Sentences with phrase «thinks warming claims»

The highest number of respondents ever, he said - 41 percent - thinks warming claims are exaggerated.

Not exact matches

The Global Warming Policy Foundation is an independent think tank chaired by the former British finance minister Nigel Lawson that claims to «bring reason, integrity and balance to a debate that has become seriously unbalanced, irrationally alarmist and all too often depressingly intolerant ``.

Re: # 37 — «I think # 33 is arguing against global warming (or is claiming the warming might be just an urban heat effect).»

It puts paid to wishful thinking - based claims that global warming has halted.

Given that many claim humans are influencing global warming and the number of people that now are on the planet I do not know how a thinking person can not see that most of us have to change our focus on consuming animal products.

But I think it's a little melodramatic to claim that we have no idea whether warming up helps.

I think this is useful for evaluating emission (and other tangential) reports claims / stories that might lead folks to think we are making significant progress in responding to global warming.

I think # 33 is arguing against global warming (or is claiming the warming might be just an urban heat effect).

Re: # 37 — «I think # 33 is arguing against global warming (or is claiming the warming might be just an urban heat effect).»

I do not think anyone, has claimed that they can tell the world's temperature anomolies from just 2 data points by one particularly warm or cool month.

Last sentence of a column otherwise copypasting long - debunked PR talking points, quoting Plimmer, claiming the whole world has quit thinking that global warming is a problem, except a few US scientists.

Since a commenter mentioned the medieval vineyards in England, I've been engaged on a quixotic quest to discover the truth about the oft - cited, but seldom thought through, claim that the existence of said vineyards a thousand years ago implies that a «Medieval Warm Period «was obviously warmer than the current climate (and by implication that human - caused global warming is not occuring).

I think your claim that the probability of it being the warmest year being around 40 % is both honest and reasonable.

I think the trend at the grass - roots is to claim yes the climate is warming and no it's not man - made, but the WSJ did not play that card this time.

:: We Can Solve It Al Gore Al Gore Readies Sequel to «An Inconvenient Truth» Al Gore Announces Big Climate Change Ad Campaign Climate Change Climate Change Melting Glaciers, Shrinking Harvests in China and India Global Warming Changes to Snowmelt Patterns in Western US Could Have Larger Impact Than Previously Thought Renewable Energy Solar Power to Reach Parity by 2015, New Study Claims Second Siemens Wind Turbine Plant to Open in Illinois

Even though most climatologists think Hansen's claims are premature, they agree that warming is on the way.

I think care is needed in claiming that one event can't be attributed to warming.

I think selective amnesia belongs solely with those who claim the earth is warming from Anthropogenic warming.Because why is it necessary to suggest thousands of scientific pages are giving the evidence, when clearly they can not.

Just as a hypothetical example: If climate scientist will tell me that recent pause in global warming is due to the effect of an inactive sun (which is the reality as reported by following) http://www.spaceweather.com and that they will go back and improve their models to account for this, then I would be more inclined to believe their other claims... Instead the IPCC doubles down on their predictions and claim the future effects will be worst than they originally thought?

If you claim in a scientifically founded way that there is no warming or less warming or that the warming is not attributed to CO2 emissions I would not think that the work would be unpublishable.

«A lot of people (not the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) were claiming, in the run - up to the Copenhagen 2009 conference, that «warming was accelerating and it is all worse than we thought».

A list of his nonsensical claims would take a long time to catalog, so here are just a couple: He thinks that scientists are manipulating data to make it look like the Earth is warming, and that the global warming pause is actually a thing, despite huge, overwhelming amounts of evidence that it isn't.

But I think you are stretching when you try to use this analysis to try to attribute the recent pause to short term variation and make the claim that a long term warming trend continues unabated underneath.

Lest you think not, you can go here and see a huge list of all the claims made by the «warmers,» many which appear contradictory.

I think they dropped in the past was a claim that 2012 was the warmest La Nina year.

I think when people are clearly deaf to the obvious continuation of the warming, emphasising the higher OLS trend is perhaps justified but claims that it is significant — «a clear acceleration» — are probably a step too far.

Remember that the «warming as stopped» claim implicitly admits there was prior warming, so I think I am more than justified in starting with OLS upon 1970 - 1997 to determine the nature of that warming.

