Sentences with phrase «claims about global climate»

In many cases, their agendas are based upon questionable scientific data and erroneous claims about global climate change.

Not exact matches

«Australian scientists have rejected claims a multi-national climate change body is set to revise down its previous warnings about the rate of global warming.

In the paper Gray makes many extravagant claims about how supposed changes in the THC accounted for various 20th century climate changes («I judge our present global ocean circulation conditions to be similar to that of the period of the early 1940s when the globe had shown great warming since 1910, and there was concern as to whether this 1910 - 1940 global warming would continue.

Cuccinelli cites the Kremlin organ RIA Novosti to «prove» that western climate scientists are LYING about global warming, but during the 2010 forest fires, Andrei Areshev, a lunatic attached to a Russian Foreign Ministry drunk tank, even claimed right in this same RIA Novosti that those sneaky U.S. climate scientists were CAUSING global warming by beaming secret climate weapons at Russia!

Since a commenter mentioned the medieval vineyards in England, I've been engaged on a quixotic quest to discover the truth about the oft - cited, but seldom thought through, claim that the existence of said vineyards a thousand years ago implies that a «Medieval Warm Period «was obviously warmer than the current climate (and by implication that human - caused global warming is not occuring).

We've seen a bizarre (well, if you know the climate denialist scene, not so bizarre) misreporting about Millar et al., focusing on the claim that climate models have supposedly overestimated global warming.

Uncertainty about the extent of future global warming is in itself an indicator of serious climate change to come, scientists have claimed.

More than 650 scientists from around the world dispute the claims made by the United Nations and former Vice President Al Gore about global warming, saying that science does not support that climate change is a manmade phenomenon, according to a posting on the Senate environmental committee's press blog.

Agence Presse France has published a whopper about Global Warming, titled «Climate refugees — the growing army without a name», in which we get the claims of a UN Climate Committee that «50 million» will be homeless because of Global Warming «by 2010».

We can't talk about the need to organise global productive economy around the issue of climate change until we have discussed the same order of claims that were made, in living memory, about population, resources, and race.

In the early 1990s, a group of sceptics claimed that Roger Revelle, one of the first climate scientists, had changed his mind about global warming and no longer believed it was a serious problem.

In fact, it is precisely because «the discussion about the causes of global warming was to a very great extent settled by the date of broadcast», meaning that climate change was no longer a matter of political controversy, that a programme claiming it is all a pack of lies could slip past the partiality rules.

The company has joined the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a coalition of industry and environmental groups that claim to be concerned about global warming.

The people of Earth need fresh water and we all need to be more concerned about having more of it, even it takes more energy to make it or having to listen to the fearmongering of Leftist opinion - makers like Obama and Kerry who claim respectively that, «no challenge — poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change,» and, that global warming is, «perhaps the world's most fearsome weapon of mass destruction.»

It will be a compelling battle to try and replace the mother of all eco-scares — man - made global warming — but Climate Depot is confident that one of these test - marketed new eco-issues will catch on and you may soon see massive denials from environmentalists and UN officials that claims of a man - made global warming crisis never really existed (echoing the claims that there was no widespread concern about global cooling in the 1970's) See: Spoof: NYT in 2019: Scientists Now Say Global Warming Fears Fading Away — Claim There Never Was Warming Consensus — By Marc global warming — but Climate Depot is confident that one of these test - marketed new eco-issues will catch on and you may soon see massive denials from environmentalists and UN officials that claims of a man - made global warming crisis never really existed (echoing the claims that there was no widespread concern about global cooling in the 1970's) See: Spoof: NYT in 2019: Scientists Now Say Global Warming Fears Fading Away — Claim There Never Was Warming Consensus — By Marc global warming crisis never really existed (echoing the claims that there was no widespread concern about global cooling in the 1970's) See: Spoof: NYT in 2019: Scientists Now Say Global Warming Fears Fading Away — Claim There Never Was Warming Consensus — By Marc global cooling in the 1970's) See: Spoof: NYT in 2019: Scientists Now Say Global Warming Fears Fading Away — Claim There Never Was Warming Consensus — By Marc Global Warming Fears Fading Away — Claim There Never Was Warming Consensus — By Marc Morano

As climatologist Tim Ball summarized «Beck's work completely undermined the IPCC claims and assumptions about the role of CO2 in man - made Global Warming, then Global Warming, then Climate Change, and now Global Climate Disruptions.»

