Sentences with phrase «warming debate really»

Me for one — I was too wrapped up in my new world (Steves old world) to pay attention — even though the Warming Debate really irritated me for reasons I never could put a finger on... But — I never did anything — and neither did most of the rest of the world.

There has been a rash of news about how settled the global warming debate really is.

Not exact matches

Since, even now, when debates about the fact of global warming is largely over, no nation is considering taking the really drastic actions that might significantly reduce the catastrophes that lie ahead, it seems that we are all too likely to experience judgment for our collective sins.

And there was this great, it was my favorite moment of the weekend and it was this very dramatic moment, when basically Emanuel was complaining a little bit, very politely, and smiling about the fact that journalists still are doing stories about, you know, the debate around climate science, but there's not really, of course, there's not a debate, there's consensus that anthropogenic global warming is happening and that, why are you still doing these stories, asking questions?

I agree with Harriet Coleman (22 August, p 24) that the debate about global warming is really about preserving our...

But the true battle consuming leaders from 198 governments at a U.N. global warming conference that concluded yesterday after two weeks of negotiations and 32 hours of overtime debating was really about just one thing: balancing responsibilities between poor, rich and richer nations.

I know some here will decry that I am not talking about the issues because I do not try to obsfuscate with a discussion of the spot market price of coal vs long - term contracts, or use of coal in locations other than Kansas, or Al Gore's footprint, but the issue of Global Warming IS politics (non-ratification of Kyoto and negative flag - waving ads about politicians who oppose coal), it IS public relations («Clean Coal», cleanest coal - fired plants, surface mining and mountain - top reoval rather than strip mining, etc.), and it IS about misrepresentation (Peobody framing the debate as coal vs NG when it is really coal vs every other energy source), and it IS about greed (the coal industry doing everything it can to scuttle every other energy alternative).

«The trouble with the global warming debate is that it has become a moral crusade when it's really an engineering problem.

Perhaps this anthropogenic warming debate is an unfortunate distraction from what we should be really focusing on — preparing for higher interglacial warming and rising sea levels, period.

My understanding of the hurricane debate is as follows: SST's ought to rise with global warming and all else equal that ought to mean greater hurricane reach / activity, but we don't really understand the «all else» yet.

Indeed Mann has a point and the blame for the «hockey - stick» becoming such an important icon of the debate really lies with the IPCC's TAR which used the «hockey - stick» as an icon for global warming.

''... the «debate» over global warming is not really a debate any more.

However, with that said, the last 15 years of global warming has really not been too impressive - so unimpressive, that scientists are debating speculating what happened to it.

Update: Sure, we skeptics debate the degree of past warming, but it really can't be denied the earth is warmer than 100 years ago.

I have pointed out flaws that I see in certain aspects of the debate, but the central tenant of global warming I have not really written much on.

This is a really fun discussion, not only are we arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but we're debating if more than half, most, a preponderance, a majority, the largest part, a greater part, nearly all, etc. etc. of the angels are dancing to a «man made warming» beat or «something else» (hip - hop maybe?).

In a really good article in the New York Times, Eduardo Porter explains the economic end of the global warming debate in terms that even the most rabid green could understand.

whereas this process will sequester more CO2 from our atmosphere, this is a very slow process relative to anthropogenically accelerated global warming and I don't really believe it should be used in the context of this debate.

I would rather that people have an honest and open debate — as in, «Excuse me, but I don't really understand how you think this is unique and human - induced when it's been warmer before.»

People will accept it as fact, or if by chance they hear about bad reviews, they'll see proof that there really is debate about what causes global warming.

Debate over whether the warming has really «paused» and the statistical significance of a trend over a short interval are basically debating points.

Everywhere I look when skeptics pop up they are claiming of conspiracies around temperature indices (1), debating whether CO2 really has a warming effect (some on the lines of «well it does in the labratory, but it the atmosphere that isn't proven»)(2), doing a Salby and claiming that CO2 increases are not man - made (3) and numerous other arguments that the planet wont warm (4).

The Gleick incident, he said, shows that the «debate» over global warming is not really a debate any more.