Sentences with phrase «scientific debate about global warming»

«This book by climate scientists Craig D. Idso, Robert M. Carter, and S. Fred Singer is a tour de force on the scientific debate about global warming.

Not exact matches

I had thought there was a legitimate scientific debate about the role of global warming and hurricanes, but it appears that the deniers, although they are legitimate scientists, seem to have fallen in with the think tank ideologues and PR lobbyists who masquerade as scientists.

Everything's Cool (Unrated) Cautionary documentary exposes the efforts of the fossil fuel industry lobby and conservative think tanks to manufacture an artificial debate about global warming in the face of irrefutable proof of the phenomenon provided by responsible members of the scientific community.

Facts and anecdotes examine the historic, scientific, economic, political, cultural, and literary aspects of coal, as well as the current debates about energy consumption, developing nations, and global warming.

First of all, I find the narrow scope of the ongoing «scientific» debate about «global warming» very disturbing.

«[The subjects raised] made for a decent scientific debate 15 years ago, but the questions have since been settled... The Great Global Warming Swindle raised old debates that are going to be latched on to and used to suggest that we don't need to do anything about climate change.

In this debate we often find scientific leftists who are willing to consider the precautionary principle for nuclear power and global warming suddenly becoming very adventurous about the effects of new scientific and industrial developments on the environment.

While I do not know whether Global Warming is a fact or if it is man made, what annoys me most is that there is no scientific debate about it - it's all political!

For a long time, GOP pollster Frank Luntz was mainly known as the guy who wrote a 2002 memo advising the Bush administration to «make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate [about global warming].»

But when it comes to the questions about global warming that we are talking about here, the opposition — people who do not believe in global warming — have been told to shut up: no public debate, no contradictory discourse, no articles in scientific journals.

And I don't often question your reasoning w / r / t the science, per se, but on your arguments w / r / t the social aspects of the debate and on a few occasions, the rhetoric of your scientific arguments (such as your acceptance of arguments about a «pause» in «global warming.»

The Weekend Australian lead editorial on «Global warming facts must give us all pause to think» references Judith's work and concludes after considering the pause that «The gatekeepers of scientific media and political debate should not be afraid of a discussion about the facts and their ramifications.

It is important that policymakers understand the historical context of the global warming debate, what the data does — and does not — tell us about global warming, where there is consensus in the scientific community and where there is not, and what impacts global warming regulations can realistically be expected to have on the environment.

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

His premise was simple: If global warming isn't real and there's an actual scientific debate about it, that should be reflected in the scientific journals.

In November, 2015, the three lead NIPCC authors — Craig Idso, Robert M. Carter, and S. Fred Singer — wrote a small book titled Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming: The NIPCC Report on Scientific Consensus revealing how no survey or study shows a «consensus» on the most important scientific issues in the climate change debate, and how most scientists do not support the alarmist claims of the Intergovernmental Panel on ClimaScientific Consensus revealing how no survey or study shows a «consensus» on the most important scientific issues in the climate change debate, and how most scientists do not support the alarmist claims of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climascientific issues in the climate change debate, and how most scientists do not support the alarmist claims of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

I'm thinking that a newswriter could start with, «While the basics of global warming are well established, and our greenhouse gas emissions are causing the warming, with many dire consequences, there is still some scientific uncertainty about (or debate on).....»

Its supplemental online interview of the late IPCC scientist Dr Stephen Schneider quoted his opinion about the Global Climate Coalition as being «a coalition of liars and spin doctors to reposition the debate onto the issue of uncertainty, way beyond [what] the scientific community agreed with» (he probably meant to say it was the Western Fuels Association, out to «reposition global warming as theory rather than fact», an error I note at item 17 Global Climate Coalition as being «a coalition of liars and spin doctors to reposition the debate onto the issue of uncertainty, way beyond [what] the scientific community agreed with» (he probably meant to say it was the Western Fuels Association, out to «reposition global warming as theory rather than fact», an error I note at item 17 global warming as theory rather than fact», an error I note at item 17 here).

FoS lists their goal as «To educate the public about climate science and through them bring pressure to bear on governments to engage in public debates on the scientific merits of the hypothesis of human induced global warming and the various policies that intend to address the issue.»

I do understand that the scientists at realclimate state that they don't want to get involved in political or policy debates, just scientific debates — but by rushing to the defense of the whitelisted / blacklisted groups who refuse to accept the facts about global warming, they've just entered the political arena.

What I am talking about is, that it seems to me that with regard to climate science, this blog spends far too much time responding to the phony, trumped - up «debate» fueled by denialist drivel, and not enough time addressing the legitimate scientific question as to whether it is in fact too late to prevent global warming and climate change that will be catastrophic to human civilization, not to mention the entire Earth's biosphere.

Republicans should «continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate» because otherwise, he warned, «[s] hould the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly.»

The EROI of ethanol meanwhile is 1.3 - 1.6 and like global warming, the EROI debate about ethanol is skewed because the bulk of scientific data that supports a positive EROI resides in one corner, while 1 study from 1 entomologist sits in the other.