Sentences with phrase «in regards to global warming»

but not knowing is NO excuse for not acting... it was irresponsible to downplay the danger and do nothing, which is what the U.S. government continues doing in regards to global warming.

First, I want to state I do not have a «bias» in regards to global warming.

Leftist Democrat politicians are pushing «climate change» legislation, such as Waxman - Markey, that will accomplish nothing in regards to global warming and climate change but will definitely impose a multi-trillion tax on the U.S economy and consumers.

One of the most serious charges the IPCC makes in regards to Global Warming is that over the next 100 years the oceans will rise between 25 and 32 inches.

The chart at top displays the huge prediction failure of IPCC climate models in regards to global warming - the IPCC predictions vs. actual temperature reality.

chris price CHCH NZ — this is exactly right — the arguement on CO2 is irrelevent in regard to Global Warming — it is getting cooler — plants are the best indicators of temperature we have — and yet we have the Professor Snow Barlow (http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/climate-change/vineyards-count-days-to-change-in-flavours-20110724-1hvei.html) saying grape growing areas will be forced to move because it's getting hotter??

Not exact matches

Like others in the incoming administration, Mulvaney is also a skeptic on climate, referring to «baseless claims regarding global warming» on his 2010 election campaign website (archived here).

But that hasn't stopped British newspaper The Mail on Sunday trying to resurrect a dead duck: this time claiming that scientists at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) played fast and loose with data on a well - regarded 2015 paper in Science that definitively showed there was no pause in global warming.

«We have taken a major step forward in terms of short - term climate forecasting, especially with regard to the development of global warming.

Just a general observation in regards to the oceanic heat content value in determining global warming.

Concerns that mitigation may be too slow in coming have led to renewed dialogue within the scientific community regarding potential strategies for counteracting global warming through geoengineering.

There is no evidence whatsoever that «politics» in any way, shape or form has influenced actual climate science, or its overwhelming conclusions regarding both the reality of anthropogenic global warming and the danger that it poses to humanity and to life on earth in general.

We know that our young people experience anxiety not only about doing well at school but also about an uncertain future in regard to employment and big world problems such as global warming.

(from Emerson's essay, «Self - Reliance») So, if it is the case that a conscientious scientist trying to raise awareness of global warming, and trying to use reason regarding our use of coal, is misunderstood, that scientist can at least consider himself in pretty good company.

Just a general observation in regards to the oceanic heat content value in determining global warming.

Having read other material on the consequences and relationships of CCN's and lifetimes regarding papers that have been written, it seems that a lot of the papers coming from the Svensmark angle, so to speak, are not conclusive enough of definitive impact in the impact potentials for global warming, to jsutify the claims made by Svensmark, or the press about his, or similar, work.

People are concerned about global warming, but not moved to make changes, particularly in regards to driving and financial sacrifices.

The Catholic Archbishop of Sydney (Australia) has made a comment regarding global warming in a speech to US Catholic business leaders, Dr Pell said:

I would like to link a paper by Umberto Triacca, Alessandro Attanasio and me about the «role» of the Sun in the recent global warming: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/3/034020/article Regards Antonello

First, I would suggest to those who hope to influence American public opinion regarding anthropogenic global warming, PLEASE state temperatures and temperature changes in degrees Fahrenheit, rather than degrees Celsius.

In regards to: «Regarding the issue of liability for the effects of global warming, I would like to point out that we're (USA & developed nations population mostly) the ones who burned the fossil fuels to CO2, not Peabody Coal or Exxon / Mobil.»

In an interview regarding an issue of vast importance such as global warming, a science writer (who himself knows important components of the «big picture» answer to a question of vital importance) asks someone else the question without ultimately providing a full answer to the public, perhaps leaving many people thinking that the question really doesn't have a comprehensive and sensible answer.

Right now, especially as regards ideas related to Global Warming, many people (on both sides) are very thoroughly entrenched in a Must Believe It To See It mindseto Global Warming, many people (on both sides) are very thoroughly entrenched in a Must Believe It To See It mindseTo See It mindset.

Regarding global warming and population growth, in my view anyhow, «job one» should be to try to face and address them wisely, and a subsidiary (but still important) task should be to prepare / adapt / adjust to those aspects of climate change and population growth that we can't fully address.

New York Times and everyone, press the presidential candidates to answer specific questions, in specific ways, regarding their views on global warming and how they would address it.

Regarding the issue of whether some «mainstream» scientists are «alarmist» in their discussions of global warming, it is well to remember that, in any controversy, scientific or otherwise, there will be extremists at both ends of the spectrum.