I noted (as I have previously in this blog) the large number of states that are either divided on or hostile about claims of human - caused global warming that are nonetheless hotbeds of collective activity focused on counteracting the adverse impacts of climate change, including sea level rise.

Given that people on Brulle's side of the Global Warming / Climate Change argument have been making false claims for decades — for example, that New York and Washington would be under water by the year 20004 — and given that the mass media sound daily alarms about the climate threat, the statement in the National Research Council report that «some» information sources are «affected» by campaigns opposed to policies that would limit carbon dioxide emissions is scant foundation for believing a massive conspiracy eClimate Change argument have been making false claims for decades — for example, that New York and Washington would be under water by the year 20004 — and given that the mass media sound daily alarms about the climate threat, the statement in the National Research Council report that «some» information sources are «affected» by campaigns opposed to policies that would limit carbon dioxide emissions is scant foundation for believing a massive conspiracy eclimate threat, the statement in the National Research Council report that «some» information sources are «affected» by campaigns opposed to policies that would limit carbon dioxide emissions is scant foundation for believing a massive conspiracy exists.5

Declarations that skeptic climate scientists knowingly lie about the certainty of man - caused global warming as paid shills of the fossil fuel industry appear devastating...... but dig deep into the details, and all those claims look more like a «Keystone Kops - style» farce.

The UN climate panel is re-examining its claim that global warming is linked to worsening natural disasters after doubts were raised about the evidence.

As Andrew Revkin wrote last year about his storied career as an environmental reporter at The Times, «I saw a widening gap between what scientists had been learning about global warming and what advocates were claiming as they pushed ever harder to pass climate legislation.»

Your guests would have us believe that sceptics contest the claim that «global warming is happening», whereas the question that most sceptics of climate science ask is about the role of feedback mechanisms that are believed to amplify the global warming effect — a subject on which there is far less consensus that your guests will admit.

Worst idea: 2009 seems to have been the year that global warming deniers shifted from claiming that climate disruption is a hoax to claiming that climate disruption is too big and too far along to stop, so there's no point in doing anything about it.

What about the fact the work Klinger relies upon to claim there's this vast conspiracy to deny global warming lists climate blogs like Climate Audit in that consclimate blogs like Climate Audit in that consClimate Audit in that conspiracy?

These include claiming that addressing climate change will keep the poor in «energy poverty»; citing the global warming «hiatus» or «pause» to dismiss concerns about climate change; pointing to changes in the climate hundreds or thousands of years ago to deny that the current warming is caused by humans; alleging that unmitigated climate change will be a good thing; disputing that climate change is accelerating sea level rise; and denying that climate change is making weather disasters more costly.

I don't believe climate scientists know any where near as much as they think they do about «global average temperature,» let alone the tenths of a degree change per year they claim to detect.

Scientists and experts skeptical that human activity will cause a climate catastrophe have filed briefs with the court, likely disputing claims from cities and oil companies about global warming.

Beck's work completely undermined their major claims and assumptions about the role of CO2 in Global Warming, then Climate Change, and now Climate Disruptions.

The «Global Imprint» analyses suffered from the same shortcomings uncovered in inflated claims that 97 % of the scientists agree about climate change.