I think the claims made by the skeptics in this respect are extremely optimistic and what's more they disgregard (or rather do not accept) the negative consequences of the increased warming which will have to be balanced against any gains from increased crop yields.

I think that arguments about magnitude of sensitivity and estimates of certainly are the rightful domain of a skeptic (and even, IMO, arguments about the physics of AGW)-- but the «skeptical» illogic of claiming to accept the basic physic of AGW and at the same time claiming that global warming has «stopped» or «paused» remains.

Tomcat October 19, 2012 at 1:40 am Myrrh you continue with your blatant lie — the laughable claim that the science establishment thinks the the sun does not warm us.

I think they will accept nothing as long as they can claim that it's still warming.

And still Myrrh's scam goes on, with his oft - repeated, laughable claim that the science establishment thinks the the sun does not warm us.

However, given that the CAGW position doesn't rest on specific numbers, but is instead an unorganized collection of anecdotal evidence, coupled with heavily - tweaked computer models, unfounded assumptions about positive feedbacks, and a healthy imagination about possible future disasters, a lower warming number for the 20th century will simply be brushed over with claims about aerosols being stronger than previously thought, more warming still waiting in the «pipeline» or similar ad hoc «explanations» that keep the overall story alive.

I don't have much doubt that there has been some mild warming due to AGW, but I think that there are many claims of * possible * catastrophic outcomes (based on sketchy models) that pose as * probable * outcomes and consensus science.

Re # 155 Sam, I think the NRC report says more than just Mann can't support the «warmest year» claim.

Tomcat October 19, 2012 at 8:18 am Reply And still Myrrh's scam goes on, with his oft - repeated, laughable claim that the science establishment thinks the the sun does not warm us.

As the real world evidence mounts that global warming claims are failing, climate activists have ramped up predictions of future climate change impacts, declaring that it is «worse than we thought.»

I think the actual warming is 30 % to40 % less than the 0.8 C claimed by the climate research «team» because they have fudged the data and adjusted for UHI effects improperly.

I thought I might be misreading that part, but the very next sentence rejects the IPCC claim that the human contribution to global warming is just «substantial» (the cowards).

Readers might perform a little thought experiment: suppose that Spencer and Christy had published a temperature history in which they claimed that 1934 was the warmest U.S. year on record and then it turned out that they had been a computer programming error opposite to the one that Hansen made, that Wentz and Mears discovered there was an error of 0.15 deg C in the Spencer and Christy results and, after fiixing this error, it turned out that 2006 was the warmest year on record.

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.

In 2010, the Yale Project on Climate Change released a study claiming that «less than half of Americans (45 percent) understand that carbon dioxide traps heat near the Earth's surface, and a majority think that the hole in the ozone layer contributes to global warming.»

That is why despite Al Gore's claims that oceans will rise 20 feet or more, serious scientists don't expect much more than a foot, even with warming numbers far higher than I think are credible.

Umm, JimD, I think the last two decades argue powerfully against your claim that the warming rate has been «doubling every few decades.»

This study from Science Online from 2008 titled «Northern Hemisphere Controls on Tropical Southeast African Climate During the Past 60,000 Years» also leaves me wondering about the anthropogenic global warming claim and also seems to back up my thought that CO2 is not driving this.

(The only one I can think of, by the only really solidly qualified contrarian, Lindzen, who also claimed that tobacco wasn't linked to lung cancer, came up with an Iris theory that has been thoroughly repudiated (recent studies have in fact continued to strongly show increased atmospheric moisture), but his theory of a significant enough decrease to keep the earth from significantly warming at the same time this radical shift toward lack of global cloud cover (and far more drought everywhere?)

Some of them deny it is even warming, others claim anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is a hoax, others claim that there is some magical negative feedback that will result in virtually no warming, others like Lewis cherry pick literature to delude themselves into thinking that climate sensitivity is low, while others are convinced that an ice age is imminent;)

Actually I think the claim is that CO2 warming (but mysteriously not «natural» warming) triggers other positive feedbacks causing a runaway effect (I won't call it «greenhouse» because that's a misnomer).

I think we can be fairly certain that ANYONE claiming there is such a thing as a «global» weather phenomenon (usually called «warming» by such «scientists») is either:

Just think, we now have a clear explanation for why they feel it is okay to claim the «consensus» they found is humans cause 50 + % of global warming.