Sentences with phrase «warming debate so»

a fan of * MORE * discourse: Why is the CO2 - warming debate so sadly recapitulating the tobacco - cancer debate?

It's fascinating that the objection to alternative perspectives is spun as a demand for objectivity and balance in the global warming debate so that, in fact, reporting two sides means to favour one.

Not exact matches

As with global warming, so too with the lawlessness in our society: the debates over its causes are far from finished.

So while the work doesn't close the «cold and icy» versus «warm and wet» debate, it does make the case that a mostly frozen early Mars was a distinct possibility.

In so far as some sceptics and deniers are proclaiming that carbon dioxide - induced anthropogenic global warming may be «the scientific fraud of the century» then surely the issues surrounding it must be the scientific debate of the century.

I am also very concerned that the current debate on global warming gets so specialized that the forest may well be missed out for the trees.

The degree of warming over the last 20 years or so has been hotly debated, as I'm sure you are aware.

So, within a period of a month or so, we learn, first, that the much debated global warming «pause» is real after all (regardless of what the cause might be, which remains uncertain), and second, that widely held assumptions regarding extreme weather events caused by AGW, such as droughts and flooding, are unfoundeSo, within a period of a month or so, we learn, first, that the much debated global warming «pause» is real after all (regardless of what the cause might be, which remains uncertain), and second, that widely held assumptions regarding extreme weather events caused by AGW, such as droughts and flooding, are unfoundeso, we learn, first, that the much debated global warming «pause» is real after all (regardless of what the cause might be, which remains uncertain), and second, that widely held assumptions regarding extreme weather events caused by AGW, such as droughts and flooding, are unfounded.

Well, I am feeling rather warm and sweaty and I think it's because my rooms hot may not be a totally correct hypothesis, so does that belong in the debate?

While not a scientist, I clearly understand that fossil fuels emits greenhouse gases, though the degree of warming are obviously open for heated debate and frankly, a lot of not so friendly jabs on this and other sites.

My reading of this statement is that you are saying that the likelihood that global warming is increasing the destructive potential of hurricanes (and is likely to do so increasingly in the future) is irrelevant to the policy debate about hurricane damage.

He withdrew any kind of bipartisan support for an ETS (and more)» «two years ago Canadians gave majority government to Stephen Harper's Conservatives, who were pledged to a sensible use of its resources, so Australians have now elected a government with a pragmatic attitude on global warming» «Led by Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, an attempt was made, by what can only be described as alarmists, to exploit these fires for the purposes of the global warming debate.

I suspect part of the reason why global warming isn't getting more serious political debate is that, unfortunately, for a long time it was the sole province of left - leaning environmentalists, who were so easily tagged as woo - woo space cadets.

However, the real place for the scientific debate on AGW is in the scientific literature — where, so far as the basics point are concerned — that greenhouse gases are responsible for most 20th century warming, and curbing emissions is urgent — it's long been settled.

Michele wanted to get both sides of the global warming debate represented in the discussion, so her first guest was Jay Drake - Hamilton, science policy director for Fresh -LSB-...]

So he would choose two points and say, look, no warming is taking place, knowing that all the other points you chose in the 20 years around it would not support his case, but he was just wanting to win that debate on television.

It is also one that has broken down in the global warming debate because so few people are open to contrary findings.

Naturally, on the AGW side of the debate there is screaming this is proof of global warming even though if you look at the history of tornados in our province and our location at the top end of tornado alley, this is not all that uncommon an event and it has occurred about once every twenty years or so.

And so this seemingly wonky but economically high - stakes debate over how to accurately measure global warming is likely to heat up much more.

In the «90s, the argument against global warming disappeared, so the debate shifted to «The earth is warming, but it's not our fault.»

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).

I believe we can't possibly get to a better place, in debates over issues like global warming, until we understand why getting facts across turns out to be so difficult.

As so often in the global warming debate, much depends on which data you look at and what you do with it.

The author's approach underlines so much of the problem with the global warming / climate change debate.

Its forecasts, released every five to seven years, drive climate policy worldwide, so even the small change raised debate over how fast the planet is warming and how much time we have to stop it.

