Sentences with phrase «in warm consensus»

Not exact matches

First off, yes: There's consensus that the science of climate change predicts that in a warming world, hurricanes will become more intense, carry more rain, and cause worse coastal flooding linked in part to sea level rise.

Its appeal is complex, drawing on belief in anthropogenic global warming and trust in the «scientific consensus» behind it; the Great Recession and a protective reaction to rapid social change; a basic need for the concrete, local, and personal; the waning of religious observance; peer pressure, star power, money, and more.

The authoritarian consensus about global warming that actively suppressed dissent, as Climategate revealed, is a case in point.

Instead, David offered an aggressive, adversarial statement, which paid lip service to consensus while tonally and rhetorically basking in the still - warm glow of victory.

In contrast, the consensus view among paleoclimatologists is that the Medieval Warming Period was a regional phenomenon, that the worldwide nature of the Little Ice Age is open to question and that the late 20th century saw the most extreme global average temperatures.

Indeed, there's a growing consensus that the degree of variability in temperature and pH an organism faces in its current environment will likely influence its response to future warming and acidification.

At the same time, Trump refused to be pinned down on the scientific consensus that humans are warming the planet, invoking debunked information about emails stolen from climate scientists in 2009, American factories burdened by regulations and his engineer uncle.

Examining the scientific consensus about the origins of warming and the rate of change concludes that it can be mitigated in the short term.

It was possible, according to the I.P.C.C. consensus statement, that the warming before 1956 could be because of changes in solar activity, and that even a substantial part of the more recent warming could be natural.

However, you need to acknowledge that there is uncertainty in how much warming will actually occur, and that the consensus also acknowledges this uncertainty.

As I understand the scientific consensus — there was warming in the early part of the century, cooling in the middle and warming again in the second half.

I hope that innocent bystanders have noticed how useful the betting paradigm has been in generating consensus — me, Chip Knappenberger and the IPCC report all agree that warming is unlikely to be greater than 0.325 C / decade in the immediate future (probably «very unlikely», in IPCC - speak).

The final, key point is that the uncertainty extends just as far in the other direction, and it is possible that the warming will be much worse than the consensus!

In 2015, at a Heartland press conference criticizing the pope's environmentally oriented encyclical, Lehr said that the overwhelming consensus that global warming is real and is driven by fossil fuel emissions is dead wrong.

In 1998, Tony Lupo boasted that climate skeptics outnumbered the consensus view that global warming is happening and caused by people, proclaiming, «there is no scientific consensus whether global warming is a fact and is occurring.»

He warned «Voters believe there is NO CONSENSUS (emphasis his) about global warming in the SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY (emphasis mine).

«In reality, the scientific consensus» is a manufactured myth... there is no convincing evidence that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) will produce catastrophic climate changes.»

Wicker also cited a publication by the Global Warming Petition Project, a document signed by nearly 32,000 American scientists that disputes the international scientific consensus that man - made greenhouse gas emissions are causing the Earth's atmosphere to warm, leading to potentially catastrophic changes in the climate.

He attributes the current temperature increase to Earth recovering from the Little Ice Age and, in the same article, states that «no consensus exists that man - made emissions are the primary driver of global warming or, more importantly, that global warming is accelerating and dangerous.»

and, in the same article, states that «no consensus exists that man - made emissions are the primary driver of global warming or, more importantly, that global warming is accelerating and dangerous.»

The general consensus is thawing permafrost accelerates atmospheric warming by emitting methane that is many many times more potent in warming and most carbon is from man made pollution.

It would warm your heart to see a group of first graders of all races and income levels excitedly discussing how they are going to design a new planet, respectfully listening to one another's suggestions, and encouraging participation and consensus - all while learning critical thinking at levels that surpass much older children in other schools.

There is a consensus among scientists that global warming is occurring, and the increase in temperature is man - made.

Last week, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and 10 other leading world bodies expressed the consensus view that «there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring» and that «It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities».

We are concerned that the incorporation of unsubstantiated theories into what the public understands to be the «scientific consensus» on global warming is eroding public confidence in climate science.

What he disputes is that there is a legitimate consensus on how much warming will result from a given increase in CO2 levels.

Government in the U.K. and other places outside of the United States seem to have supported the consensus IPCC findings on global warming, which has kept their skeptics at bay in their countries for the most part (except perhaps in Australia which is heavily influenced by interests in the U.S.).

Global warming is driven by greenhouse gases, which is a long - standing consensus in science.

