Sentences with phrase «evidence on anthropogenic climate change»

It divides publishing climate scientists into those that are convinced or unconvinced by scientific evidence on anthropogenic climate change (and assesses the apparent relative scientific expertise of these according to their publishing history).

Not exact matches

There is so much very clear evidence of the devastating effects anthropogenic climate change will have on the natural environment and on us humans, that subjects of debate could just distract from the clear catastrophe we are heading towards.

«Based on these studies, and many others using fossil and historical records, we argue that evidence for the widely cited view that future climate change poses an equal or greater threat to global biodiversity than anthropogenic land - use change and habitat loss (Thomas et al., 2004) is equivocal: extinctions driven by the latter processes of habitat loss pose a far greater threat to global biodiversity.

Based on these studies, and many others using fossil and historical records, we argue that evidence for the widely cited view that future climate change poses an equal or greater threat to global biodiversity than anthropogenic land - use change and habitat loss (Thomas et al., 2004) is equivocal

The point is that to argue that «there is no such thing as global terrorism», or that «there is no such thing as global warming» is to fail to take issue with the idea that evidence of global terrorism or anthropogenic global warming is sufficient argument for the execution of the «War on Terror», or for «drastic action'to mitigate climate change.

«there is no such thing as global terrorism», or that «there is no such thing as global warming» is to fail to take issue with the idea that evidence of global terrorism or anthropogenic global warming is sufficient argument for the execution of the «War on Terror», or for «drastic action'to mitigate climate change.

CLASSIC example of how sea - level rise is deceitfully abused as evidence of anthropogenic climate change (AGW) when sea - level rise should be treated on a region to region basis to account for, in this case, land subsidence.

The suggestion that skillful decadal forecasts can be produced on large regional scales by exploiting the response to anthropogenic forcing provides additional evidence that anthropogenic change in the composition of the atmosphere has influenced the climate.

The Fraser Institute has published material skeptical of climate change science since at least 2001, which marks the publication of Global Warming: A Guide to the Science by Willie Soon and Sallie L. Baliunas The abstract states: «There is no clear evidence, nor unique attribution, of the global effects of anthropogenic CO2 on climate.

In the spirit of rigorous philosophical thinking and good science — has anyone on the editorial board spent even 5 minutes reviewing the evidence * against * anthropogenic global warming -LCB- and / or the newer «climate change»? -RCB-

«There is medium evidence and high agreement that long - term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change,» writes the IPCC in its new Special Report on Extremes (SREX) published today.

The IPCC's recent special report on extreme weather found that there is no evidence of increased frequency or intensity of storms, floods or droughts, or losses caused by them attributable to anthropogenic climate change.

«Our results argue strongly against using abnormally large losses from individual Atlantic hurricanes or seasons as either evidence of anthropogenic climate change or to justify actions on greenhouse gas emissions.

The loud divergence between sea - level reality and climate change theory — the climate models predict an accelerated sea - level rise driven by the anthropogenic CO2 emission — has been also evidenced in other works such as Boretti (2012a, b), Boretti and Watson (2012), Douglas (1992), Douglas and Peltier (2002), Fasullo et al. (2016), Jevrejeva et al. (2006), Holgate (2007), Houston and Dean (2011), Mörner 2010a, b, 2016), Mörner and Parker (2013), Scafetta (2014), Wenzel and Schröter (2010) and Wunsch et al. (2007) reporting on the recent lack of any detectable acceleration in the rate of sea - level rise.

After all, the Atlantic piece relies on the work of John Ioannidis, a man who notes that the evidence (and level of certainty) on anthropogenic climate change is on par with the evidence (and level of certainty) that smoking kills people:

He calls Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science «partisan pseudoscience,» yet immediately follows this claim by parroting the silliest of claims made by the truly partisan advocates of pseudoscience: «We know 97 % of climate scientists have concluded, based on the evidence, that anthropogenic climate change is real.Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science «partisan pseudoscience,» yet immediately follows this claim by parroting the silliest of claims made by the truly partisan advocates of pseudoscience: «We know 97 % of climate scientists have concluded, based on the evidence, that anthropogenic climate change is real.&Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science «partisan pseudoscience,» yet immediately follows this claim by parroting the silliest of claims made by the truly partisan advocates of pseudoscience: «We know 97 % of climate scientists have concluded, based on the evidence, that anthropogenic climate change is real.climate scientists have concluded, based on the evidence, that anthropogenic climate change is real.climate change is real.&change is real.»

In 2007, a letter written by Harper in 2002 stated that anthropogenic climate change is based on «tentative and contradictory scientific evidence» that focuses on carbon dioxide, which is «essential to life.»

McI appears to insist that the entire foundation of scientific evidence of anthropogenic climate change rests on a single sequence of bristlecone proxies.

The e-mails implicate scores of researchers, most of whom are associated with the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an organization many skeptics believe was created exclusively to provide evidence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

The evidence strongly suggests those most likely to deny anthropogenic climate change are conservative males in countries that rely heavily on fossil fuels.

And you still haven't answered the question as to what is the ideal climate, how does it differ from today's climate, who determined the ideal climate, what factors were evaluated in making the determination, what evidence confirms that the controls on anthropogenic CO2 proposed by the climate experts would indeed establish and maintain the optimum climate, and whether the the political, economic, and social changes that would be required to do the controlling would on balance be less harmful than the effects of the postulated (but unsubstantiated) climate changes.

Overall, we find that anthropogenic greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols have had a detectable influence on sea - level pressure over the second half of the twentieth century: this represents evidence of human influence on climate independent of measurements of temperature change.»

From the IPCC AR4: «The fact that climate models are only able to reproduce observed global mean temperature changes over the 20th century when they include anthropogenic forcings, and that they fail to do so when they exclude anthropogenic forcings, is evidence for the influence of humans on global climate.»

The three evidences of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that the apparent contemporary atmospheric CO2 increase is anthropogenic, is discussed and rejected: CO2 measurements from ice cores; CO2 measurements in air; and carbon isotope data in conjunction with carbon cycle modelling.