Sentences with phrase «claims on a global basis»

The idea behind these proposals is to identify the jurisdiction most affected by the infringement and to settle these claims on a global basis.

Not exact matches

Based on a global ranking of happiness levels across 156 countries, Finland has claimed the No. 1 spot in this year's World Happiness Report.

Heidi (Mama Aida to hundreds of her beloved children) not only delivers aid and education through the charity Iris Global, she also claims to see miraculous events on an almost daily basis.

There is a marked trend for food marketing based on the intrinsic, natural healthfulness of the product and its ingredients.5 New global product development activity in the soup category supports consumers» desire for a clean label, with «no additives» the top positioning claim for new soup products globally.1 Meanwhile, «all natural» positioning fuels growth in the prepared pasta and noodles market.6

People who claim we can stop worrying about global warming on the basis of a cooler year or a cooler decade — or just on questionable predictions of cooling — are as naive as a child mistaking a falling tide, or a spring low tide, for a real long - term fall in sea level.

One of his reasons to claim that «the risk of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming appears to be so low that it is not currently worth doing anything to try to control it» is that he uses a very low value for the climate sensitivity based on non-reviewed «studies», while ignoring the peer - reviewed work.

As we reported, the Car & Driver story claimed that this new Subaru prototype performance hybrid system was somewhat based on the next - generation all - wheel - drive system that is being rolled out as part of its all - new Subaru Global Platform, which is electrification - ready.

Based on the Toyota New Global Architecture (TNGA) modular platform, the 2018 Camry claims superior handling characteristics thanks to a 30 - percent increase in torsional rigidity, a lighter body, and a new double - wishbone rear suspension design.

The claims on these pages are mainly based on results from tests conducted by Strategy Analytics, an independent global company specialising in market analysis.

With the game based around the three factions being constantly trapped within a war, you can place war assets after winning a match to have a global effect and push against the factions that you didn't choose so you can push forward and claim more land which gives you a reward after the season is finished this applies to everyone so the more games you play the more likely you will have a effect on the war and help claim more land and get better rewards, you obviously still get rewards if you are the losing sides just they wont be as great as the others.

I anticipate that microsite errors could introduce as documented in the literature up to a 3C false positive per site, and for GLOBAL (your emphasis) grids that have an underlying basis of one or two accepted sites, a 1.5 to 3C false positive on a claimed.6 C phenomena.

Either way, he renders his reporting, on the matter of climate change and global warming, illegitimate; probably maintains his considered claim to legitimacy based on his uninformed perspective and his existing market base, with established bias.

One of his reasons to claim that «the risk of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming appears to be so low that it is not currently worth doing anything to try to control it» is that he uses a very low value for the climate sensitivity based on non-reviewed «studies», while ignoring the peer - reviewed work.

They will claim having the only true answers to complex global problems, which will turn out to be based on lies.

However, that claim was based on global averages.

That's how the contradictions happen because they aren't basing their claims on a consistent framework but are just hack and slashing manmade global warming with whatever they can and so don't spot contradictions.

At WUWT, Willis E. tried to claim that we have already seen a 2 °C increase in global temperature based on the trough of one of the oscillations and the recent temperature peak.

Scientists put out a new study claiming the worst global warming predictions could be 15 percent worse than models suggest, but that's based on a scenario experts say is increasingly unlikely to happen.

To claim the stability of the REAL global average clear + cloudy IR transparency based on this computation is impossible.

He says global warming is based not on science but on a «hoax» and on «witchcraft» and on «claims dreamt up by environmental activists».

Delegates debated at length to find the clearest language possible to explain that a claimed «15 - year hiatus» is based on a single variable (global mean surface temperature), too short a period of observation for climatic significance, and sensitive to the choice of the starting year from which a 15 - year period is calculated.

If you have an alternative widely accepted dataset that (a) covers the period 1860 - 1950 and (b) an alternative description of it that does not entail as strong a rise over that period as HadCRUT3 does I'd happy to evaluate your claim that global warming is not happening based on your dataset and analysis.

Marcott paper Basically the folks at RC have probably made poor ol Marcott respond that the uptick did not matter anyway its not important, significant, robust etc don't rely on it just forget about it please etc but unfortunately for them as Ross MC on Realclimate reply, at CA says «But that is precisely what they do in Figure 3 of their paper, and it is the basis of their claim that «Global temperature, therefore, has risen from near the coldest to the warmest levels of the Holocene within the past century, reversing the long - term cooling trend that began ~ 5000 yr B.P.» Without the uptick in their proxy reconstruction this kind of statement could never have been made.

