Sentences with phrase «warming advocates do»

Judy, you were very polite at the hearing but nevertheless effectively presented some of the realities that the global warming advocates do not want to hear.

Not exact matches

Take that ad Gingrich did with Nancy Pelosi on global warming, advocating urgent government action.

Explaining to Australian's that the recent flooding is due to «Global Warming» just reminds them they were told by Global Warming Advocates that the future held only drought, drought and more drought and if they didn't act to stop global warming they would all die of thirst or somWarming» just reminds them they were told by Global Warming Advocates that the future held only drought, drought and more drought and if they didn't act to stop global warming they would all die of thirst or somWarming Advocates that the future held only drought, drought and more drought and if they didn't act to stop global warming they would all die of thirst or somwarming they would all die of thirst or something.

In 30 years I have encountered very few (one or two) strength programs that advocate reps above 20 and most advocate no more than 15 reps. (I am not including warm up sets — I am only referring to «work sets», those sets done to elicit a training response, not the sets done to «warm» the muscles by doing a high rep set and a low intensity of effort.)

A few years ago, any dispute wasn't even taken serious, so I don't think that the Global Warming advocates are somehow in the minority or disrepresented in the media.

I often hear nuclear advocates proclaiming that «nuclear is THE solution to global warming» and that «no one can be serious about dealing with global warming if they don't support expanded use of nuclear power» but I have never heard any nuclear advocate lay out a plan showing how many nuclear power plants would have to be built in what period of time to have a significant impact on GHG emissions.

Careful advocates of the AGW position (and I do not include Al Gore among them) do not try to make any link between global warming and tornadoes, because it is so easily shot down.

Anyway it is a false comparison to compare old temperatures with new temperatures when asking «wht should we do» you need to compare «our solution» with «their solution» If you are advocating a political strategy you need to accept current proposed strategies will probably still result in the majority of the global warming predicted in the ordinary scenario (if not all of it — a point which I can argue if you like).

You do this because somebody has told you so (i think you've been reading junkscience a little too much), and you preach it with the same faith and passion as global warming advocate.

I don't think many folks who have observed Heartland from afar would say that Heartland has any special focus on or animus towards Gleick (more than they might have for any other strong advocate of catastrophic man - made global warming theory).

If we have such an overwhelming scientific «consensus» about the supposed threat of catastrophic man - made global warming — and about the political and economic solutions to it — then why do advocates have to sue scientists to prevent them from questioning it?

No one would have advocated wasting money on trying the prevent that warming would give future generations and did actually give us.

This example brings us all the way back to the start of my essay, and the central problem for advocates of aggressive emissions abatement advocates: despite the rhetoric, the projected damages from global warming just don't appear to justify the costs of the proposed remedy.

I can certainly understand why those who do not have as clear an understanding of the climate system as Jim Hansen does would want to be more ambivalent with respect to advocating action to counteract global warming since, this has very significant economic implications.

The National Association of Scholars does not take a position on global warming but advocates for a full discussion of all sides of the controversy.To learn more about NAS, visit www.nas.org.

Even if you play devils advocate and accept that humans do cause catastrophic warming and there are too many of us, and if you can skip past the Nazi eugenics connotations of population control and depopulation policies, those methods are fundamentally still not a valid solution to the perceived climate change threat.

Most climate advocates would certainly disagree if the yardstick was whether the Accord gets us on a path to avoid a 2 degrees C warming (it does not).

The advocates called on governments to do their fair share in keeping global warming below the tipping point to save the Filipino people, and all others who are most vulnerable to climate change.

Even global warming advocates, who insisted that the 1998 El Nino warming was a trend, are now claiming that the cold does not contradict their warming trend.

In 2009, for example, he advocated against the cap and trade systems that the Obama administration and its overseas partners were trying to install here and globally, calling it «a market - based approach that has been widely praised but does little to slow global warming or reduce our dependence on fossil fuels... [allowing] polluters and Wall Street traders to fleece the public out of billions of dollars.»

And I'm sorry the foremost advocate for global warming, Al Gore doesn't live his own life as though there is some great crisis facing us.

He does not call anybody a «zealot» in the lecture, but refers to «public support for over-zealous action», and refers to «the more zealous advocates of action on global warming».

You will soon end up in a «prove god does or doesn't exist» debate with a warming advocate and they call it «settled science».

This fact has not been ignorerd by advocates of global warming who have written several dozen scholarly articles trying to prove that the hiatus does not exist.

Most of the measures that global warming advocates suggest doing such as energy conservation and greater reliance on renewable energy are sensible in themselves.

... It would look exactly like the carbon tax advocated by global - warming crusaders... You don't have to believe that global warming is a problem to recognize that a carbon tax is the solution.

At the same time I understand the frustration of Gavin, talking to sceptics all the time and also believers with limited knowledge, but still, nasty talking and arrogance is not doing any good for your cause): «As a former advocate of global warming I must say that your reference to anyone who does not believe as you do as a «crank» offensive to say the least.»

There is no area in global warming discussions where AGW advocates have done more to shoot down their own credibility than in the absolutely egregious science and absurd claims that have been made about the potential negative effects of global warming.