Sentences with phrase «warming argument with»

Then thereâ $ ™ s the pesky issue of â $ œconsensus.â $ Alarmists typically counter any fact - based global warming argument with the assertion that the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has already ruled on the issue, and therefore â $ œthe science is settledâ $ and â $ œthe debate is over.â $ â $ œMild winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms, â $ IPCC claimed in its 2001 Third Assessment.

Not exact matches

I guess Tarver ran out of arguments for his religion as all he's left with is quoting scripture (as if that does anything but give him a warm fuzzy feeling that he's right all along).

These words and the concepts associated with them were very useful for intellectual purposes, but they made no contribution to life, and Levin suddenly felt he was in the position of a man who had exchanged a warm fur coat for a muslin blouse, and who the first time he finds himself in the frost is persuaded beyond question, not by arguments but by the whole of his being, that he's no better than naked and is inevitably bound to perish miserably.16

I expected that some people would not understand or would disagree with my argument, but I did not expect the warm and genuinely excited reactions from those whose own experience has led them to see Christ on the other side of the long border between contemporary Catholic and evangelical religious experiences.

J. Alan Pounds, a biologist at the Monteverde Cloud Forest Preserve and one of the researchers who originally put forward the argument that global warming played a role in the extinction of the golden toad, disagrees with the paper's conclusions.

However, if one downweights these two events (either by eliminating or, as in Cane et al» 97, using a «robust» trend), then an argument can be made for a long - term pattern which is in some respects more «La Nina» - like, i.e. little warming in the eastern and central equatorial Pacific, and far more warming in the western equatorial Pacific and Indian oceans, associated with a strengthening, not weakening, of the negative equatorial Pacific zonal SST gradient.

Participants come prepared with arguments, and after warming up, begin a debate.

[Response: For the record, I think any reasonably educated person, whether with a technical degree or not, should be able to understand and critically evaluate the basic arguments involved in predictions of global warming.

So, the small reduction in warming in 2100 is fully expected and compatible with standard climate sensitivity arguments, but the statement that the same physics accounts for the Maunder Minimum response is not.

Secondly, the argument that the climate should have naturally «rebounded» with warming during the 20th century defies the actual peer - reviewed scientific studies which, as discussed earlier, suggest that the climate should have actually cooled during the 20th century, not warmed, if natural factors were primarily at play.

Often, the argument forwarded by some folks is, in essence, that since the climate naturally fluctuates to a degree, global warming is inevitable and we should just live with it and not bother to change the status quo (and certainly not in a way that discomforts those who conveniently hold this view!).

The point is, there may well be other problems with warming but the increased extinctions argument is just absurd.

By the way, I'd just like to mention that I am far happier to be arguing about the comparative benefits of nuclear power, wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, conservation, efficiency, reforestation, organic agriculture, etc. for quickly reducing CO2 emissions and concentrations, than to be engaged in yet another argument with someone who doesn't believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or that human activities are not causing warming, or that the Earth is cooling, or thinks that AGW is a «liberal» conspiracy to destroy capitalism, etc..

[Response: Hansen's argument for 350 is that it would stop the Earth from warming further — he calculates the committed warming at our current 390 or whatever it is, then dials down CO2 until the climate stays as is with no further committed warming.

However, if one downweights these two events (either by eliminating or, as in Cane et al» 97, using a «robust» trend), then an argument can be made for a long - term pattern which is in some respects more «La Nina» - like, i.e. little warming in the eastern and central equatorial Pacific, and far more warming in the western equatorial Pacific and Indian oceans, associated with a strengthening, not weakening, of the negative equatorial Pacific zonal SST gradient.

Lawyerly argument was, a 4 is completely different than a 5, you can't say 5s increase with warming just because 4s do.

So now I answer the «ice - age» denialist argument (denialists usually trot out ALL their inconsistent & contradictory arguments) this way: I draw a sine - wave in the air with my hand, saying, yes, that the normal fluctuation over a long geological timeframe is to alternate between cold ice ages and warm interglacial periods, and that now we are right here in a warm interglacial period (my hand raised at the top of the wave), and if there were no human GHGs, then we would expect that over a long time frame we'd be sliding down into an ice age.

This seems in disagreement with the argument in CaltechWater.pdf (and surely elsewhere) that with global warming prcipitation ought to increase.

As various arguments for action on global warming have failed to blunt growth in emissions in recent years, environmental groups and international agencies have sometimes tried to turn the focus to diseases that could pose a growing threat in a warming world — with malaria being a frequent talking point.

One argument is as follows: as the globe warms, the area with high temperatures will increase, increasing the area on which tropical cyclones can spawn.

The earth has had significant Global Warming for some 20,000 years now... The only real argument is to the degree that mans activity has augmented that... We just came out of one - point - five - million years of continuous glaciation with sheets of two mile thick ice down past the 44th parallel... I will cheerfully deal with warming issues over that, anyWarming for some 20,000 years now... The only real argument is to the degree that mans activity has augmented that... We just came out of one - point - five - million years of continuous glaciation with sheets of two mile thick ice down past the 44th parallel... I will cheerfully deal with warming issues over that, anywarming issues over that, any day...

With or without global warming, there's a solid argument that improved understanding of planetary dynamics, particularly the climate system, is essential to sustaining human progress given how risks rise as populations expand, build, farm and concentrate in zones that are implicitly vulnerable to hard knocks like floods, droughts, heat and severe storms.