This whole argument is just one big RED HERRING in the context of the scientific consensus that humans are influencing the climate and making it warmer

T Marvell, OK, so now you are saying that it is a logical fallacy to cite the combination of a good correlation between ln [CO2] and temperature rise + the well known physics of greenhouse warming as evidence in favor of the consensus view?

in the video summary of this story posted on nytimes.com revkin describes the warming debate being owned by the two «extremes», this is followed by shots of michael crichton's (non scientific consensus) book «state of fear» and... al gore with his (pro scientific consensus) slide lecture!

Of course, journalistic ethics mandates that journalists make at least some effort to report accurately, so I agree that it needs to be emphasized that the consensus among scientists is, there is a warming trend, it appears to be anomalous, and it appears to be caused in part by human factors.

I hope that innocent bystanders have noticed how useful the betting paradigm has been in generating consensus — me, Chip Knappenberger and the IPCC report all agree that warming is unlikely to be greater than 0.325 C / decade in the immediate future (probably «very unlikely», in IPCC - speak).

As I understand the scientific consensus — there was warming in the early part of the century, cooling in the middle and warming again in the second half.

After reading your post, Kerry Emanuel's website I feel strongly that there is a strong consensus on hurricanes and global warming in the scientific community (in spite of media reports and advocacy statements to the contrary).

In recent years, Dr. Pachauri has been a target of some writers, scientists and research groups who challnge the consensus on global warming or who oppose actions to make big cuts in greenhouse gaseIn recent years, Dr. Pachauri has been a target of some writers, scientists and research groups who challnge the consensus on global warming or who oppose actions to make big cuts in greenhouse gasein greenhouse gases.

She said that a recent paper in a statistics journal by some critics of the global warming consensus raised legitimate questions.

«Not a single paper in a large sample of peer - reviewed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 refuted the consensus position, summarized by the National Academy of Sciences, that «most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.

Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming in the scientific community.

«Yes, sea ice seems to behaving as the consensus of the climate models have been projecting — more rapid and larger response in the northern high latitudes than anywhere else, flat to possible increase in [southern hemisphere] sea ice as warming takes hold,» he wrote.

-- How about THIS: «Thus the weight of evidence points to increasing potential intensity in the region where Pam developed, and consistent with this, increasing intensity of the highest category storms based on satellite - derived measurements» — How about THIS: «All of this is consistent with the strengthening consensus that the frequency of high category tropical cyclones should increase as the planet warms (Knutson et al., 2010).»

Look around — anyone that continues to believe that there is no consensus amongst scientists that human activity is warming the planet was duped, and continues to be duped, at least in part by this man.

Specifically on the issue of global warming from greenhouse gases and climate change, the conference reached a consensus on the likelihood of a rise in the global mean temperature of between 2.7 - 8 degrees F (1.5 - 4.5 degrees C) by about 2050, but not on whether such warming has begun.

Umm... there is, in fact, a vast preponderance of evidence indicating CO2 contributes substantially to global warming, and there is almost universal consensus on ths among those with relevant education (and those willingness to reconsider personal dogmas based on fear when confronted with undeniable evidence).

Luntz worried about seriously in a memo during Bush's first term that the Republicans were exposed because of their stand on the environment: Luntz claimed that «Voters believe [d] that there [was] no consensus about global warming within the scientific community... [and that]..

Journalists dealing with global warming and similar issues would do well to focus on the points of deep consensus, generate stories containing voices that illuminate instead of confuse, convey the complex without putting readers (or editors) to sleep, and cast science in its role as a signpost pointing toward possible futures, not as a font of crystalline answers.

Much has been made this week of the gap between what the public thinks about the consensus among climate scientists over the human factor in global warming and the actual level of consensus.

Brian, I'd recommend that you run the talking points through a reality check before attaching your name to them — one excellent resource is skepticalscience.com, from whence (after.1 second of effort) I reached the rebuttal to «Scientists predicted an impending ice age in the 1970's» («Is it really appropriate to compare the scientific evidence for an impending ice age in the 70's to the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming today?»

A front - page article and headline on April 24 reported that the Global Climate Coalition, a group that throughout the 1990s represented industries with profits tied to fossil fuels, knew about the scientific consensus that greenhouse gas emissions could cause global warming but ignored it in a lobbying and public relations campaign against efforts to curb emissions.

Bloggers skeptical of global warming's causes * and commentators fighting restrictions on greenhouse gases have made much in recent days of a string of posts on Climateaudit.org, one of the most popular Web sites aiming to challenge the deep consensus among climatologists that humans are setting the stage for generations of disrupted climate and rising seas.