Sentences with phrase «nothing about global climate»

So we know exactly the climate within the Stevenson Screen but nothing about global climate.

Not exact matches

7It is particularly ironic that Lomborg would offer such a ridiculously precise estimate of the cost of the impacts of climate change from carbon dioxide emissions, inasmuch as the entire thrust of his books chapter on «global warming» is that practically nothing about the effects of greenhouse gases is known with certainty.

But such findings say absolutely nothing about the current global climate change.

Some global warming «skeptics» argue that the Earth's climate sensitivity is so low that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will result in a surface temperature change on the order of 1 °C or less, and that therefore global warming is nothing to worry about.

However, when you look at all the «big picture» evidence of the global system it is clear that there is nothing «natural» about it, in fact it appears that the planet is in early stages of an abrupt change of climate from our «normal» system to one that is much warmer and tropical like.

And as long as businessmen with a vested interest (Exxon / Mobil, Peabody Coal, power companies), and economists with a political bias (CEI, Heartland, Cato, Wall Street), and lawyers (Bachmann, Cornyn, Cantor) believe that they know more about global warming than climate scientists, nothing will get done to combat global warming.

Thank goodness the Trump Train has not or will not be derailed by people like McCarthy, who obviously knows - infinity (not just nothing but boundlessly and harmfully wrong) about either global warming (aka climate change) or economics.

So there is nothing remarkable either about the rate of global warming (except that it is slowing when the climate extremists had predicted it should be accelerating) or about the absolute global temperature (except that it is remarkable only for being unremarkable).

Thus, I share the story how I knew nothing about climate change, but park visitors were starting to ask me about it global warming thing as I was narrating boat tours in Everglades National Park.

Big Oil and Big Coal funded sympathetic think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the Competitive Enterprise Institute and also outright front groups with names like Friends of Science and the Global Climate Coalition, all of which came up with an endless stream of arguments for why global warming wasn't happening and even if it was, nothing should be done aboGlobal Climate Coalition, all of which came up with an endless stream of arguments for why global warming wasn't happening and even if it was, nothing should be done aboglobal warming wasn't happening and even if it was, nothing should be done about it.

Mr. Dickson wrote passionately about several areas in climate science that troubled him, including: first, the idea that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that climate change is real, caused by humans, and a threat; second, the idea that government agencies had manipulated temperature records to fit a narrative of warming; and third, that China is developing its coal resources so fast that nothing short of radical population control will save us, if burning fossil fuels really does cause global warming.

Proposed reductions in the consumption of fossil fuels will do nothing about controlling global climate change.

Don B asks the analogous question about CO2: is it correct to say that «there's nothing in recent global temperatures that disproves the importance of CO2 as an agent for climate change»?

In a statement, Mr. Boehlert, who is retiring at the end of the year, expressed satisfaction with the results, saying, «There is nothing in this report that should raise any doubts about the broad scientific consensus on global climate change — which doesn't rest primarily on these temperature issues, in any event — or any doubts about whether any paper on the temperature records was legitimate scientific work.»

So here is the question: Are Australians willing to delay the growth in real GDP by 12 months and in doing so play their part in global efforts to tackle climate change, or would they prefer to have the growth a year earlier and do nothing about climate change, sponge off the rest of the world and become an international pariah?

This spectacular man - made global warming / climate change / climate «fragility» fraud has been about nothing except the «political question» ever since the SEEMING of «science» began to be used by the political left — emphasis on the «tranzi» transnational progressives — to perpetrate the pillage and destruction of industrial civilization more than thirty years ago.

Putting James Hansen aside, the whole logic that «climate scientists got it wrong in the 70's so they must be wrong now» is a flawed ad hominem argument that says nothing about the current science of anthropogenic global warming.

- New independent climate study confirms global warming is real - Climategate 2: More ado about nothing.

We will look at the most common climate myths from «global warming stopped in 1998» to «global warming is caused by the sun» to «climate impacts are nothing to worry about.»

I've already detailed the way Desmog's founder James Hoggan essentially torpedoes his site's entire existence with the way he first admits he knows nothing about climate science, but is certain that skeptic climate scientists are liars, the latter of which he derives entirely from Ross Gelbspan, the «Pulitzer - winning investigator» who Al Gore says discovered the supposedly leaked Western Fuels Association «Information Council for the Environment» (ICE) PR campaign's sinister strategy to «reposition global warming as theory rather than fact.»

«They've got three more years, and the only way to control this issue and do nothing about it is to muddy the science,» said Eileen Claussen, the president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, a private group that has enlisted businesses in programs cutting emissions.

How is it that the conclusions of climate scientists can be called into question as a result of supposedly dubious statistical techniques, but the long history of nonsense from the skeptics, (such as the Robinson et al paper that accompanied the politically motivated Oregon Petition, the corporate funded propaganda campaigns of the Global Climate Coalition, and the recent urban myth that Martian «global warming» disproves a human influence on earthly climate) tells us nothing about the integrity of the skeptic theory of cclimate scientists can be called into question as a result of supposedly dubious statistical techniques, but the long history of nonsense from the skeptics, (such as the Robinson et al paper that accompanied the politically motivated Oregon Petition, the corporate funded propaganda campaigns of the Global Climate Coalition, and the recent urban myth that Martian «global warming» disproves a human influence on earthly climate) tells us nothing about the integrity of the skeptic theory of clGlobal Climate Coalition, and the recent urban myth that Martian «global warming» disproves a human influence on earthly climate) tells us nothing about the integrity of the skeptic theory of cClimate Coalition, and the recent urban myth that Martian «global warming» disproves a human influence on earthly climate) tells us nothing about the integrity of the skeptic theory of clglobal warming» disproves a human influence on earthly climate) tells us nothing about the integrity of the skeptic theory of cclimate) tells us nothing about the integrity of the skeptic theory of climateclimate?

It says nothing about a legally - binding treaty in the future, an aspect considered essential if a global climate deal is to be effective.

In that presentation, he said nothing whatsoever about climate change or global warming.

As if the spread of misinformation about climate change to less - than - expert audiences does nothing to reverse public support for needed political solutions to global warming trends.

Not long after, Ebell stirred the wrath of the British Parliament by declaring in a BBC radio interview that the U.K.'s chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, had made a «ridiculous claim» on global warming despite knowing «nothing about climate science.»