Sentences with phrase «warming debate seems»

The whole «climate science» warming debate seems much ado about bad science.

Not exact matches

Turns out I'm not the only one to notice that in the debate over the best mechanism to combat global warming, the pols seem to prefer cap - and - trade systems to a carbon tax.

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.

Don Thanks for these interesting comments I think you were a bit warmer Perhaps one major lesson of these debates is that there seems to have been a significant under - supply on the blogosphere (i) detailed tax policy and distributional arguments.

I had thought there was a legitimate scientific debate about the role of global warming and hurricanes, but it appears that the deniers, although they are legitimate scientists, seem to have fallen in with the think tank ideologues and PR lobbyists who masquerade as scientists.

David Tenenbaum # 8 (Gee, when we have a bunch of candidates that don't seem to «believe» in evolution, who don't care what happens to the planet because they discount what science tells us about global warming, I can't think a «science debate» is such a bad idea.)

Gee, when we have a bunch of candidates that don't seem to «believe» in evolution, who don't care what happens to the planet because they discount what science tells us about global warming, I can't think a «science debate» is such a bad idea.

Seems to me the debate about AGHG global warming and increasing TC frequency / intensity / duration boils down to the fact that as sea surface temperatures, as well as deeper water temperatures rise, the wallop of any TC over warmer seas without mitigating circumstances like wind sheer and dry air off land masses entrained in the cyclone will likely be much more devastating.

What lags what might seem like a good debate to have and one that has to be answered to as the skeptics for good scientists to set up sites like this to argue the cause but come on the evidence is clear, it is not the SUN that has caused the current warming and we have a perfectly robust argument for stating that it is greenhouse gases (all of which has increased).

It seems somewhat disingenuous for the book's authors to continue assert that there is an ongoing debate regarding whether global warming is caused by humans, and then use pre-1998 references to make this case.

Finding myself in the same foxhole as Steve Schneider when the «Nuclear Winter «balloon went up — it was launched on the anniversary of Orson Welles» War of The Worlds Broadcast with a media graphics package prepared by the Creative Department of that great K - Street PR institution Porter Novell Inc., I remarked to him that it all seemed like a bad joke on Cold War policy analysts, played at the expense of the credibility of climate modeling on the eve of the global warming debate.

Most people seem to describe the debate as sceptics v warmers to use more neutral terminology.

Away from the debate that only exists in Mann et al's heads — of one side representing the proposition «climate change is real», and the other side denying it — it seems that there is a widespread view that planet has warmed, slightly.

«All science is contention — we continue to learn, we must be humble at all times about what we know — but it seems to me very much sticking your head in the sand,» Beyer retorted, adding that debating over which year is the hottest was «silly» since 10 of the last 15 years were record warm years.

So again — seems to me that debates about the magnitude of sensitivity are consistent with skepticism (as opposed to «skepticism»), and debates about the physics of AGW are consistent with skepticism (as opposed to «skepticism» — and despite the attempts of some to throw those who doubt basic AGW physics under a bus)-- but to say that you don't doubt the basic physics yet assert that global warming has stopped is either illogical or the view of a «skeptic» (as opposed to a skeptic).

The issue that intrigues me is that, even if M&M have won the Hockey Stick debate (which seems pretty certain now), the issues relating to CO2 role in AGW, and also 20th C warming (come forward P Jones) are yet to be resolved.

«It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long - term climate processes.»

Nonetheless, with the passage of time, Pope Francis has seemed to take an ever more decided stance behind the notion of manmade global warming, while sending signals that there was not much room for debate on the issue.

It seems the debate about what is causing global warming is far from over.

Appleton seems to think that «We need a new school of thought in the global warming debate, which is founded not on scientific facts but on political critique.».

Tribe's comments seemed to be more aimed at giving conservative pundits some ammunition in the public debate about global warming policies than thoughtful legal reasoning.

Jelle Bijma http://www.awi.de/People/show?jbijma seems to have a sufficiently solid scientific background, even if his research interests — Ocean Warming and Acidification; Proxy Development and Innovation; The Earth System on Long Time Scales — are ones we see too much confidence about in the broader debate.

It seems that the individual that wrote this paper was: «Of loaded dice and heated arguments: Putting the Hansen — Michaels global warming debate in context» social epistemology, 2000, vol.

Oceans also seem to have warmed, but there you get into the bucket adjustment debate.

The phrase «global warming» has been thrown about so much, in the ongoing debate over dangers of man - made climate change, that it can seem more like a dark shadow on the horizon, than an imminent threat.

The study - published in this spring's Sociological Quarterly - documents opinions on global warming, and seems to confirm that global warming has become yet another political totem issue; a worrying sign for the chances of moving forward from debate to action on slowing climate change

What I am talking about is, that it seems to me that with regard to climate science, this blog spends far too much time responding to the phony, trumped - up «debate» fueled by denialist drivel, and not enough time addressing the legitimate scientific question as to whether it is in fact too late to prevent global warming and climate change that will be catastrophic to human civilization, not to mention the entire Earth's biosphere.

You seem to be assuming the debate over «solutions» to «global warming» is being held according to rules of logic.

Instead of closing down this debate, as so many warmers seem intent on doing (have they no shame?)