Sentences with phrase «scientific reality of global warming»

Unfortunately, this is shifting the focus away from the most important element of the climate debate: the scientific reality of global warming.

One has to wonder how productive it can be to negotiate with polluters who deny the scientific reality of global warming.

Not exact matches

What, specifically, is the reason that you are «skeptical» of the conclusions of the overwhelming majority of the world's climate scientists and every relevant scientific organization in the world, including the national science academies of every major country in the world, that anthropogenic global warming is a reality?

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?»

And that reality has been demonstrated over and over again, most recently in the work of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, led by Dr. Richard Muller, who began his comprehensive assessment as an avowed climate skeptic and ended it convinced by the clear evidence that global warming is happening and is caused by human activity.This conclusion is emphatically shared by the best and brightest of the global scientific community, including our own National Academy of Sciences.

The scientific consensus over the reality and causes of global warming has grown stronger over the past decade, as reflected in the widely publicized reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The faux pause has nonetheless been used by political partisans like Senator Cruz to cast doubt on the overwhelming scientific consensus that humans are causing rapid global warming, simply because they find the political implications of that scientific reality inconvenient â $» to their ideological views and the views of the special interests who fund their campaigns.

In this context, for the Administration to have released a U.S. Climate Action Report with a chapter on climate change impacts that identified a range of likely adverse consequences, based on scientific reports including the National Assessment, could rightly be seen as an anomaly and appeared to be seen as a significant political error by Administration allies dedicated to denying the reality of human - induced global warming as a significant problem.

Dismissing natural variability even though it is well demonstrated by now that the consensus view on so - called «global warming» has failed seems to invert the scientific process of (in rough form): Observe > hypothesis > test / predict > measure result > Compare to observation > reconcile to reality.

Every qualified scientific body in the world, from the American Association for the Advancement of Science to the Royal Society, agrees unequivocally that global warming is both a reality, and caused by man - made greenhouse gas emissions.

«The reality of global warming has been confirmed by 11 of the world's National Academies of Sciences, as well as 18 different scientific societies across the nation.

However, readers of my column will know that I give contrarians, or sceptics, or deniers (call them what you will) short shrift, and as a close follower of the scientific debate on this subject I can state without doubt that there is no dispute whatsoever within the expert community as to the reality or causes of manmade global warming.

But the scientific reality is that the chart confirms a steady global warming that has been taking place since the end of the Little Ice Age (late 1700s)- well before the influx of the giant CO2 emissions from the industrial / consumer era.

Adjacent is a chart that depicts the output of climate alarmism of catastrophic global warming scientists, versus scientific reality.

What, specifically, is the reason that you are «skeptical» of the conclusions of the overwhelming majority of the world's climate scientists and every relevant scientific organization in the world, including the national science academies of every major country in the world, that anthropogenic global warming is a reality?

That 40 % number is a falsehood - there is about a 98 % consensus of all scientists who study this phenomena that anthropogenic climate change is a reality, and every major scientific institution in the world supports the conclusion of man caused global warming.

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

As we discussed last time, there is a remarkable level of scientific consensus on the reality and severity of human - caused global warming.

After being shown evidence of the consensus on human - caused global warming, Australian acceptance of this scientific reality grew across the political spectrum, but especially among conservatives.

As the scientific evidence became clear, internal documents show that some of the world's largest carbon producers — including Chevron, BP, Shell, ExxonMobil, Peabody Energy, and ConocoPhillips — worked for years to deceive the public about the reality of global warming.

In short, the scientific consensus on human - caused global warming is an indisputable reality, supported by many different lines of evidence, despite the strategic efforts to deny it.

COP21: With the UN climate conference still trying to agree an effective way to tackle global warming, a scientific group warns that policy is ignoring the reality of a melting world.

Critics say that Exxon and these groups continue to muddle the debate even as scientific consensus has emerged, and as much of the industry has taken a more conciliatory stance toward the reality of global warming.

An executive (and founder) with Green Peace recently admitted he left the organization because global warming was more of a political issue than reality and the «scientific» models being developed were designed to back up global warming assertions instead of to process real data in unbiased fashion.

If you're wondering why Congress has yet to tackle this global crisis despite overwhelming scientific consensus and ballooning costs of inaction, Think Progress has an interactive map that shows the huge sums of political donations given by the oil and gas industry alongside which members of Congress deny the realities of global warming.

Given all this it seems to me that anyone touting this as proof that «global warming is a hoax» completley misunderstands the process of scientific endeavor or has completely exhausted any real argument that rightfully brings into to doubt the reality of climate change.

G8 Climate Statement (PDF) Here is a 2005 joint declaration on the realities of global warming signed by the heads of the chief scientific advisors for all the G8 countries (China, Canada, Brazil, Russia, United States, Japan, Italy, India, Germany).

The «man - made hysteria» associated with the global - warming fraud is a real threat to mankind in the sense that it a) has the potential to, and in fact is, turning millions of gullible individuals into fanatical, anti-human ideologues, b) diverting precious time, money and resources that could be more usefully spent elsewhere into the ridiculous and unscientific attempts by environmental extremists to «control the climate» via enforced — through government legislation and burdensome taxes — behaviour modification of supposedly free citizens, and c) giving the practice of science a bad reputation amongst the general populace, which in turn has been a major contributing factor to the general decline in the understanding of basic scientific concepts, and reality in general, that we have been witnessing over the last 40 years or so (ex.