Sentences with phrase «consensus of anthropogenic global warming»

Despite the overwhelming strength of evidence supporting the scientific consensus of anthropogenic global warming [17], there are many who reject this consensus.

Not exact matches

Its appeal is complex, drawing on belief in anthropogenic global warming and trust in the «scientific consensus» behind it; the Great Recession and a protective reaction to rapid social change; a basic need for the concrete, local, and personal; the waning of religious observance; peer pressure, star power, money, and more.

And there was this great, it was my favorite moment of the weekend and it was this very dramatic moment, when basically Emanuel was complaining a little bit, very politely, and smiling about the fact that journalists still are doing stories about, you know, the debate around climate science, but there's not really, of course, there's not a debate, there's consensus that anthropogenic global warming is happening and that, why are you still doing these stories, asking questions?

So I take it that the consensus view is that according to our best current scientific understanding, there is no possibility whatsoever of any catastrophic consequences of anthropogenic global warming; therefore to use the word «catastrophic» is irresponsible alarmism;, and therefore the deniers are actually quite right to accuse anyone who suggests that such outcomes are possible of being an irresponsible alarmist.

Brian, I'd recommend that you run the talking points through a reality check before attaching your name to them — one excellent resource is skepticalscience.com, from whence (after.1 second of effort) I reached the rebuttal to «Scientists predicted an impending ice age in the 1970's» («Is it really appropriate to compare the scientific evidence for an impending ice age in the 70's to the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming today?»

In January of this year, author Kenneth Richard conducted a broad survey of climate change literature for 2017 and found that the alleged «consensus» behind the dangers of anthropogenic global warming is not nearly as settled among climate scientists as people imagine.

One might first note, as The New American has reported before, that «consensus» itself is often manipulated, a good example being the debunked claim that «97 percent of scientists affirm anthropogenic global warming.»

Those who accept the consensus that the Earth is warming due to human activity (anthropogenic global warming or AGW) point to declining Arctic sea ice as one line of evidence to support this conclusion.

The second study demonstrated a causal relationship, showing that acceptance of human - caused (anthropogenic) global warming (AGW) increases when the scientific consensus is highlighted.

A paper by John Cook and colleagues published in May 2013 claimed that of the 4,000 peer - reviewed papers they surveyed expressing a position on anthropogenic global warming, «97.1 % endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming».

Speaking of Albert Einstein, he had an answer for those continually trying to claim that there is a consensus for their flawed, unproven hypothesis regarding anthropogenic global warming, climate change or what ever the charlatans now call it: «Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of the truth» Albert Einstein.

The publication of the paper that I co-authored, Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature, in May 2013 caused quite a splash.

In response to commenters wondering how we obtained our results when Cook had not made his data available, in fact he did release a data file listing the titles and authors of all 11,944 abstracts in his survey, together with his or his co-authors» assessment of what he called their «level of endorsement» of the «consensus» that most of the global warming since 1950 was anthropogenic.

I then obtained and read all 64 abstracts, and found that only 43 of them explicitly endorsed the consensus as Cook et al. had defined it in the introduction to their paper: that more than half of the global warming since 1950 was anthropogenic.

Table 1: «Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human - caused global warming» «Does it matter if the consensus on anthropogenic global warming is 97 % or 99.99 %?»

The various official Conservative policy statements cited above contain no implicit or explicit acknowledgnment of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic (human - caused) global warming, as outlined in the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

A recent survey of climate change literature for 2017 revealed that the alleged «consensus» behind the dangers of anthropogenic global warming is not nearly as settled among climate scientists as people imagine.

[1] It is probably the best known and most frequently quoted petition used by those who wish to deny there is a scientific consensus in respect of the existence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

To bear primary responsibility means to have been exposed to the overwhelming scientific data and analysis on anthropogenic global warming and willfully and misleadingly denied or acted in ignorance of that consensus.

The latest attack on global warming consensus comes from Dennis Avery and Fred Singer who claim to have found 500 peer reviewed papers refuting that the last few decades of global warming are primarily anthropogenic.

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.»

That 40 % number is a falsehood - there is about a 98 % consensus of all scientists who study this phenomena that anthropogenic climate change is a reality, and every major scientific institution in the world supports the conclusion of man caused global warming.

That is one of the reasons I am not greatly impressed by the supposed scientific consensus in favor of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Well, I'm about 99.99 % certain that when the consensus hits the «tipping point» where 51 % of the scientist think that anthropogenic global warming is bullshit, that those very same warmers will suddenly start screaming about how a consensus isn't scientific, even though it was certainly good enough when that consensus was on their side of the fence.

