However, much of the previous research focused on self - reported personal experience and global
warming beliefs using cross-sectional surveys; reverse causality is thus possible...
Not exact matches
I believe in evolution, scientific inquiry, and global
warming; I believe in free speech, whether politically correct or politically incorrect, and I am suspicious of
using government to impose anybody's religious
beliefs - including my own - on nonbelievers.
And while you are doing that, davie, you might tell us in your own words how less than 1c
warming since the end of the little ice age and the beginning of the industrial revolution, measured with ever changing systems in areas of exponential land
use change by people who have a total, consensual
belief in global
warming by ACO2 and no demonstrable scientific scepticism whatsoever, must constitute a «bad thing», awa being scientifically based and believable.
This statement is often
used as a litmus test for
belief regarding global
warming, i.e. you believe this statement (consensus) or you don't (skeptic).
Bigots like you, that
use outdated pagan
beliefs are giving oxygen to Mann, Hansen, For every change, there is a real reason and there is the outdated pagan crap — apart from me, nobody takes in consideration what human invention of artificial fire did to» LOCALIZED climates» instead, is
used as phony GLOBAL
warmings / coolings, shame shame Richard & Co:: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/midi-ice-age-can-be-avoided/
packed with common problems awaiting for solutions - global
warming, urban air pollution, contaminants in drinking water / contains samples of distributions of variables, it is actually a very large Bayesian
belief network, which can be
used for assessment - level analyses and conditioning and optimising different decision / and discussions about the actual topics related to real - world decision - making, there is also a meta level in Opasnet.
My own
belief is that mounting evidence of global
warming is sufficient to justify
using a significant amount of resources in an effort to reduce the rate of
warming.
«Climate science» as it is
used by warmists implies adherence to a set of
beliefs: (1) Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations will
warm the Earth's surface and atmosphere; (2) Human production of CO2 is producing significant increases in CO2 concentration; (3) The rate of rise of temperature in the 20th and 21st centuries is unprecedented compared to the rates of change of temperature in the previous two millennia and this can only be due to rising greenhouse gas concentrations; (4) The climate of the 19th century was ideal and may be taken as a standard to compare against any current climate; (5) global climate models, while still not perfect, are good enough to indicate that continued
use of fossil fuels at projected rates in the 21st century will cause the CO2 concentration to rise to a high level by 2100 (possibly 700 to 900 ppm); (6) The global average temperature under this condition will rise more than 3 °C from the late 19th century ideal; (7) The negative impact on humanity of such a rise will be enormous; (8) The only alternative to such a disaster is to immediately and sharply reduce CO2 emissions (reducing emissions in 2050 by 80 % compared to today's rate) and continue further reductions after 2050; (9) Even with such draconian CO2 reductions, the CO2 concentration is likely to reach at least 450 to 500 ppm by 2100 resulting in significant damage to humanity; (10) Such reductions in CO2 emissions are technically feasible and economically affordable while providing adequate energy to a growing world population that is increasingly industrializing.
The
use of the word «denialist» has the connotations of those who do not believe in the Holocaust and is intended to denigrate those who disagree with the
belief that man is responsible for the earth
warming.
The Relationships among Actual Weather Events, Perceived Unusual Weather, Media
Use, and Global
Warming Belief Certainty in China