate change, based on the idea that the consensus is that global warming will cause catastrophe.

The arguments of this book are not just opinions, but are based on the work of hundreds of scientists across the world who challenge the theory of man - made global warming.

there is indeed limited argument regarding recent warming as long as the discussion is based on «official» global data bases; as soon as you consider a) all «comments» on data quality and significance, temperature data as included in GHCN, Crutem, Giss are heavily contested by experts from more than 15 countries, including «smaller» countries like he US, Canada, the entire Northern Europe, Russia....

Curry's main and most flawed argument was that information in the latest IPCC report should decrease our confidence in human - caused global warming; an argument she based in large part on the supposed global warming «pause», which is itself a fictional creation.

AGW scepticism is based on the same scientific principles that has produced the global warming hypothesis, though the fact is that arguments from both sides have become highly politicised.

The BioScience study also analyzed the arguments made by 45 science - based blogs about the impacts of global warming on polar bear populations.

Personally I think he landed on the ocean heat argument as being the only reasonable way to measure global warming because he thinks he can make a stronger measurement uncertainty - based action - delaying argument on this tack... Who, me?

Since there is little scientific basis for CO2 causing warming (that is covered in the book) the strongest argument for Global Warming iwarming (that is covered in the book) the strongest argument for Global Warming iWarming is gone.

The Vinyl salesmen are also promoting Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore, who has been a serial shill for the nuclear industry («there is no proof global warming is caused by humans, but it is likely enough that the world should turn to nuclear power»), loggers of the Amazon rainforest («All these save - the - forests arguments are based on bad science...») the lumber industry («clear - cutting is good for forests»), pharmaceuticals in water (it's «inevitable that a small amount of ingested pharmaceuticals will eventually show up at trace levels in wastewater»).

It was in an obscure, but previously basically legit journal, that stated that suddenly, most accumulated peer - reviewed literature since 1842 about global warming is false... based on arguments long discredited in the peer - reviewed literature.

If the author is already peddling denialism based on limited facts used out of context, and this new paper is published likely just to be used as the latest red herring distraction in the global warming argument by examining «Svalbard and Greenland temperature records» in a too limited time span without relevant context, which, just in case some may not have noticed does not represent the region known as planet Earth, uses too short a time span in relation to mechanism outside of the examined region because it is in fact a regional analysis; one is left with a reasonable conclusion that the paper is designed to be precisely what I suspect it is designed for, to be a red herring distraction in the argument between science and science denialism regarding global warming.

It does not help because global warming alarmism is not based on rational argument.

«In Global Warming Gridlock, David Victor combines a devastating critique of the prevailing UN-based process with a politically sophisticated argument for an alternative strategy based on climate clubs and deals.

I am aware of people making the argument that the big push by the nuclear industry for enormous government subsidies to find a massive expansion of nuclear power on the basis that nuclear power is «THE ANSWER» to global warming is a fraud that dishonestly and cynically takes advantage of growing concern about the very real problem of global warming, and I make that argument myself (because even a quite large expansion of nuclear electricity generation would have little effect on overall GHG emissions, at great cost, taking too long to achieve even that little effect, while misdirecting resources that could more effectively be applied elsewhere).

IMO, the strongest argument for sea ice decline over the last decade for being unusual and at least in part attributable to global warming is this (from Polyakov et al.): The severity of present ice loss can be highlighted by the breakup of ice shelves at the northern coast of Ellesmere Island, which have been stable until recently for at least several thousand years based on geological data.