Sentences with phrase «supports claims of global warming»

Not exact matches

The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30 % over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming.

The main claims of fact he makes in support of his contention that Global Warming science is an «idealogy, underpinned by false assumptions» are:

The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 [carbon dioxide] in the atmosphere have increased by about 30 percent over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming.

What we mean by premature is that there is no evidence in the literature to support a claim that global warming has resulted in demonstrable effects on hurricane impacts, whether they are measured in terms of economics or otherwise.

The main claims of fact he makes in support of his contention that Global Warming science is an «idealogy, underpinned by false assumptions» are:

Surely you have more to present than that to support your claim, ``... the duration of the current positve phase of the PDO over the last 30 years... can very much be linked (albeit not with absolute certainty) to anthropogenic global warming.»

The new report — the first of three comprehensive studies to come out this year — makes one of the strongest claims yet in support of the hypothesis that human activity, namely the relentless pumping of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, is what's behind climate change — an effect climate scientists refer to as anthropogenic global warming.

Instead, ExxonMobil diverts corporate resources to support the work of some of the nation's leading skeptics on climate change, who claim that fears of global warming are overblown.

Abstracts that were rated Level 2 («explicit endorsement without quantification») or Level 3 («implicit endorsement») can not generally be claimed to support the position that humans caused «most» global warming (> 50 %) if they only endorse the weaker position that humans are a cause of warming (> 0 %).

[12] Morano offered no documentation to support the «$ 50 BILLION» claim, and cited only one figure to support the «$ 19 MILLION» claim — a statement that «skeptics have reportedly received a paltry $ 19 MILLION from ExxonMobil over the last two decades,» falsely suggesting that ExxonMobil was the only source of funding for global warming «skeptics.»

For instance, US Senator James Imhofe of Kansas called climate change «the greatest hoax ever» (Johnson, 2011) To claim that climate change science is the greatest hoax ever is at minimum, if not a lie, reckless disregard for the truth given the number of prestigious scientific organizations that have publicly supported the consensus view, the undeniable science supporting the conclusion that if greenhouse gases increase in the atmosphere some warming should be expected, the clear link between rising greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere and increases in fossil fuel use around the world, as well undeniable increases in warming being that have been experienced at the global scale.

Not content with asserting it is a «l1e» to quote him verbatim, in support of his daft claim that global warming has not stopped, he says

Look, if you want to say that it is POSSIBLE (in the sense of > 5 % chance) from the data that global warming stopped in 1998, then that might be a correct conclusion... But there is no real evidence to support the claim that it did.

His knowledge in this field informed his conclusion that scientific data does not support the UN's claims of catastrophic man - made global warming.

Like many other conference speakers and attendees, Secretary - General Ban cited the recent droughts, floods, and Tropical Storm Sandy as proof of the dire consequences of man - made global warming, even though many studies and scientists (including scientists who usually fall into the climate alarmist category) have stated that there is no evidence to support claims that «extreme weather» has been increasing in frequency and / or magnitude in recent years, or that extreme events (hurricanes, droughts, heat waves, etc.) have anything to do with increased CO2 levels.

Climate change skeptics claimed the IPCC 2007 report — the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC 2007), which uses scientific facts to argue humans are causing climate change — was based on an alleged bias for positive results by editors and peer reviewers of scientific journals; editors and scientists were accused of suppressing research that did not support the paradigm for carbon dioxide - induced global warming.

The Royal Society has misrepresented current thinking on climate change by presenting new theories as established facts and leaving out evidence that doesn't support man made global warming dogma, a group of climate scientists has claimed.

But, a lot of scientists supported the man - made global warming theory, and we felt it was plausible that some of the «unusual global warming» could be due to the increasing CO2 concentrations as was claimed.

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 Climate Change.

Claims that global warming is not happening on the basis of short - term ocean temperatures are not supported by the evidence.

The claim is often made that climate realists (a.k.a. skeptics) can not point to peer - reviewed papers to support their position that there is no evidence of «dangerous global warming:» caused by human emissions of so - called «greenhouse» gases, including carbon dioxide.

The IPCC is a largely political organization which has committed itself to human - caused «global warming» and refuses to back off its claims when the data of the past 15 years does not support the conclusions made based on the 20 years before that.

The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30 % over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming.

«Luetkemeyer's legislation would prohibit U.S. contributions to the IPCC, which is nothing more than a group of U.N. bureaucrats that supports man - made claims on global warming that many scientists disagree with... Meanwhile, our very own Environmental Protection Agency recently reported that we are undergoing a period of worldwide cooling.»

If you count papers which don't address the issue at all you could bring in hundreds of thousands of papers on quantum physics, stellar cartography, economics, sociiology, et cetera and claim that since none of these take any position on global warming there is less than 1 % support for it... or any other subject you want to dismiss via blatantly flawed logic.

The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 [carbon dioxide] in the atmosphere have increased by about 30 percent over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming.

Here is some proper scrutiny of Terry Hughes» 2017 paper Global Warming and Recurrent Mass Bleaching of Corals which shows Hughes» claims are not well supported

Fortunately, those of us in the ever - growing «denier» community are skeptical of every claim, including those supported by data and results which debunk the crippled conjecture of anthropogenic global warming.

Global warming «skeptics» — scientists and others who question whether the scientific debate is truly settled and ask for real data to support the claims of the alarmists — are frequently attacked in the press, by politicians (including President Barack Obama), and on countless blogs and Web sites.

These claims are not supported by Cook et al (2013), since only 1.6 % of the reviewed papers stated «that humans are causing most of global warming».

Despite this alignment of the stars, so to speak, Seo's work fails to support claims that global warming is causing or will cause more frequent and severe tropical cyclones.

In support of his persecution complex, Lennart dropped a small bomb about how a paper of his had been rejected by ERL because, according to the Times, «Research which heaped doubt on the rate of global warming was deliberately suppressed by scientists because it was «less than helpful» to their cause, it was claimed last night.»

Since I know there's no widely accepted body of work supporting the claim that the MPW was global and synchronous and as warm or warmer than the present I'm highly suspicious of the Idsos» presentation of the work of others.

I read a report that he had claimed his lack of unquestioning support for the theories of global warming had much to do with his stepping down.

A lot of the claims that «global warming has stopped» are the result of data that, at first glance, seems to support this belief.

For example, I have never argued that the satellite record somehow refutes global warming claims, nor supported the «urban heat island» arguments, nor any of a number of other dubious claims from the sceptics.

Both agreed with Cavuto's claim that if «more of those who support global warming did not live in the East Coast, or more specifically in New York, and were stationed in Denver,» they might be more skeptical of global warming.

In another, Dr Carter co-authored a paper which claimed natural variation was to blame for recent global warming - a conclusion which a group of leading climate scientists concluded was «not supported by their analysis or any physical theory presented in their paper».

The results of the study support the claim that global warming has slowed down, but the researchers pointed out that it only applies to the Earth's surface.