Sentences with phrase «claims about global climate change»

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.

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.

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 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.»

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

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.

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.

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 Cchange debate, and how most scientists do not support the alarmist claims of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Climate ChangeChange.

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.

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.

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».

THe UK - based Scientific Alliance takes issue with claims of links between Atlantic hurricanes and so - called «man - made global warming» (aka climate change): «But no amount of moral blackmail will enable us to tune the climate to our liking when long term natural processes are underway, about which we understand very little and can not control.»

Staff at NWS and MN climatology have refused to speak out about climate change and global warming by claiming that the science is too controversial and political for them to deal with.

Graham, one of the few Republicans who claimed to care about climate change, now says global warming is no big deal.

Britain protests over false melting glacier claims «Britain has officially expressed its concern to the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) about lax scientific procedures used by the body which supplies the world with the facts about global warming.»

During the segment, Stossel portrayed skepticism about global warming as just as scientifically valid as respectable scientific research and opinion showing that the climate is changing; misleadingly suggested that projections of the future global climate are comparable to a local news channel's «weather forecast»; and highlighted Crichton's claim that climate scientists have an incentive to exaggerate global warming in order to win grants.

Much of the credit for the rising tide of public skepticism toward the outlandish claims of the global warming Jeremiahs goes to the Heartland Institute, which The Economist has called «the world's most prominent think tank promoting skepticism about man - made climate change.»