Sentences with phrase «global warming an argument for»

Not exact matches

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 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.

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.

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.

[Response: For the record, I think any reasonably educated person, whether with a technical degree or not, should be able to understand and critically evaluate the basic arguments involved in predictions of global warming.

As usual, a lucid, concise and unarguable (for those who care to listen) debunking of the standard global warming sceptics» arguments.

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.

But frankly people are seizing on anecdotes for climate change in the solar system that would rightly be derided if I was to use analogous arguments on Earth (i.e. global warming is happening because of a big storm, or that a single glacier was melting).

The official, Jason K. Burnett, once a Bush appointee and now an Obama supporter, told the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming that the argument for putting off any carbon dioxide limits was made by «individuals working for particular oil companies, Exxon Mobil,» as well as oil industry trade associations.

It's been remarkable to see the lengthening line of Republican politicians, particularly presidential hopefuls, chiding Pope Francis for pressing the case for action to stem global warming given how much conservatives have stressed values - based arguments on important issues in the past.

There is probably a decent legal argument that the fossil fuel industry could be held legally responsible for a certain fraction of recent crop losses due to Midwest flooding, for example — especially since they've waged a very well - documented multi-decade PR campaign that attempted to hide and distort the evidence for global warming.

But I posted a comment on the importance of considering the moral arguments for action on global warming in the context of the many other moral questions surrounding human development.

A valuable short paper that has been accepted for publication in Geophysical Research Letters (subscription required) makes a strong case against presenting any argument about human - driven global warming that's based on short - term trends (a decade or so).

As various arguments for action on global warming have failed to blunt growth in emissions in recent years, environmental groups and international agencies have sometimes tried to turn the focus to diseases that could pose a growing threat in a warming world — with malaria being a frequent talking point.

My argument here is that if alarmism works at a broad level (climate research funding for global warming) for getting funds, it should also work at the finer scale (within climate research).

The earth has had significant Global Warming for some 20,000 years now... The only real argument is to the degree that mans activity has augmented that... We just came out of one - point - five - million years of continuous glaciation with sheets of two mile thick ice down past the 44th parallel... I will cheerfully deal with warming issues over that, anyWarming for some 20,000 years now... The only real argument is to the degree that mans activity has augmented that... We just came out of one - point - five - million years of continuous glaciation with sheets of two mile thick ice down past the 44th parallel... I will cheerfully deal with warming issues over that, anywarming issues over that, any day...

Those who seem to spend much of their time trying to cast doubt on human - driven global warming had latched onto the expansion of Antarctic sea ice as undercutting arguments for global warming.

But, as I wrote in a comment on that post, «It's important not to conclude that moral arguments for action on global warming, even conveyed by a pope, are a world - changing breakthrough.

I have heard global warming apologists use Greenland as a simplistic example for why warming is a natural process, but their inability to critically examine their own position makes a mockery of their arguments.

«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.».

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.

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 Climate Changes caused by global warming.».

«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.

«But», you could now say to me, «granting, for the sake of argument only, that Miliband and others may be going rather too far, surely there is clear scientific evidence that human - induced global warming presents a serious problem which has to be dealt with.

While such a «missing heat» explanation for a lack of recent warming [i.e., Trenberth's argument that just can not find it yet] is theoretically possible, I find it rather unsatisfying basing an unwavering belief in eventual catastrophic global warming on a deep - ocean mechanism so weak we can't even measure it [i.e., the coldest deep ocean waters are actually warmer than they should be by thousandths of a degree]...

Asked by a man attending the event whether he thought mankind was responsible for global warming, Christie says he's seen evidence on both sides of the argument but thinks it hasn't been proven one way or another.

A pause would, at least in part, discredit arguments for global warming and lend credence to skeptics who argue the climate goes through a natural cycle of changes.

See the video of Prof. Mike Hulme for a resounding challenge to political arguments for action on climate change, based on the idea that the consensus is that global warming will cause catastrophe.

Nonetheless, the arguments for the use of this theory to understand the more subtle aspects of global warming were very convincing.

For all the thunder and fury the original hockey stick generated (and I trust Mann and his team have their hard hats at the ready again), it's not the hinge - pin argument for global warmiFor all the thunder and fury the original hockey stick generated (and I trust Mann and his team have their hard hats at the ready again), it's not the hinge - pin argument for global warmifor global warming.

We will have to continue the arguments about how to meet our need for power in the face of peak oil and global warming.

KR - I briefly looked at Spencer Weart and despite being a believer in global warming comes out against a recent argument for the consensus here.

If the consensus argument is a straw man, then lots of people love their straw in making the case for anthro - global warming.

Big Oil and Big Coal funded sympathetic think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the Competitive Enterprise Institute and also outright front groups with names like Friends of Science and the Global Climate Coalition, all of which came up with an endless stream of arguments for why global warming wasn't happening and even if it was, nothing should be done aboGlobal Climate Coalition, all of which came up with an endless stream of arguments for why global warming wasn't happening and even if it was, nothing should be done aboglobal warming wasn't happening and even if it was, nothing should be done about it.

If we accept that global warming will be a net negative impact for the global economy and human well - being (I don't accept that, but will proceed on that assumption for the sake of argument here), policies will have to be sustainable for many decades to a century.

The main line of argument now is that, granted that global warming is real, we should do nothing about it, at least for the next few decades.

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.

Given that people on Brulle's side of the Global Warming / Climate Change argument have been making false claims for decades — for example, that New York and Washington would be under water by the year 20004 — and given that the mass media sound daily alarms about the climate threat, the statement in the National Research Council report that «some» information sources are «affected» by campaigns opposed to policies that would limit carbon dioxide emissions is scant foundation for believing a massive conspiracy exists.5

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.

The filmmaker looked for the scientific evidence behind the arguments of the climate sceptics, and compared these findings with the theories from scientists who have examined the impact of man on global warming.

A favorite argument among climate scientist «skeptics» like Christy, Spencer, and Lindzen is that «internal variability» can account for much or all of the global warming we've observed over the past century.

But that's not an argument for inaction on global warming; it's an argument for designing and implementing programs that help workers adversely affected by climate change policies.

What the contrarians need is not to win rationally the argument for / against man - made global warming (this has been resolved scientifically) but plant doubt in the public and politicians, because inaction and the status quo is on the side of the traditional energy industry.

I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish with your argument, Peter, for or against Global Warming, but all you manage to do is make the question a moot point, at most... which is exactly what the answer already does....

The Achilles Heel of the «climate shifts are causing global warming» hypothesis is that it's simply not a physical argument, for several reasons.

First, their arguments for no significant discrepancy between modeled and observed GMST changes and for no pause in recent global warming contradict the widely accepted fact and conclusion that were reported in the recent literature extensively.

Thursday's confirmation hearing for President Obama's nominee to lead the Environmental Protection Agency became the latest forum for an ongoing argument over global warming, jobs, the future of the U.S. coal industry, and the role of the federal government.

A California federal court will soon hear oral arguments from San Francisco and Oakland that assert five major oil companies should pay huge sums of money for contributing to man - made global warming.

There is no global warming on mars (or very scant evidence for it) which is another argument used by deniers to try and prove that the sun is the cause of GW.