Sentences with phrase «did humans cause the warming»

Or did humans cause the warming, and natural variability cause the cooling?

Not exact matches

If a Republican candidate would say, — yes even if a messiah is coming, people had been saying that for 2000 years, therefore, we are all obliged to preserve the planet for future generations and human activities do excessively cause global warming.

For example, the Church does not know whether the planet is getting warmer, whether such change would be good or bad, or whether human activity is the cause; nor does she know whether minimum - wage laws do more good to the poor by increasing the income of those who work, or more harm to the poor by throwing those with marginal skills out of work.

I do have concerns with aluminum food / water containers, even though the link to Alzheimers hasn't been proven (look how long it has taken to «prove» global warming is human caused).

During his confirmation hearing, Bridenstine said he acknowledged that global warming was real and man - made, but wouldn't say that it was mostly human - caused, as the overwhelming majority of scientists and scientific literature have done.

Do you believe the human activity is significant factor that causes global warming?

It does not mean that human - caused global warming is not potentially dangerous... just read the published body of research since 1842... or better yet talk to research scientists who are actively publishing in this like I talk to them weekly.

Before we go into some fascinating details about the instability of life here on Earth, one quick question: does the study of the past tell us important things about the rapid warming humans are causing today?

Merely showing anecdotal evidence of AGW (melting glaciers, hot summers, warm winters, etc.) does not prove that warming is caused by human emitted CO2.

re: 9,» Merely showing anecdotal evidence of AGW (melting glaciers, hot summers, warm winters, etc.) does not prove that warming is caused by human emitted CO2.»

This seems to have a motive... i.e. to present posts her eon RC that can then be used on deinalist blogs to say RC does not look at «alternative opinion» (even though those alternative opinions have no relevance to the reality that is behind the argument, that of global warming is happening, human - caused, and at this point, irrefutable... unless you have a legitimate refutation??? I'd love to see that!!!).

If global warming is only caused by burning of fossil fuels then it may be possible for humans to do something about global warming.

If we accept that human CO2 on the order of parts per billion causes warming, it begs the question of what we should do to cause a cooling.

Second, quite frequently, when someone wants to change the subject, or when someone does not understand or agree with the human - caused aspects of global warming, the subject of nuclear energy comes up.

After all, the reality that humans are causing the climate to warm, with potentially catastrophic results, really does demand radical government intervention in the market, as well as collective action on an unprecedented scale.

By the way, I'd just like to mention that I am far happier to be arguing about the comparative benefits of nuclear power, wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, conservation, efficiency, reforestation, organic agriculture, etc. for quickly reducing CO2 emissions and concentrations, than to be engaged in yet another argument with someone who doesn't believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or that human activities are not causing warming, or that the Earth is cooling, or thinks that AGW is a «liberal» conspiracy to destroy capitalism, etc..

Although again I challenge you to name even five polar scientists who do not think human - caused global warming is the dominant cause of «the increasing summer retreats of sea ice.»

The «Doubtful» and «Dismissive», however, don't believe in human - caused global warming, yet they support these policies because they resonate with their own deeply held values — including freedom, self - reliance, security, and economic opportunity.

(2) Prudence requires us to mitigate global warming, even if we are not sure it is being caused by human emissions (and we are sure, and this new skeptical study does not reduce that high level of certainty).

I used to be hoping that people would somehow get together under the general umbrella of «we've got to start doing something about the human causes of global warming.»

The Christian Right which is what the Bush aministration is all about does not believe in global warming or that the environmental problems we are now experiencing have anything to do with what humans have done — it is all simply cyclical — it is what the earth does — it is nature taking its course humans have not caused it.

I know from the careful wording of his speeches that Inhofe is mainly rejecting evidence pointing to «catastrophic» human - caused warming, but I don't see him being quick to point out that he doesn't dispute the basic reality that greenhouse gases keep Earth warm and more will make things warmer.

The eleventh commandment: Do not mislead your neighbor about the cause of severe recent global warming by human activity nor distract from your neighbor effort to save Earth for inhabitants of today and tomorrow.

