Sentences with phrase «case for global warming does»

Moreover, the case for global warming does not rely primarily on observed warming; it has models, historical studies and other science behind it.

Not exact matches

Those who legitimately question the case for man - made global warming (AGW) do not question whether glacier retreat is evidence of global warming.

Here's my overarching question for CFACT and anyone pressing the case for action to end energy poverty, whether or not they do so as part of a position on global warming:

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?

Little do they realize that the basic thrust of my criticism of the I.P.C.C. draft was really to register a clear complaint that I.P.C.C. was being too wishy - washy and was not presenting its case for anthropogenic impact being the principal driver of global warming as clearly and forcefully as they could, and should.

But in any case, it doesn't really matter for the problem at hand (global warming).

However, the environmentalist case against engineering fixes for global warming does not rest on the underlying science.

But the normal stuff in the report and a Comment which says «These leaks do nothing to undermine the case for man - made global warming».

We're not offering a «counter-claim» about the science, because our position is that even the concrete, incontrovertible, unassailable fact of human influence on global warming and climate change does not, by itself, make a case for action.

Whatever the scientific truth, which Dyson admits he isn't positive about, he doesn't think that the case for global warming is sufficient to curtail economic development or take resources away from more pressing problems like reducing poverty.

Most importantly; do those other papers undermine the case for anthropogenic global warming, or support an alternative cause (or even point to no warming at all).

Joshua, nobody is saying «they did it first» In short, those making the case for global warming conflated two concepts.

Case in point: you point out how a CENTURY of global warming is borne out in the atmosphere, the cryosphere, the ocean temperature, and in sea level rise ALL YOUR OPPONENT needs to say is that the last 18 years doesn't look like «warming» for the atmosphere above 15,000 feet (which, btw, WHAT atmosphere?)

For this reason, Shackley et al. found that many climate modellers didn't want to talk openly about their adjustments, in case critics of man - made global warming (who they referred to as «climate contrarians») would use them to question the reliability of the models:

With these two knuckleheads prominently representing the case for bogus climate alarmism, is it any wonder the most recent Gallup poll doesn't reflect even a single scintilla of the American public being impressed by global warming «scientific» hysteria.

In particular, he came up with an obviously self - contradictory case for doing nothing about global warming, and gave a clearly biased summary of the economic literature on this topic, which I know very well.

I suspect you might like to say to me, «John, look the research that supports the case for global warming was done by research scientists; people with PhD's in Meteorology.

In either case, lack of warming for 15 years is enough to conclude that greenhouse warming does not exist and the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming by the greenhouse effect is false.

IMO, this incident just proves they don't have a case for catastrophic global warming.

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.

So it was easy for the energy - interest guys to make the case that anything we would do to deal with global warming would be a job - killer.

MJB: Even if it were a rule, in this case here, what simpler alternative explanation do you think there is to the consensus model for global warming?

Even if it were a rule, in this case here, what simpler alternative explanation do you think there is to the consensus model for global warming?

Now, JJ goes on to claim that «I think you'll find the math doesn't work» which I interpret to mean the equation does not support the case for global warming alarmism.