Sentences with phrase «catastrophic anthropogenic»

It seems that in those last two categories I disturb the fragile orthodoxy of believers in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) and «green» (i.e. heavily subsidized) energy.

The obvious breach of moral principles and the scientific method in ClimateGate strongly motivates me and others to critically examine the science and / or oppose the policies being advocated by those warning over catastrophic anthropogenic climate change.

The main evidence for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW), the principal alleged adverse effect of human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), is climate models built -LSB-...]

It is valid, although I would argue the context and scope of «catastrophic semiconductor failure» is much clearer and less open to interpretation that «catastrophic anthropogenic global warming / climate change».

This, of course, is why the denialist community harps on «CAGW» — catastrophic anthropogenic global warming — despite the fact that this is not a scientific term (i.e. commonly used by scientists).

Not only does it confirm a root cause, but it yields an additional benefit of a confidence level: when 29 out of 30 experts vote that the «global warming» is «catastrophic anthropogenic», they have reached that conclusion on a 97 % confidence level.

This is simply a fact, though of course it does not necessarily «prove» that the theory of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is incorrect.

with cAGW i am referring to catastrophic anthropogenic warming - i.e. the position touted by the IPCC et al that the change in climate we are seeing is; a) dangerous, b) man - made c) linked to human Co2 and finally d) is preventable

We're discussing catastrophic anthropogenic climate change (CACC)-- forecasts by some scientists that the climate will change in ways unfavorable to humanity, in magnitudes that will cause large - scale adverse effects, at rates such that sufficient adaptation and mitigation will be difficult or impractical.

Contrary to IPCC fears of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, Earth may now be entering another natural cooling trend.

Without that correlation, the high sensitivity water vapour feedback driven catastrophic anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is effectively dead in the water.

In the case of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, there's not even apparent warming continuing in the system, let alone signs of catastrophe.

The main evidence for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW), the principal alleged adverse effect of human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), is climate models built by CAGW supporters in a field where models with real predictive power do not exist and can not be built with any demonstrable accuracy beyond a week or two because climate and weather are coupled non-linear chaotic systems.

There are thousands of scientists in climate - related fields (statisticians, geologists, meteorologists, physicists) that have issues with various aspects of the dominant theory of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.

-LSB-...] Additionally, we find that * catastrophic anthropogenic global warming * [CAGW] is essentially a term that is never used in the relevant scientific literature by mainstream sources.

The «catastrophic anthropogenic global warming» dogma / hype could not withstand reality / scientific facts.

The catastrophic anthropogenic (i.e. man - made) global warming (CAGW) hypothesis has four components.

Consequently the dogma had to be recast, with a slight of hand, as «climate change» but used as implying «catastrophic anthropogenic global warming».

Despite Al Gore, commercial interests appear to be judging that political support for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming has waned.

Yet if one does not «believe climate change is real» one is castigated with pejorative adjectives by those who equivocate between «climate change» and «catastrophic anthropogenic global warming»!

Don't fall for the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming fraud / con.

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.»

Science degrees have been devalued by the sheer number of «scientists» who have greedily participated in the largest, most expensive sky - is - falling scam ever perpetrated on humanity known as catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.

Is our culture so brain altered, so fixed and plugged into the lie of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, that we are unable en masse to assimilate the real data?

TWITTER has become a hotbed of debate between staunch believers of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) and those sceptical of the supposed adverse impacts of mankind's energy emissions on planet Earth.

For decades, the mainstream journalists have dutifully reported hysterical alarmism generated by a minority of scientists dedicated to the concept of human CO2 - caused catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW)... this style of sensationalist, tabloid «climate science» journalism however is dependent on either a condition of stuck - on - stupid mentality or a highly biased, politically motivated political agenda, not on scientific empirical evidence

You have the burden of proving your assertions, i.e., that your prognostications for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming are valid.

It is a repugnant underhanded rhetorical attack that insinuates that they are «anti — science» because they raise solid scientific issues over the sad state of climate science and do bow to the «church of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming»

Through his many presentations and publications, he exposed the fraud behind the mantra of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.

However, I'm not aware that I made any prognostication that contained a statement about «catastrophic anthropogenic global warming».

He includes quotes from those who support and endorse the concepts of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (man - made, not Mann - made) and those who do not... Each section is itself a neatly packaged essay.

Harping on catastrophic anthropogenic global warming ignores the far greater harm of today's pollution in developing countries.

Climate alarmists will frequently default to the «extreme weather» narrative in order to deceptively promote the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) narrative by instilling fear, doom and gloom directly into the human psyche.

If the world greatly decreases emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs), mainly carbon dioxide (CO2), then it will not undergo their predicted catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW).

A lot of very intelligent people (many of of them scientifically educated, many not — but no poorer for that fact) on here explaining their reasons for coming to view catastrophic anthropogenic climate change with more than a hint of scepticism.

Since doing so is singularly inappropriate in an article discussing logic and reason and science and how foolish people are who «believe» in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming on the basis of weak but positive evidence, I think that it is absolutely appropriate to criticize this as a serious weakness in the overall presentation.

If catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is «probable» but the primary driver is not CO2, then we risk spending our fiscal ammunition on the wrong problem.

The science of global warming IS NOT settled, and catastrophic anthropogenic climate disruption is not unequivocal (even without change from business as usual).

With no boundary conditions, or ones that are extended as they're reached, forecasts of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming become a matter of faith — not science.

I am not a proponent of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming whatever the cause.

Economics is central to the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming argument.

Second, while I found much of your essay compelling and incisive, a second place and reason that at least muting the «Global Warming is a New Religion» assertion is a good idea is that your essay come dangerously close to accusing everybody that disagrees with you or supports the conclusion of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming of being unscientific and / or religious.

If it repeated on schedule then empirically inferred sensitivity would be halved and catastrophic anthropogenic global warming instead becomes «it's sure nice to have longer growing seasons, a more fertile atmosphere, and higher drought tolerance» anthropogenic global warming.

You talk about «catastrophic anthropogenic global warming» but are unwilling to offer your definition of what qualifies as «catastrophic.»

The climate alarmists have exploited the public's understandable lack of knowledge concerning climate science to argue that the developed countries (but usually not less developed countries) should give up some or preferably all fossil fuel use in order to avoid alleged catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW).

To lessen an alleged threat from catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) and stronger extreme weather phenomena that has never been shown to exist.

On top of that, we have Climategate, and then the slight of hand of changing «catastrophic anthropogenic global warming» to «climate change».

Cultural Framing of Skeptical and Convinced Logics in the Climate Change Debate and his equivocation by using «climate change» for «anthropogenic climate change» or «catastrophic anthropogenic climate change» etc..

As I posted earlier, I firmly believe in anthropogenic climate change, I deny that the «science is settled» and I am skeptical toward catastrophic anthropogenic climate change (CACC or more popularly CAGW)-RRB-.

«I didn't expect two people independently to say so explicitly that «catastrophic anthropogenic global warming» was just a figment of their imagination...» — hunter (the lesser)