Sentences with phrase «reality of anthropogenic global warming»

In general, the moment someone mentions his ideological orientation in the same breath as his view of the scientific reality of anthropogenic global warming, he demonstrates that he has been bamboozled, or is himself engaging in bamboozlement.

No matter what the reality of an external cooling event, it has no relevance to the reality of anthropogenic global warming.

In fact there is no genuine scientific «debate» about the reality of anthropogenic global warming.

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.

An a priori determination not to accept the reality of anthropogenic global warming, and an eagerness to grasp at any straw, no matter how flimsy, to support that determination, is not «skepticism».

The fact is, that only happens on the side of those who deny the reality of anthropogenic global warming.

What you describe is exactly the outcome that Exxon - Mobil and other fossil fuel companies desire, and have achieved by their funding of right - wing propaganda mills, disguised as «think tanks», that spew a steady stream of fake, phony, pseudoscientific bunk and employ cranks and liars to create the completely false impression that there is a genuine «debate» about the reality of anthropogenic global warming.

Should those who, for purposes of personal and corporate profit, deliberately deceived the American people for more than two decades about the reality of anthropogenic global warming, be subject to some sort of legal penalty?

Denial of the reality of anthropogenic global warming, or denial of the likely horrific consequences thereof, is entirely based on ignoring «real science».

Michaels and Balling are labeled «skeptics» because they don't believe the warming is likely to be as severe or as disruptive as most other climate scientists, but they readily accept the reality of anthropogenic global warming.

When the science correspondent for Reason magazine comes over to the reality of anthropogenic global warming, it's safe to say that the skeptics have lost the debate.

In fact there is no genuine scientific «debate» about the reality of anthropogenic global warming.

What you describe is exactly the outcome that Exxon - Mobil and other fossil fuel companies desire, and have achieved by their funding of right - wing propaganda mills, disguised as «think tanks», that spew a steady stream of fake, phony, pseudoscientific bunk and employ cranks and liars to create the completely false impression that there is a genuine «debate» about the reality of anthropogenic global warming.

The fact is, that only happens on the side of those who deny the reality of anthropogenic global warming.

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.

An a priori determination not to accept the reality of anthropogenic global warming, and an eagerness to grasp at any straw, no matter how flimsy, to support that determination, is not «skepticism».

Al Gore would have us believe that if we acknowledge the reality of anthropogenic global warming, then we must also believe in his «planetary emergency» and embrace his policy agenda as a moral imperative.

In fact, the petition, paper, and letter were entirely unrelated to the Academy, which issued a strong denunciation of the petition project as deliberately deceptive and an affirmation of the consensus in favor of the reality of anthropogenic global warming.