So, the Alaska climate site statement referring to the 1977 PDO shift as «natural» is misleading in the extreme in that the effect of global warming on the PDO warm phase would be with regard to its persistence and possibly its timing.

My point is this: In my view, the Times should find out, and convey to the public (in one place and in organized fashion), the views of each and every Congressperson, and person running for Congress, regarding a moratorium on coal - fired power plants (until their carbon dioxide emissions can be eliminated), a carbon «cap - and - auction» or «cap - and - trade» system, or carbon tax, and related matters having to do with global warminIn my view, the Times should find out, and convey to the public (in one place and in organized fashion), the views of each and every Congressperson, and person running for Congress, regarding a moratorium on coal - fired power plants (until their carbon dioxide emissions can be eliminated), a carbon «cap - and - auction» or «cap - and - trade» system, or carbon tax, and related matters having to do with global warminin one place and in organized fashion), the views of each and every Congressperson, and person running for Congress, regarding a moratorium on coal - fired power plants (until their carbon dioxide emissions can be eliminated), a carbon «cap - and - auction» or «cap - and - trade» system, or carbon tax, and related matters having to do with global warminin organized fashion), the views of each and every Congressperson, and person running for Congress, regarding a moratorium on coal - fired power plants (until their carbon dioxide emissions can be eliminated), a carbon «cap - and - auction» or «cap - and - trade» system, or carbon tax, and related matters having to do with global warming.

First: Months ago, as you know, a very creative and conscientious Dot Earthling (Anna Haynes) suggested in a Dot Earth post that The New York Times should do a survey / questionnaire of all members of Congress regarding their specific views on global warming and potential ways to address global warming.

In regards to your question, if you mean how robust is the «slowdown» in global surface warming, the answer is it just probably just barely statistically significanIn regards to your question, if you mean how robust is the «slowdown» in global surface warming, the answer is it just probably just barely statistically significanin global surface warming, the answer is it just probably just barely statistically significant.

At the time (1981) that Hansen published his paper on global warming, it was a theory of what could happen in future times — the trend in global temperatures was still decidedly downwards, as it had been for several decades, and upswings and downswings in the trend were regarded as «random fluctuations» which nobody bothered to try explain.

Pt 4, «The Wunsch / RealClimate Thing»: In this instance, we are asked to believe that a common citizen, Dave Rado, outraged over lies in «The Great Global Warming Swindle», somehow also knew one of the «seemingly skeptic» scientists in the video had been hoodwinked to appear in it, and that the scientist this confirmed this via a direct email response regarding the inquiry Rado sent mere hours after watching the videIn this instance, we are asked to believe that a common citizen, Dave Rado, outraged over lies in «The Great Global Warming Swindle», somehow also knew one of the «seemingly skeptic» scientists in the video had been hoodwinked to appear in it, and that the scientist this confirmed this via a direct email response regarding the inquiry Rado sent mere hours after watching the videin «The Great Global Warming Swindle», somehow also knew one of the «seemingly skeptic» scientists in the video had been hoodwinked to appear in it, and that the scientist this confirmed this via a direct email response regarding the inquiry Rado sent mere hours after watching the videin the video had been hoodwinked to appear in it, and that the scientist this confirmed this via a direct email response regarding the inquiry Rado sent mere hours after watching the videin it, and that the scientist this confirmed this via a direct email response regarding the inquiry Rado sent mere hours after watching the video.

If they can not provide a verifiable experiment regarding the present amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and how it effects the climate and creates their anthropogenic global warming, then believing that it does so is akin to believing that Santa Clause is real and you need to be good to get something left under the tree.

In the natural cycle regarding long term natural climate change caused by Milankovitch cycles, at least for the past million years or so, the sensitivity response to changes is indicated to alter the global temperature by 6º Celsius between warm periods and glacial periods.

In both my personal experience of peer review and in discussions with medical colleagues on this subject, I know — and, boy, BillD really ought to know — how the peer review process can get screwed up by the sorts of concerted and deliberately deceptive measures practiced by the anthropogenic global warming cabal that was cataclysmically de-pantsed by the Climategate revelations, particularly with regard to the insights provided by the e-mails of the C.R.U. correspondentIn both my personal experience of peer review and in discussions with medical colleagues on this subject, I know — and, boy, BillD really ought to know — how the peer review process can get screwed up by the sorts of concerted and deliberately deceptive measures practiced by the anthropogenic global warming cabal that was cataclysmically de-pantsed by the Climategate revelations, particularly with regard to the insights provided by the e-mails of the C.R.U. correspondentin discussions with medical colleagues on this subject, I know — and, boy, BillD really ought to know — how the peer review process can get screwed up by the sorts of concerted and deliberately deceptive measures practiced by the anthropogenic global warming cabal that was cataclysmically de-pantsed by the Climategate revelations, particularly with regard to the insights provided by the e-mails of the C.R.U. correspondents.

Even though some of the CMIP models produce a lot of global warming, all of them are still stable in this regard, with net increases in lost radiation with warming (NOTE: If analyzing the transient CMIP runs where CO2 is increased over long periods of time, one must first remove that radiative forcing in order to see the increase in radiative loss).

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other climate scientists regard global warming of two degrees Celsius as catastrophic, bringing water stress to arid and semi-arid countries, more floods in low - lying coastal areas, coastal erosion in small island states, and the elimination of up to 30 percent of animal and plant species.

No politician has ever regarded global warming so essential as to warrant campaigning on the issue, and place matter to the public in order to gain the political power to enact policy to would address the problem.

And with regard to Your own comments you cited, if you are really trying to deny anthropogenic global warming you are going about in a really horrible way.

The economic constraint on environmental action can easily be seen by looking at what is widely regarded as the most far - reaching establishment attempt to date to deal with The Economics of Climate Change in the form of a massive study issued in 2007 under that title, commissioned by the UK Treasury Office.7 Subtitled the Stern Review after the report's principal author Nicholas Stern, a former chief economist of the World Bank, it is widely viewed as the most important, and most progressive mainstream treatment of the economics of global warming.8 The Stern Review focuses on the target level of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) concentration in the atmosphere necessary to stabilize global average temperature at no more than 3 °C (5.4 °F) over pre-industrial levels.

Previous large natural oscillations are important to examine: however, 1) our data isn't as good with regards to external forcings or to historical temperatures, making attribution more difficult, 2) to the extent that we have solar and volcanic data, and paleoclimate temperature records, they are indeed fairly consistent with each other within their respective uncertainties, and 3) most mechanisms of internal variability would have different fingerprints: eg, shifting of warmth from the oceans to the atmosphere (but we see warming in both), or simultaneous warming of the troposphere and stratosphere, or shifts in global temperature associated with major ocean current shifts which for the most part haven't been seen.

The «global warming denial machine» was alive and well in 2013, and continued to have an impact on public opinion regarding the seriousness of the problem.

Dig deep enough in the «crooked skeptics» accusation, and you ultimately discover that in regard to the notion about skeptics being in a pay - for - performance arrangement with anybody in the fossil fuel industry, there's only one usable weapon in the enviro - activists» arsenal to indict those skeptics as industry - paid shills: the supposedly leaked industry memo set from a public relations campaign called the «Information Council for the Environment» (ICE) supposedly containing the «reposition global warming» strategy goal, which targeted «older, less - educated males» and «younger, lower - income women.»

He also asks Gutierrez to explain by Oct. 9 «the role of your office in determining which scientists could speak with the press regarding global warming.»

It is very plausible that Verolme was referring to Nesmith's «Foes of global warming theory have energy ties» article which subsequently appeared on June 1, 2003 * regarding another thorn in Michael Mann's side, the Willie Soon / Sallie Baliunas 2003 paper.

And (2) with regard to its main rationale, carbon emissions cause warming, the vector of causation is backwards: atmospheric CO2 concentration follows global warming, empirically and theoretically, while human emissions are lost in the noise.

Yet the emergence of global warming as an issue in the 1980s with its potential for large - scale social change needed to ameliorate its threat was seen as more threatening to conservatives in regard to industry, prosperity, life - style, and the entire American - way of life, than were traditional pollution problems.

On p. 28 it says that only 47 % agreed that «most scientists believe that global warming is happening while 33 % said «there is a lot of disagreement» in regard to the scientific consensus.

The ultimate purpose of the program is to lower global warming but nothing has ever been published quantifying what these reductions will do in that regard.

However, despite this, the team reckon to have perhaps isolated a «global warming» signal in the accelerated run off of the Greenland Ice Mass — but only just, because the runoff at the edges is balanced by increasing central mass — again, they focus upon recent trends — a net loss of about 22 cubic kilometres in total ice mass per year which they regard as statistically not significant — to find the «signal», and a contradiction to their ealier context of air temperature cycles.