Sentences with phrase «global warming an argument»

The anthropogenic global warming argument does not hinge on the paleo reconstructions but on model predictions.

You don't need to buy into the global warming argument to know that we very often engage in activities that destroy the environment.

There are other highly uncertain topics such as hurricanes and global warming and cloud / aerosol feedbacks, that are arguably more important for the global warming argument than the paleo reconstructions.

Imagine how whalers and hunters and those actually living in the Arctic environment can relate to the politics of science that exist in the global warming argument.

To do otherwise, the global warming argument will have to carry the day on its own.

As a disclaimer, I will confess that these changes are not due to the magnanimity of the consumers who want to alleviate the potentially devastating effects of Global Warming, but instead are primarily due to the fact that people don't want to spend so much money on gas (and they use the Global Warming argument as a backup to assuage their conscience)

The global warming argument seemed a straight fight between the scientific case to act and the economic case not to.

We could also insist on the mode of atmospheric circulation as described by Marcel Leroux demonstrating the fallacy of the Global warming argument through the understanding of meteorological data.

In his open letter to Martin Durkin's Wag TV, one of Five major misrepresentations of the scientific evidence in the film concerned Durkin's suggestion that the global temperature slump in the 1950s and»60s, which was concurrent with rising emissions of greenhouse gases, was problematic for orthodox global warming arguments.

I find the global warming arguments extremely compelling, but I notice something peculiar — that we seem to forget that long before «AGW» became a common topic, we saw many causes for alarm over the downside of doing so little to hedge our bets about energy sources, and back then we had little concept of the potential of China, e.g., to match and raise our own carbon fuel appetite.

I guess since the only response possible to Monckton's searing global warming arguments are these «personal attacks», he automatically wins every climate debate from now on.

Economics is central to the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming argument.

This alone dashes the anthropogenic global warming argument.

Gas is far better than coal (less CO2 / energy delivered, less other pollution), and it is interesting to see them promoting it versus coal with global warming arguments.

Their report suggests that a central plank in the global warming argument — that it will result in a big increase in deaths from weather - related disasters — is undermined by the facts.

Then thereâ $ ™ s the pesky issue of â $ œconsensus.â $ Alarmists typically counter any fact - based global warming argument with the assertion that the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has already ruled on the issue, and therefore â $ œthe science is settledâ $ and â $ œthe debate is over.â $ â $ œMild winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms, â $ IPCC claimed in its 2001 Third Assessment.

Leg 2, however, is very problematic and is by far the weakest part of the global warming argument.

Randomly mentioning the stratosphere cooling is a far, far, FAR cry from even approaching the viscinity of a claim you believe the earth has trapped: for years — so much heat from the sun that the stratosphere stopped being warmed due to the thermal disconnect at the tropopause — that IS what Magic Gas's claim boils down to — that the lower atmosphere is somehow «hiding» such massive amounts of energy the fact you think it's credible on it's face is aNOTHer indicator which end of the global warming argument pool, you're at, Don.

If the author is already peddling denialism based on limited facts used out of context, and this new paper is published likely just to be used as the latest red herring distraction in the global warming argument by examining «Svalbard and Greenland temperature records» in a too limited time span without relevant context, which, just in case some may not have noticed does not represent the region known as planet Earth, uses too short a time span in relation to mechanism outside of the examined region because it is in fact a regional analysis; one is left with a reasonable conclusion that the paper is designed to be precisely what I suspect it is designed for, to be a red herring distraction in the argument between science and science denialism regarding global warming.

Which scenario would best support our global warming arguments?

They aren't trying to persuade, they are, like global warming argument - recyclers, trying to discourage.

The parallel sources to these in the global warming argument are the 19,000 scientists who signed the OISM petition that human expulsion of CO2 is not harmful.

The same arguments that surrounded that argument also encompass the global warming argument.

Anyway, as a result of these flaws, and again having little to do with the global warming argument itself, the Senate voted 95 - 0 in 1997 not to sign or ratify the treaty unless these flaws (which still exist in the treaty) were fixed.

Not exact matches

Slate's Science Editor, Susan Matthews, in «Alarmism Is the Argument We Need to Fight Climate Change» said the «global - warming horror story isn't too scary.

The mounting evidence for climate change, and all its tragic consequences, has provided a powerful argument against fossil fuel power stations: the burning of coal, gas and oil releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and this is almost certainly responsible for global warming.

The television interviewer then asked, «You mean there is no argument about global warming?»

The finding challenges previous arguments that a hot spot north of Cape Hatteras over the past few decades was due to a slowdown of circulation in the North Atlantic, which is itself due to global warming.

In «Consilience and Consensus» [Skeptic], Michael Shermer's arguments demonstrate how deniers of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) are wrong.

One of the sturdiest pillars of the argument against global warming has crumbled under the weight of some 10 million newly compiled measurements of ocean temperature.

A sillier argument was also laid to rest: the one that says global warming might be a good thing because it would protect us from the next ice age.

Micronesia's argument was that emissions from Prunerov are threatening its very existence by contributing to global warming and, ultimately, raising sea levels.

«Long - term global warming not driven naturally: Study debunks argument that warming is driven by natural factors.»

J. Alan Pounds, a biologist at the Monteverde Cloud Forest Preserve and one of the researchers who originally put forward the argument that global warming played a role in the extinction of the golden toad, disagrees with the paper's conclusions.

At the time, global warming skeptics used it to support arguments against climate change.

I think the argument is that global warming will result in more extremes.

Themes: Aerosols, Arctic and Antarctic climate, Atmospheric Science, Climate modelling, Climate sensitivity, Extreme events, Global warming, Greenhouse gases, Mitigation of Climate Change, Present - day observations, Oceans, Paleo - climate, Responses to common contrarian arguments, The Practice of Science, Solar forcing, Projections of future climate, Climate in the media, Meeting Reports, Miscellaneous.

The reconstruction produced by Dr. Mann and his colleagues was just one step in a long process of research, and it is not (as sometimes presented) a clinching argument for anthropogenic global warming, but rather one of many independent lines of research on global climate change.

Ignoring the advice of prominent scientists inside and outside of government, the President has put forth the dubious argument that global warming science is too uncertain to warrant decisive action.

The U.S. press is either woefully ignorant of the state of the science, or is deliberately trying to find explanations for various regional weather and climate changes that don't involve any mention of «global warming» — and that approach relies on the «natural cycle» argument.

Do these ocean findings finally lay to rest any arguments against anthropogenic global warming, according to news coverage claims?

The arguments surrounding global warming have become so polarised that in my opinion there is no longer a genuine attempt to get to the truth through orignial research, but simply a process of point scoring by either side going on.

If there were still serious arguments and reputable scientists that challenge anthropogenic global warming, surely film - makers like Durkin would have found and presented them?

Moore argued that the current argument that the burning of fossil fuels is driving global warming over the past century lacks scientific evidence.

Blaming global warming on the sun continues to be the # 1 skeptic argument.

The results lead the authors to conclude that «this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.»

What I didn't expect was that global warming, and An Inconvenient Truth, would be the flash point for a heated argument between the husband of a good friend of mine and me.

Students watched An Inconvenient Truth — former U.S. Vice President Al Gore's documentary about global warming — and studied the science behind climate change (including arguments that it is not a crisis humans caused).

In some of these cases, the argument is as broad and non-specific as global warming.

If you really think that the questions you have listed are «next generation» questions on global warming, you have a serious lack of understanding of the history of the issue and the various arguments raised.