Sentences with phrase «global warming science because»

The Keeling Curve, a famous graph named after scientist Charles David Keeling, measures the increase in carbon dioxide concentration in the air since 1958; it is considered the bedrock of global warming science because it is generally believed that there is a direct correlation between increasing levels of carbon dioxide and global warming.

Not exact matches

The term «global warming denier» is so offensive because it seeks to attach skepticism about the warming and / or its supposed Draconian solutions with denying the Holocaust and being «anti science.»

This is absolutely relevant — this guy is apparently a religious wacko who ignores clear science because it doesn't mesh with his beliefs... wonder what he thinks of global warming

They can say «Hey look, one of you smart people decided to come back to our ideology of «ignorance is bliss» where we don't need to worry about global warming, or sharing what we have with the poor or any science and wellfare stuff at all because God will just take care of it...»

Jon, I don't believe in the myth of man - made global warming because the science behind it is bunk — I'm sure you think I'm weird.

«We examined average and extreme temperatures because they were always projected to be the measure that is most sensitive to global warming,» said lead author from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science, Dr Andrew King.

«The reason we think biofuels can reduce global warming is because we assume the feed crop will take carbon out of the air,» says Tim Searchinger of Princeton, the lead author of a report on biofuels» environmental impact in a February issue of Science [subscription required].

«I've always thought that the phrase «global warming» was something of a misnomer because it suggests that the phenomenon is something that is uniform around the world, that it's all about temperature, and that it's gradual,» Holdren said yesterday at the annual AAAS Forum on Science and Technology Policy in Washington, D.C. (AAAS publishes ScienceInsider.)

Speaking at an annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Barnett said climate models based on air temperatures are weak because most of the evidence for global warming is not even there.

At risk of going beyond the theme of this thread, I offer up excerpts from it because I think Orr's review speaks indirectly to the larger issue of how we as humans and as a global society are reacting to the findings of the earth sciences regarding anthropogenic global warming, climate disruption, and their ensuing ecological and socio - economic consequences:

«The polar bear was the first species protected under the Endangered Species Act solely because of threats from global warming,» said Shaye Wolf, climate science director for the Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental group.

Again, science had become politicized in the minds of some people, in this case because the most recognizable voice shouting out about global warming and its effects is Al Gore.

It's an important moment for this message to sink in, because the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, meeting this week in Bangkok, is getting ready to dive in on a special report on the benefits of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above Earth's temperature a century or more ago and emissions paths to accomplish that (to learn what this murky number means in relation to the more familiar 2 - degree limit click here for a quick sketch, basic science, deep dive).

David Tenenbaum # 8 (Gee, when we have a bunch of candidates that don't seem to «believe» in evolution, who don't care what happens to the planet because they discount what science tells us about global warming, I can't think a «science debate» is such a bad idea.)

Gee, when we have a bunch of candidates that don't seem to «believe» in evolution, who don't care what happens to the planet because they discount what science tells us about global warming, I can't think a «science debate» is such a bad idea.

One was a paper published in Science a week ago, by Andreas Schmittner of Oregon State University and colleagues, that generated cheers from doubters of global warming because the authors concluded the climate was less responsive to a big buildup of greenhouse gases than some previous work had concluded.

AGW «science» predicted that Antarctic continental ice would increase because of more precipitaion due to global warming, not sea ice extent.

I think the main reason it is often difficult to convince a lot of people of global warming science is because it is simply harder to present a tangible and irrefutable example of the science at work.

If you are not impressed by the science so far, perhaps it's because none of the sources you rely on have adequately communicated the implications of global warming.

Global Warming Science Just Because It's Snowing Out Doesn't Mean Global Warming is Fake, Say It With Me People Just 57 % of US Residents See Evidence of Global Warming & 23 % Know About Cap - and - Trade Global Warming Changes to Snowmelt Patterns in Western US Could Have Larger Impact Than Previously Thought

An article in Science (11 Nov 2005) by Scott L. Wing, et al., concludes:... «The PETM provides an important analog to present - day anthropogenic global warming, because the two episodes are inferred to have similar rates and magnitudes of carbon release and climate change (6)».

Wordy as the letter is, it could be boiled down much like Al Gore's 2006 movie or the collective lot of the entire catastrophic man - caused global warming into a 3 - part talking point: «the science is settled» / skeptics are industry - funded & orchestrated liars» / «reporters may ignore skeptics because of the prior two reasons.»

It's ironic because Nature, the «International weekly journal of science», has a troubling involvement in the false narrative and controlled message of global warming science.

Trenberth and several other scientists who are, or have been, in the IPCC told InsideClimate News that because the panel has already established that global warming is real, rapidly occurring and driven by human activity, it is time to focus less on defending this basic science and focus more on what is less understood.

Global warming is caused by the Sun, especially its radiation over the past century plus or minus a half century which is dominantly absorbed and stored in the ocean because the ocean is dark and because it has a high heat capacity (inertia in some Earth sciences).

The scientists also put paid to claims that global warming has «stopped» because global temperatures in the past 15 years have not continued the strong upward march of the preceding years, which is a key argument put forward by sceptics to cast doubt on climate science.