Titled «Why Scientists Disagree about Global Warming,» it suggests that probably the most widely repeated claim in the global warming debate is that 97 percent of scientists agree that climate change is man - made and dangGlobal Warming,» it suggests that probably the most widely repeated claim in the global warming debate is that 97 percent of scientists agree that climate change is man - made and dangglobal warming debate is that 97 percent of scientists agree that climate change is man - made and dangerous.

Just as any sort - term drop in temperatures becomes a claim that global warming has «stopped», any study that mentions a decrease in climate sensitivity is grabbed as if it is evidence that everything about climate sensitivity is decreasing.

One prime example involves contrarian meteorologist Joe Bastardi, a frequent climate misinformation guest on Fox News who Rolling Stone awarded the # 1 dumbest thing ever said about global warming for claiming that CO2 «literally» can not cause warming because it doesn't «mix well in the atmosphere.»

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 Climate Science regarding anthropogenic climate change, global warming and other similar climate change, global warming and other similar issues.

In November, 2015, the three lead NIPCC authors — Craig Idso, Robert M. Carter, and S. Fred Singer — wrote a small book titled Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming: The NIPCC Report on Scientific Consensus revealing how no survey or study shows a «consensus» on the most important scientific issues in the climate change debate, and how most scientists do not support the alarmist claims of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate climate change debate, and how most scientists do not support the alarmist claims of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Climate Change.

I'm interested in the net of all regional feedbacks — global climate sensitivity — and the grossly exaggerated claims made about it by fake sceptics.

Although they may claim that it's for Global climate control, there are serious health affects that I'm much more concerned about.

amid claims that he had tried to keep the agency's top climate scientist from speaking publicly about global warming, defended himself publicly yesterday.

Now let us look at the key claim that Tselioudis and other climate scientists make about how global warming will affect circulation patterns.

Between a research - gutting proposed budget, regulation - slashing executive orders, the appointment of climate change skeptics to head the Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Energy, and bogus claims about vaccines, infectious diseases, and global warming, it's no secret that President Donald Trump has demonstrated indifference to empirical fact and hostility to the scientific community.

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.

In a December 30, 2010 Financial Post article, where Lawrence Solomon pointed out a major flaw in one source for the claim that there is a «97 % scientific consensus» on man - caused global warming, he said the following about a group of supposedly «climate specialist» scientists:

-- Warming Fears in «Dustbin of History» POZNAN, Poland — The UN global warming conference currently underway in Poland is about to face a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who are criticizing the climate claims made by the -LSB-...]

About a year before, Epstein had also written in Forbes claiming that there was a consensus «that in the last 15 + years there has been no significant global warming, despite record, accelerating CO2 emissions, and the climate models based on high sensitivity failed to predict this.»

Finally, there's the intimate connection between the global - warming cult and its patrons in collectivist politics, who view climate change as an indispensable opportunity to seize money and power — a claim in which politicians get to represent the Earth itself against the grubby little people they're not terribly fond of, even when they're not trying to promote a scary story about aerosol deodorant, cow farts, air conditioners, and automobiles unleashing the apocalypse.

Now that the United States and other countries are finally moving to seriously address global warming, polluter - funded front groups and their allies in Congress are making exaggerated claims about stolen e-mails from climate scientists in a last ditch effort to derail action.

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.

The school governor who challenged the screening of Al Gore's climate change documentary in secondary schools was funded by a Scottish quarrying magnate who established a controversial lobbying group to attack environmentalists» claims about global warming.

We often hear the claim that the science of climate change is settled, that there is general agreement that humans have been causing most of the recent warming trend, and that it will all end in global disaster unless we «do something about it».

Since you keep referring to this letter signed by these 49 ex-NASA folks, criticizing Jim Hansen's GISS» climate modeling methodology used to claim dire future predictions re global - warming - as «Naive & / or DisHonest, This seems to imply that some or most of these 49 are [Naive??? 49 ex-NASA vets are naive about the inner - working of NASA??

The «Pause» in Global Warming and a Blind Test of Contrarian Claims about Climate Data.