There are a variety of reasons that the media tend to pay outsize attention to research developments that support a «hot» conclusion (like the theory that hurricanes have already been intensified by human - caused global warming) and glaze over on research of equivalent quality that does not.

It does not mean that human - caused global warming is not potentially dangerous... just read the published body of research since 1842... or better yet talk to research scientists who are actively publishing in this like I talk to them weekly.

The old global warming debate was between those who thought global warming was serious, human - caused, and requiring action and those who didn't.

«Deniers will claim in the same breath (or within a few minutes) that (a) temperatures can not be measured reliably, (b) there is definitely no warming, (c) the warming isn't caused by humans, and (d) we are doing ourselves a favor by warming the planet.

Where do you believe that Dr. Curry implies agreement that leading climate scientists are incompetent and should not be working, and that there is a cover - up and that the current warming is caused by an iron sun rather than increased CO2 from human activity?

It's determined by empirical data and the empirical data does not show that human CO2 has been the primary cause of climate warming.

These are the actions of a government that views human - caused global warming as «crap» and plans to do as little as possible.

Logically, if the warming back then was caused by human emissions of CO2 it would not have stopped in 1996 — 1998 because humans didn't stop emitting CO2.

One must understand that made Galileo part of a decidedly smaller minority than the 3 % of scientists who don't belong to repeatedly refuted, debunked, and entirely discredited 97 % of scientists who supposedly are rock solid on the theory that humans are causing catastrophic global warming.

Unlike these climate scientists, who have solid evidence that humans are not causing the majority of warming and / or the warming is not dangerous, Galileo and his fellow helieocentrists did not have a shred of evidence to back up the claim.

I have no idea what you mean by the heat on the planet, but if you mean why do I reject the hypothesis of human caused global warming, here is a good place to start: http://www.cfact.org/2018/01/02/no-co2-warming-for-the-last-40-years/

This particular category doesn't state how much global warming humans are causing, and hence climate contrarians claim that because they admit humans are causing some global warming, they should be included in the 97 percent.

If you don't care about humans and the other species here, global warming may not be all that important; nature has caused warmer and colder times in the past, and life survived.

It claimed that the process resulting in the IPCC report was flawed, and that if Global Warming really was human - caused that energy would be better spent trying to mitigate the damage it would do, as opposed to trying to stop it.

People who do not accept human - caused climate change generally believe that a large fraction of scientists disagree with the basic notion of man - made warming.

The did, however, test the conensus on whether or not humans have caused at least 50 % of recent warming.

Based on new research, federal scientists suggest that an apparent recent slowdown in global warming — a common talking point for many people who dispute human - caused climate change — did not occur, but only seemed so based on incorrect data.

If nuclear plants were being scaled up globally at the rate France and Sweden did in the 1970s and 1980s, then I would probably be a «lukewarmer» — somebody who believes that humans are causing global warming, but that it probably won't get too hot, or be that bad.

Yes, 97.1 % of the papers do endorse the position that humans are causing global warming.

«On December 15, 2009 — the very day that EPA announced the Endangerment Finding — the Russian Institute of Economic Analysis («IEA») reported that CRU probably tampered with Russian climate data and that the Russian meteorological station data do not support human - caused global warming.

«Humans have caused observable warming» does not support such a computation and is therefore not a possible null hypothesis.

The paper itself doesn't even make that claim... it only states: «Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1 % endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.»

Add to that the plausibility of some human - caused warming (CO2 does interact with photons of outgoing LW radiation, and all else being equal this should lead to some increase of energy within the lower atmosphere).

I just don't see how the abstract as written can possibly be intepreted as a claim that humans cause most (> 50 %) of warming.

The following five reasons convince me that humans do NOT cause most of modern - day global warming.

Now, I'm not sure what the Times» shift in thinking is with the article — and after more than a decade of consistent gloom - and - doom reporting and editorializing on global warming, I would imagine that the Green - leaning newspaper does not intend to rethink its position on the scare — but it's going to take more than the mere economic exploitation of a shrinking polar ice cap to establish human activity as the cause of the melting.

# 2 Is a big problem for climate skeptics because they don't want to accept the warming of the 20th century was human caused.