Sentences with phrase «larger global warming argument»

Not exact matches

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.

The physics argument seems simply that (1) past climates have been very different from today (true); (2) the changes are large compared to what we see from global warming, or expect to see, anytime soon (true).

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.

If global warming is a vital issue, and if ExxonMobil is one of the largest companies on the planet, there is no credible argument that such a story wouldn't be very important.

Curry's main and most flawed argument was that information in the latest IPCC report should decrease our confidence in human - caused global warming; an argument she based in large part on the supposed global warming «pause», which is itself a fictional creation.

For «skeptics» to make a convincing argument that humans are not causing global warming, they must both explain where this large greenhouse gas radiative forcing has gone, and find an even larger «natural» radiative forcing which nobody has yet identified.

Kim Dabelstein Petersen is a Wikipedia «editor» who seems to devote a large part of his life to editing reams and reams of Wikipedia pages to pump the assertions of global - warming alarmists and deprecate or make disappear the arguments of skeptics.

I'm currently engaged in an argument with someone about global warming and while I know this exists, despite a large amount of google searching, I can't find a peer - reviewed paper that (quoting other party here, excuse the obvious baiting):» 1.

I am aware of people making the argument that the big push by the nuclear industry for enormous government subsidies to find a massive expansion of nuclear power on the basis that nuclear power is «THE ANSWER» to global warming is a fraud that dishonestly and cynically takes advantage of growing concern about the very real problem of global warming, and I make that argument myself (because even a quite large expansion of nuclear electricity generation would have little effect on overall GHG emissions, at great cost, taking too long to achieve even that little effect, while misdirecting resources that could more effectively be applied elsewhere).