Of course it is worth knowing that 97 % of research papers and / or their authors attribute global warming to humans but as the video says, it's the science behind it that counts, and just because the papers are peer reviewed in itself proves nothing about whether the scientific proposal / theory is necessarily right.

Global warming is a particular difficult science because of the vast sums being spent by vested interests in fossil fuels to encourage doubt in the results.

On November 28, the paper told policymakers to ignore science because it could hurt jobs and increase economic hardship «in the name of global warming theories» its editors don't believe are valid.

Also See: Watch Now: Climate Depot's Morano on Fox News Mocking «Climate Astrology»: «This is now akin to the predictions of Nostradamus or the Mayan calendar» — Morano: «There is no way anyone can falsify the global warming theory now because any weather event that happens «proves» their case... Man - made global warming has ceased to be a science, it is now the level of your daily horoscope» — Gore [in 2006 film] did not warn us of extreme blizzards and record cold winters coming»

To quote Malcom; Global warming is a particular difficult science because of the vast sums being spent by vested interests in fossil fuels to encourage doubt in the results.

We're not offering a «counter-claim» about the science, because our position is that even the concrete, incontrovertible, unassailable fact of human influence on global warming and climate change does not, by itself, make a case for action.

Science can not settle all arguments about how the world should respond to global warming, because the answer to that question involves values, varying perceptions of risk, and political ideology, in addition to what we know (and don't know) about the climate system.

Though not CMOS's first public statement, it was one of the most «vocal about climate change of late» due to the fact «that Canada's new Conservative government does not support the Kyoto Protocol for lower emissions of greenhouse gases, and opposed stricter emissions for a post-Kyoto agreement at a United Nations meeting in Bonn in May [2006]» and because «a small, previously invisible group of global warming sceptics called the Friends of Science are suddenly receiving attention from the Canadian government and media,» Leahy wrote.

In the question and answer session, he disputed the validity of Doran 2009 because relatively few climate science experts had participated (77 of 79 answered that human activity is a significant contributing factor to global warming).

The Warmists weren't interested in doing science; they seized upon Anthropogenic Global Warming because it fit their anti-capitalist agenda of «global governance&rGlobal Warming because it fit their anti-capitalist agenda of «global governance&rglobal governance».

I have only touched on some Kyoto issues because people confuse the politics of the Kyoto treaty with the science of Global Warming.

Perhaps it is because during the Obama years, work on climate change issues all started from a mandated conclusion: That manmade global warming was settled science and that it was bad and getting worse.

Junk Science is calling BS on Obama's claim today that his daughter Malia is a victim of global warming, having suffered an asthma attack in pre-school because of it.

If you want me to buy Global Warming because «science is contingent» lol you'd better go to some better seminars and get a new sales pitch, because that one doesn't work.

He's the snake oil salesman who said that the CRU emails «had no effect on science» because he is fully at ease with corruption of data in his screaming global warming doom mongering, kept in his position by his anti coal nuclear interests.

It's conceivable that reporters and administrators at NPR may uniformly be able to summarize the collective global warming issue as «we can ignore climate deniers because the science of man - caused global warming is settled and because Michael Oreskes» sister proved denier scientists are paid industry money to lie about it being not settled.»

Because Thomas Watson has co-written several papers and comments on global warming and sea level rise in a number of specialist science journals around the world with another Australian researcher, Alberto Boretti, formerly of the University of Ballarat.

Because the perception of a scientific consensus on global warming is so widespread, this has led some people to believe that any criticism of man - made global warming theory is by definition «anti-science», and part of an apparent «war on science».

We then can only discuss the ethical responsibilities for global warming of those in the current generation because a crucial piece of that ethical responsibility is having been made aware, in this case, by the geosciences and in particular climate science, of the consequences of maintaining the status quo in these complex large - scale systems.

Meanwhile, let's change the subject so the real problem of creating an economy that is going to suffer unimaginably from governmental controls on energy in America because we are so cocksure of global warming because we have succeeded brainwashing enough people with bad science and propaganda that it is probably now inevitable.

That's partly because of a long campaign by fossil fuel interests to muddy the science on global warming and fight pollution regulation.

In a sharp change from its cautious approach in the past, the National Academy of Sciences on Wednesday called for taxes on carbon emissions, a cap - and - trade program for such emissions or some other strong action to curb runaway global warming.Such actions, which would increase the cost of using coal and petroleum — at least in the immediate future — are necessary because «climate change is occurring, the Earth is warming... concentrations of carbon dioxide are increasing, and there are very clear fingerprints that link [those effects] to humans,» said Pamela A. Matson of Stanford University, who chaired one of five panels organized by the academy at the request of Congress to look at the science of climate change and how the nation should respond.

They supported this with poor science and because they blamed the whole fact on manmade global warming, they were able to convince very intelligent scientist that their assumption was correct even with their suspect facts and the assumption became a peer reviewed fact with no facts to support it except poor science and blaming it on man created global warming.

It is a repugnant underhanded rhetorical attack that insinuates that they are «anti — science» because they raise solid scientific issues over the sad state of climate science and do bow to the «church of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming»