Sentences with phrase «in the global warming argument»

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.»

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

[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.

I don't reject the belief that increased CO2 levels result in global warming, only that the long - term environmental arguments are weaker than the short - term economic ones.

Numerous denier arguments involving slight fluctuations in the global distribution of warmer vs cooler sea surface areas as supposed explanations of climate change neglect all the energy that goes into ocean heat content, melting large ice deposits and so forth.

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

The fundamental flaw in almost all the denial arguments I've seen is that they start from the premise that global warming isn't happening therefore the best model is the past.

But President Bush's announcement Wednesday of a plan to halt growth in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2025, while not embracing all the enviro groups want, legitimizes their argument that global warming is caused by humans and an imminent threat to mankind.

Often, the argument forwarded by some folks is, in essence, that since the climate naturally fluctuates to a degree, global warming is inevitable and we should just live with it and not bother to change the status quo (and certainly not in a way that discomforts those who conveniently hold this view!).

[Response of the author: And usually they tell us Germans we're too serious... But seriously: as a scientist, and perhaps from my European perspective, I have trouble taking certain discussions and arguments seriously, and Crichton's argument that the planet isn't really warming, and that climatologists have basically made this up in a global conspiracy to get more research funding, is clearly one of those.

We will at some point post something on the climate / hurricane arguments, but a basic fact is that there is a huge difference between claiming that global warming trends will tend, statistically, to lead to more / larger hurricanes, and attributing specific events in specific years to such causes.

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).

Global warming was a convenient persuasive argument in support of what had to take place.

Here are some possible choices — in order of increasing sophistication: * All (or most) scientists agree (the principal Gore argument) * The 20th century is the warmest in 1000 years (the «hockeystick» argument) * Glaciers are melting, sea ice is shrinking, polar bears are in danger, etc * Correlation — both CO2 and temperature are increasing * Sea levels are rising * Models using both natural and human forcing accurately reproduce the detailed behavior of 20th century global temperature * Modeled and observed PATTERNS of temperature trends («fingerprints») of the past 30 years agree

As far as I remember, she discusses the MWP only in the context of Europe which doesn't contribute to the argument concerning the global extent of the warming.

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.

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).

In fact, I was by default not doubting the global warming classic interpretation till I started reading multiple sources on the net, and as my self - confession as a recent skeptic shows, the argument from the denialist camp are not only convincing to petrol gulping rednecks, but also to a very scientifically minded, atheist european (although, I must admit, I like motor sports; — RRB --RRB-.

This seems in disagreement with the argument in CaltechWater.pdf (and surely elsewhere) that with global warming prcipitation ought to increase.

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.

A counterpoint to this argument is exemplified by Gerald Marsh in his «Global Warming Primer» (www.nationalcenter.org/NPA420.pdf) where he claims...» additional carbon dioxide does have an influence at the edges of the 14.99 micron band.

Died - in - the - wool believers in global warming will argue that coal will produce CO2 and contribute to global warming but the following two points will undermine their arguments without challenging the AGW hypothesis.

He has now greatly expanded on his critique of their argument in «Why Global Warming Skeptics Are Wrong,» an essay in the New York Review of Books (hat tip to Climate Progress).

However, after listening to the compelling arguments of the distinguished speakers who participated in the Heartland Institute's recent global warming contrarian conference, we have decided that the science is settled — in favor of the contrarians.

In short Global Warming is akin to a circular argument that can be won by whoever is doing the science.

(Indeed, as The Economist points out in making this argument, the investment required to curb global warming is less than the world spends on insurance every year).

With or without global warming, there's a solid argument that improved understanding of planetary dynamics, particularly the climate system, is essential to sustaining human progress given how risks rise as populations expand, build, farm and concentrate in zones that are implicitly vulnerable to hard knocks like floods, droughts, heat and severe storms.

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.

Long - time greens are painfully aware that the arguments of global warming skeptics are like zombies in a»70s B movie.

«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.».

Or is Paul defending against the charge by making a numbers argument — the scientists in question are on the same side as the consensus, so to challenge any aspect of global warming science or politics is to make a statement about «the majority of scientists» (many of whom are in fact social scientists)?

In fact, many global warming advacates have made this precise 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 Climate Changes caused by global warming.».

The argument is whether us humans have super-imposed our excessive carbon dioxide emissions upon the existing natural balance of the climate system — thereby altering it's natural chemistry leading to possible dangerous global warming at some point in the near and distant future.

In any case, as one of those rare contrarian climate scientists, Spencer is in a good position to present the best arguments against the global warming consensuIn any case, as one of those rare contrarian climate scientists, Spencer is in a good position to present the best arguments against the global warming consensuin a good position to present the best arguments against the global warming consensus.

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]...

Further, he makes the classic logical error of «begging the question» or assuming the proposition as part of the «proof» when he says Given that global warming is «unequivocal», and is «very likely» due to human activities to quote the 2007 IPCC report, in addition to the obvious argument from authority.