Climate Change Deniers, also known as Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) Deniers, refers to individuals or groups who disagree with the global scientific consensus that emissions of man - made CO2 significantly enhance the natural atmospheric greenhouse eGlobal Warming (AGW) Deniers, refers to individuals or groups who disagree with the global scientific consensus that emissions of man - made CO2 significantly enhance the natural atmospheric greenhouse eglobal scientific consensus that emissions of man - made CO2 significantly enhance the natural atmospheric greenhouse effect.

Oreskes» studies on the much - repeated «97 percent consensus» agreement among scientists that the effects of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) require draconian political measures has brought her praise and scorn from equally well - qualified commentators.

«We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer - reviewed scientific literature, examining 11944 climate abstracts from 1991 — 2011 matching the topics «global climate change» or «global warming».

This has caused a problem for the skeptical community, because the majority of scientific skeptics accept the consensus of scientific opinion on anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

Of the 928 articles sampled, and analysed whether agreeing or disagreeing with the prevailing consensus view of anthropogenic global warming, none disagreed with this consensuOf the 928 articles sampled, and analysed whether agreeing or disagreeing with the prevailing consensus view of anthropogenic global warming, none disagreed with this consensuof anthropogenic global warming, none disagreed with this consensus.

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature — Abstract — Environmental Research Letters — IOPscience We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer - reviewed scientific literature, examining 11944 climate abstracts from 1991 — 2011 matching the topics «global climate change» or «global warming».

Today, an avalanche of studies and overwhelming scientific consensus endorse anthropogenic global warming.

«Only [a] few abstracts explicitly reject or doubt the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) consensus which is why I have publicly withdrawn this point of my critique.

In fact, the petition, paper, and letter were entirely unrelated to the Academy, which issued a strong denunciation of the petition project as deliberately deceptive and an affirmation of the consensus in favor of the reality of anthropogenic global warming.

'' «We examined a large sample of the scientific literature on global CC, published over a 21 year period, in order to determine the level of scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW).»

«We examined a large sample of the scientific literature on global CC, published over a 21 year period, in order to determine the level of scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW).»

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.

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature» by John Cook et al: 97 % of climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming.

but when the overwhelming majority of climate scientists agrees on that anthropogenic global warming was real («the consensus») then this doesn't prove anything about the reality of AGW.

In our paper, Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature, we analysed over 12,000 papers listed in the «Web Of Science» between 1991 to 2011 matching the topic «global warming» or «global climate change».

While our analysis of abstracts found 97.1 % consensus among abstracts stating a position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), the method of self - rating complete papers independently found 97.2 % consensus among papers self - rated as stating a position on AGW.

Yesterday, we published a list of 24 errors in Tol's critique of our consensus paper Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature.

In fact we would all probably agree that the «97 % consensus» paper is a comprehensive assessment of the scientific literature on the scientific consensus relating to the role of anthropogenic greenhouse gas release in the marked global warming of the last ~ 50 years.

(4) What are the implications for climate science of public acceptance of the idea that there is a «consensus among scientists» on anthropogenic global warming (AGW)?

The consensus of scientific opinion on anthropogenic global warming is alive and well.

Look at other consensus objections: as with creationism, anti-vaccines, the entire tobacco industry campaign, ozone, acid rain, and now anthropogenic global warming - a repeating pattern of minority opinions trying to convince the public that the experts are not in agreement (when they actually are).

Climatologists might not think that is the case in their filed, too, but nearly every part of it is contended by some major part of its adherents — regardless of the claim to «consensus» on anthropogenic global warming.

I've found a paper that disagrees with the consensus that the recent warming is mostly anthropogenic: http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/ep/preprint/mayjun96/4344.html «The simulation implies that the solar part of the forcing, alone, would account for 71 % of the global mean temperature variance, compared to 51 % for the greenhouse gases part, alone.»

The current approach that is generally pursued assumes essentially that past climate variability is indistinguishable from a stochastic red - noise process... Given such a null hypothesis, the official consensus of IPCC (1995) tilts towards a global warming effect of recent trace - gas emissions, which exceeds the cooling effect of anthropogenic aerosol emissions.»

This kind of nonsensical correlation was repeated throughout as Michaels and D'Aleo made a great show of «chipping away» at the overwhelming consensus behind the science of anthropogenic global warming, buoyed by laughter and nods of appreciation from the audience.

The peer - reviewed survey, «Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature,» was published today in the peer - reviewed Environmental Research Letters, a publication of the Institute of Physics (IOP).