The» top ten» arguments employed by the relatively few deniers with credentials in any aspect of climate - change science (which arguments include «the sun is doing it», «Earth's climate was changing before there were people here», «climate is changing on Mars but there are no SUVs there», «the Earth hasn't been warming since 1998», «thermometer records showing heating are contaminated by the urban - heat - island effect», «satellite measurements show cooling rather than warming») have all been shown in the serious scientific literature to be wrong or irrelevant, but explaining their defects requires at least a paragraph or two for each one.

Even though the main arguments that gave their position some credibility (urban heat islands, discrepancies with the satellite data, the Medieval Warm period and so on) have collapsed, they don't change their views.

Therefore, if anyone claims to be part of the 97 percent, it means they disagree with the contrarian argument that humans are having a minimal impact on global warming.

The point is that to argue that «there is no such thing as global terrorism», or that «there is no such thing as global warming» is to fail to take issue with the idea that evidence of global terrorism or anthropogenic global warming is sufficient argument for the execution of the «War on Terror», or for «drastic action'to mitigate climate change.

«there is no such thing as global terrorism», or that «there is no such thing as global warming» is to fail to take issue with the idea that evidence of global terrorism or anthropogenic global warming is sufficient argument for the execution of the «War on Terror», or for «drastic action'to mitigate climate change.

What The Science Says: If anyone claims to be part of the 97 %, it means they disagree with the contrarian argument that humans are having a minimal impact on global warming.

«But», you could now say to me, «granting, for the sake of argument only, that Miliband and others may be going rather too far, surely there is clear scientific evidence that human - induced global warming presents a serious problem which has to be dealt with.

«I am not convinced with the arguments of the group promoting global warming of an anthropogenic nature,» Zharkova told The Washington Post.

If you look at the whole argument... If you look at the historical difference between [sceptics vs scientists] The sceptics have said initially there's no warming, then they've said it's not down to man, and now they do seem, you do seem to be coming more into line with the international body of thinking over what is going to happen in the future.

Another big problem I have with the denial camp is the refusal to refute clearly bogus arguments, e.g., that growing wine in England is proof that the medieval warm period was much warmer than it is today.

Big Oil and Big Coal funded sympathetic think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the Competitive Enterprise Institute and also outright front groups with names like Friends of Science and the Global Climate Coalition, all of which came up with an endless stream of arguments for why global warming wasn't happening and even if it was, nothing should be done about it.

And then, like many «skeptics,» she turns around and hides behind the «skeptics» aren't monolithic argument, or «skeptics» aren't subject to groupthink arguments, even as she downplays the % of «skeptics» who flat out reject that there's any GHG effect or who make arguments that aren't logically consistent with the protestation that «we don't doubt that the climate is warming or that ACO2 contributes to that warming, we only question the magnitude of the contribution.»

This document was recently released to the public and features the human fingerprints of global warming along with rebuttals of some of the more common skeptical arguments.

In his open letter to Martin Durkin's Wag TV, one of Five major misrepresentations of the scientific evidence in the film concerned Durkin's suggestion that the global temperature slump in the 1950s and»60s, which was concurrent with rising emissions of greenhouse gases, was problematic for orthodox global warming arguments.

I haven't made any arguments on glacier advance or decline with respect to my position on global warming.

«However, with global warming the line of argument is even sillier.

MA Rodger # 16 Yes, it's the fallacious argument that a mass can not warm a warmer mass, used in both atmosphere (radiation) and ocean comments (the fallacy that heat can not increase at depth with also increasing shallower, and this «heat gone forever» one).

For example, because the mass balance argument says nothing about absolute numbers or attribution it may be that we are also — for example — destroying carbon - fixing plankton, reducing the breaking of waves and hence mechanical mixing with the upper ocean, releasing methane in the tundra which was previously held by acid rain and which can now be converted to CO2, or it may be we are just seeing a deep current, a tiny bit warmer than usual because of the MWP, heating deep ocean clathrate so that methanophage bacteria can devour it and give off CO2.

I predict they will mutate the argument, and with a completely straight face — the effect of carbon dioxide will turn out to be «more complicated», scientists will rediscover that the molecule emits infra red too — and now rather than just simple warming, it will be responsible for «transforming regional patterns», «shifting layers» and «wandering jet streams».

Open - minded consideration of the arguments presented by supporters and challengers of the anthropogenic global warming issue, along with decades of personal experience of climate change, lead to the conclusion that the arguments of Dr. Hug, Dr. Barratt and Dr. Nicol are more convincing than are those of the IPCC.

The filmmaker looked for the scientific evidence behind the arguments of the climate sceptics, and compared these findings with the theories from scientists who have examined the impact of man on global warming.

He undermines his arguments by attaching them to an irrational paranoid conspiracy / fantasy — that those who disagree with him scientifically are pathological and desirous of runaway warming and doom.

They don't want to have to deal with the «luke warmers» arguments.

My favorite empty argument starts with the assertion that AGW is not occurring but if it was, warming is good for mankind.

David Rose mislead his readership with his simplistic math argument and by confusing an absence of a warming trend as a significant statistical signal for a plateau.

These people do not know each other, which leads me to view them as inquisitors (or probably acolytes) of some religious Global Warming cult, armed with good sounding arguments to convince the unbelievers, and when that fails to use stronger methods.

While this has always been a blatantly misleading argument that deliberately confuses short - term variation with long - term trends, a new study makes it perfectly clear that the world has warmed.

It also gives some weight to the argument that humans have warmed the Earth, but if I had done the same with the 1981 data of Hansen (or current data adjusted back to be more like that plot) there would be a zero contribution from humans.