Of course, this has been readily apparent to those involved in the climate wars - Obama keeps losing the global warming debate, so he deceives and then does end - runs around the Constitution.

And so to take issue with any aspect of the debate is interpreted as denying that the Earth has warmed approximately 0.7 degrees Celsius and that humans had some part in that warming.

So, I take it you understand that the claim «there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995» is merely an indication of the speaker's ignorance of this meaning, and are happy to acknowledge that those on the «sceptical» side of the debate who parrot such claims don't know what they are talking about.

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.

Rational Thinker Thanks for those links... I think most thinking people understand the so - called debate on the validly of Global Warming has nothing to do with a wish to find out the truth of the situation..

Moreover, as I've argued here previously, the emphasis, or hope that science can conclusively answer the debate about global warming almost concedes to the alarmist / precautionary perspective that, if «climate change is happening», then so the policies are justified.

And so to take issue with any aspect of the debate is to seemingly deny that the earth has warmed approximately 0.7 degrees centigrade and that humans had some part in it.

This has been especially so during the decade - long debate about the warming pause.

Channel 4 might be having a debate on the The not so Great Global Warming Swindle this Saturday so if you have the time or inclination to join the live studio audience.

Pubic debate quickly reveals that the science is highly debatable, so the warmers tend to lose.

So the warmers (1) don't debate and (2) explain why there is so much apparent debate as being due to ignorance and eviSo the warmers (1) don't debate and (2) explain why there is so much apparent debate as being due to ignorance and eviso much apparent debate as being due to ignorance and evil.

Why Warmists Hate Debate: Flashback 2007: Scientific Smackdown: Skeptics Voted The Clear Winners Against Global Warming Believers in Heated NYC Debate — NASA & RealClimate.org's Gavin Schmidt appeared so demoralized that he mused that debates equally split between believers of a climate «crisis» and scientific skeptics are probably not «worthwhile» to ever agree to again

Flashback 2007: Scientific Smackdown: Skeptics Voted The Clear Winners Against Global Warming Believers in Heated NYC Debate — NASA's Gavin Schmidt appeared so demoralized that he mused that debates equally split between believers of a climate «crisis» and scientific skeptics are probably not «worthwhile» to ever agree to again - Schmidt on his teams debate loss: «We were pretty dull.&Debate — NASA's Gavin Schmidt appeared so demoralized that he mused that debates equally split between believers of a climate «crisis» and scientific skeptics are probably not «worthwhile» to ever agree to again - Schmidt on his teams debate loss: «We were pretty dull.&debate loss: «We were pretty dull.»

Hello I like your post «Ice From Ancient Global Warming Heats Debate» so well that I like to ask you whether I should translate into German and linking back.

So her own analysis contradicts her statement that there is a «vigorous debate» about «whether the warming since 1950 has been dominated by human causes» — it turns out she actually agrees with everyone else that it has been!

LONDON, 13 December, 2015 — The so - called, and much debated, hiatus in global warming may never have happened, according to new research

The so - called and much debated «pause» in global warming is over.

But, either way, you begin to understand why so many of these «global - warming bedwetters» are incapable of participating in any real debates.

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.

So, as for the Global - Warming debate, my feeling is the Heartland Institute meeting is not methodologically nor scientifically motivated.

Here's a summary of our interview: (more at Fresh Dialogues) van Diggelen: You wrote in the New York Times that the Berkeley Earth analysis will help settle the scientific debate regarding global warming and its human causes — how so?

So, pupils are probably quite familiar with the main issues at stake in the global warming debate such as where the excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere comes from, what might be done to reduce emissions, and that the climatic consequences for Earth could be devastating.

So I do nt feel it is plausible to envisage parcels of significantly warmer water lurking at kilometer depths writing to re-emerge centuries later and exert an influence on climate cycles, global warming politics and blog debates.

The (scientific - ish rather than political) hockeystick debate is about the level of confidence in large scale medieval warmth: either we are confident it was not so warm, or we haven't got a clue (I asked Steve McIntyre).

So too, the global warming debate benefits from traditional scientific skepticism.