Sentences with phrase «warmer reviews so»

Check out these bottle warmer reviews so you can have an amazing appliance in the house that will warm your little ones food up -LSB-...] Read more»

The summit is winning relatively warm reviews so far, with some aid groups pleased with efforts on tax transparency.

Not exact matches

Here's our review of the yoomi self warming bottle so you can find out why..

We know you've been through a lot of bottle warmer reviews, so we're going to wrap up what's the best one in the market today.

One of his reasons to claim that «the risk of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming appears to be so low that it is not currently worth doing anything to try to control it» is that he uses a very low value for the climate sensitivity based on non-reviewed «studies», while ignoring the peer - reviewed work.

When we see reviews from customers who are blown away that a chemical - free product could be so effective, we get a little warm and fuzzy inside.

«We believed in this heart - warming romantic comedy starring non-professional actors on the autism spectrum from the start, so we are extremely gratified that rave New York reviews and audience enthusiasm will now assure this landmark motion picture a robust national expansion,» said Wendy Lidell, Kino Lorber's SVP of Theatrical / Nontheatrical Distribution & Acquisitions.

So far, the reviews for Kevin Macdonald's «State of Play» seem uniformly warm — which comes as a relief to me after the rather indifferent vibe I got from the film's entire marketing strategy.

Reviews for his fourth feature film have been largely favorable so far, with a very warm SXSW debut reception, but Midnight Special launches the Arkansas filmmaker into the spotlight in a big way.

Tracking young Mason (Ellar Coltrane) from childhood to college, the near - three - hour picture «feels much less like a greatest hits package and more analogous to being in the moment,» according to Rodrigo Perez's review, proving to be «warm, soulful, funny and quietly insightful,» and something of a crowning achievement for the filmmaker, feeling «disarmingly light on its feet, sweet, funny and playful in the early years not unlike the director's movies about kids, but as they mature, so does the movie.»

But less than two years later, Wes was back, and the reaction to «The Grand Budapest Hotel» was even warmer: it won rave reviews, and has proven a legitimate arthouse box office smash, taking in over $ 150 million so far, more than twice his previous best haul, and a bigger take than other hefty pictures like «The Monuments Men,» «Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit» and «Transcendence,» among others.

One of his reasons to claim that «the risk of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming appears to be so low that it is not currently worth doing anything to try to control it» is that he uses a very low value for the climate sensitivity based on non-reviewed «studies», while ignoring the peer - reviewed work.

If The New York Times thinks that it has valid research that actually supports, credibly, the conclusion that more (valid, informed, accurate, well - communicated, etc.) information actually doesn't and wouldn't budge the public's understanding of global warming, or the public's concern for global warming, I'd ask that such research be posted or linked, so we can all review it.

I've challenged you over and over to cite your empirical evidence from peer reviewed science that shows that anthropogenic CO2 has been the primary cause of the late 20th century warming and you have FAILED to be able to cite a single peer reviewed paper that does so.

There's been a little discussion of a non-peer reviewed (so far) paper published by Anthony Watts et al. claiming the warming at the best - sited US weather stations is two - thirds» that estimated by NOAA for the US based on the entire adjusted weather station record.

Why then, if the risks to the planet and civilization are so enormous, does the Stern Review emphasize attempting to keep global warming at 3 °C by stabilizing CO2e at 550 ppm (what it describes at one point as «the upper limit to the stabilisation range»)?

I have earned my living for the past 30 years as a scientist, and I have reviewed the so - called science behind global warming theory extensively for the past 2 - 3 years.

If global warming so obvious and incontrovertible, why be in such a panic about FOI, why talk openly about re-defining «peer review», why threaten to (or actually) delete data?

My other reason for «solution aversion» is the apparent lack of reliable data on current global warming trends and the poor peer review processes that have taken place in the climate science field so far.

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.

Transient Climate Sensitivity (TCS) is a more realistic way to evaluate the actual global warming effects of CO2 that can be validated with actual data, but TCS is rarely reported in peer - reviewed paper or media articles, because the sensitivity is about half the ECS value and is not so alarming.

Second, you skipped the Roman warm period, and I am grateful that even the» the climate consensus community» accepts that the «so - called Holocene Climactic Optimum was indeed warmer than both the LIA» What you fail to note is peer review literature supports the MWP, the coolest of the three warm periods, as being as warm as today, and NO, the» the climate consensus community» did not even exist when this was known so they did not inform me of this.

Peer reviewed literature supports the three most recent warming periods in the last 10,000 years as being as warm or warmer then the current warm period The NH and global drop in T from the late 1940s to 1979 or so was a well established part of the record.

As the authors wrote, «These inconsistencies are so important and sufficiently abstruse that in our view EPA needs to make an independent analysis of the science of global warming rather than adopting the conclusions of the IPCC and CCSP without much more careful and independent EPA staff review than is evidenced by the Draft TSP.»

So now that global warming has everything covered (except penis size and erectile dysfunction which is next month's release), what do we have left to review.

Much of the recent discussion of climate sensitivity in online forums and in peer - reviewed literature focuses on two areas: cutting off the so - called «long tail» of low probability \ high climate sensitivities (e.g., above 6 C or so), and reconciling the recent slowdown in observed surface warming with predictions from global climate models.

So no I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see... But we don't know that yet we need to continue the review and the analysis.»

Fred Palmer wrote an article in the Population Research Institute's PRI Review (v9, n1) titled» So, what about this global warming?»

So I called Sallie Baliunas, and she made sure we didn't make any mistakes.1 When we decided later to do that petition project of scientists on global warming, I asked Sallie again, and she said «Well, if you're going to write a review article and send it to tens of thousands of scientists, you need to know my colleague Willie Soon.

«Uncumberbatchable» was the six syllable term Oliver coined in his warm - up act to describe the uncharming Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, who is apparently so bereft of likeability that not even the gifted character actor Benedict Cumberbatch can (by Oliver's review) imbue his character with any grace.