Based on the same flawed reasoning to conclude an absence of a trend from the non-detectability of a trend in the limited data sample from 1997 to the end of 1994, I could claim a «global warming stop» or «pause» for that 16 - year period.

Also, using the same cherry picking approach as used by «skeptics» for the recent time period, based on which they claim a «global warming stop» or «pause» because of lacking statistical significance of a warming trend, I even could claim a «pause» in global warming from 1979 to at least the end of 1997.

The recent listing of polar bears as «endangered» was based on junk science and GIGO computer models that claim manmade global warming will send the bears» record population numbers into oblivion.

Don't forget that the septics also claim that there is a consensus that global warming is not happening, based on questionable petition drives.

If you argue that the United States should not adopt climate change policies on the basis that economic competitors such as China have not adopted climate change policies, are you claiming that no nation has a duty to reduce its ghg emissions to its fair share of safe global emissions until all other nations reduce their ghg emissions accordingly?

Although the Pope bases his claim that climate change is a moral problem on theological arguments derived mostly from Catholic teachings, this paper begins with a brief description of unique features of climate change that lead to an understanding that this enormous global threat must be understood fundamentally and essentially as a moral, ethical, and justice problem as a matter of secular ethics also.

However, claims based on «eyeballing» and similar offered here in the thread by Mr. Coal - Magazine Editor, who is probably going to write his PhD thesis soon where he refutes global warming using «eyeballing», and by other «skeptics» are not a scientifically valid approach to provide evidence for the assertion of the «stopped» global warming.

Claims for significant global warming during this century are based on unreliable climate models.

The Suzanne Goldenberg article was on the release of WG2, which claimed and popularized the meme that global warming had damaged food supply, based on highly questionable statistical work.

Climate change skeptics claimed the IPCC 2007 report — the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC 2007), which uses scientific facts to argue humans are causing climate change — was based on an alleged bias for positive results by editors and peer reviewers of scientific journals; editors and scientists were accused of suppressing research that did not support the paradigm for carbon dioxide - induced global warming.

How does he even imagine he can make a claim about the global temps based on this information?

Claims that global warming is not happening on the basis of short - term ocean temperatures are not supported by the evidence.

The report cited by Morner claims a 3.2 mm per year global rise based on satellite data, and the average of the Australian stations shown (in figure 8) is just 4.3 mm per year (to 2008, with the same caveat about start dates).

On the basis of this claim, none of the groups calculating global temperature estimates (except for NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies) explicitly correct for urbanization bias.

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.»

National Geographic's claim is based on the above graph from Munich Re, showing the number of «global natural disasters».

The IPCC is a largely political organization which has committed itself to human - caused «global warming» and refuses to back off its claims when the data of the past 15 years does not support the conclusions made based on the 20 years before that.

Yet there's very little uncertainty in Pielke's claim that «global warming halted on this time period», which appears to be based on arbitrary assumptions, especially when you look at Von Schuckmann's paper.

Ontarians have been forced into a failed energy system that was based on the deliberately falsified science that claims human CO2 is causing global warming using this technique.

NOAA / GISS and CRU would have us believe that its OK to base climate change policy and advocate spending trillions of dollars in combating climate change, when in fact the majority of data that underpins their claims of «unprecendented» and accelerating global warming in the latter part of the 20th century is based on such a sparse set of data.

Based on an extensive literature review, we suggest that (1) climate warming occurs with great uncertainty in the magnitude of the temperature increase; (2) both human activities and natural forces contribute to climate change, but their relative contributions are difficult to quantify; and (3) the dominant role of the increase in the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases (including CO2) in the global warming claimed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is questioned by the scientific communities because of large uncertainties in the mechanisms of natural factors and anthropogenic activities and in the sources of the increased atmospheric CO2 concentration.

Now, given that the least significant digit of the input data is integer 1, or for later data integer 5, then how do you calculate a «result» based on this data has a GREATER accuracy than the input data — specifically, the claim that this calculated «global mean temperature» has increased by fractions of a degree celsius, and typically reported to the 0.00 degree accuracy.

Gavin's claim that «Steve McIntyre predicted that the 1950 to 2000 global temperature trends would be reduced by half», however, appears to based on a clumsy conflation of Steve's comment on SST's to Pete Webster, and the HadCRUT3 graphic.

RussiaGate — Even when global warming alarmists base claims on scientific measurements, they've often had their finger on the scale.

A global warming conspiracy theory invokes claims that the scientific consensus on global warming is based on conspiracies to produce manipulated data or suppress dissent.

A controversial claim earlier this year that it could cost the global economy $ 60 trillion was based on earlier findings from Shakhova's team (Nature, vol 499, p 401).

Based on what data specifically is this claim made about «no global warming»?