Sentences with phrase «warming discussions where»

There is no area in global warming discussions where AGW advocates have done more to shoot down their own credibility than in the absolutely egregious science and absurd claims that have been made about the potential negative effects of global warming.

Not exact matches

I had just been in a discussion of climate change on a messageboard where someone had triumphantly put up links to various blogs (including one that you noted here) drawing conclusions about the cause of the global warming here on earth on the basis of these recent measurements of Mars's south polar cap!

Re: 98 Satellite data: Some weeks ago I had a discussion with my American «Deny - aleban» nephew about global warming, and I came across some points of interest, which I think somebody should take a closer look into: I wrote this to him: https://www.dropbox.com/s/b9m66ktqf28mghs/Pil1.pdf?dl=0 and the point of interest starts at page 6, where I write about the 98 - thing.

A very warm welcome to the Silver Travel Forum where you can contribute to a wide variety of discussions.

Among those who are seeking a new direction on energy and emissions, the discussion appears to remain locked where it's been for years — over the balance between treating global warming like a 20th - century pollution problem and a 21st - century technology challenge.

As this blog and other venues continue discussions of global warming, its causes and consequences, we would do well also to look at the world around us for clues about where we are headed.

I participated in a panel discussion in the Nobel meeting in Lindau in 2008 where I said the global warming has become a new religion.

What is clear is that uncontrolled emissions will very soon put us in range of temperatures that have been unseen since the Eemian / Stage 5e period (about 120,000 years ago) when temperatures may have been a degree or so warmer than now but where sea level was 4 to 6m higher (see this recent discussion the possible sensitivities of the ice sheets to warming and the large uncertainties involved).

It is possible to suggest resources and do so in a polite fashion, but when dealing with someone new to the discussion, this is best done in the context of addressing some of their questions and politely suggesting where they will find more information such as Spencer Weart's The Discovery of Global Warming.

I have posted this discussion to my local blog, where RealClimate is often cited as the real truth on global warming by those wishing to limit greenhouse gases.

In a saner world, recognition that real climate warming does exist but is very unlikely to be catastrophic would stimulate discussion of pre-adaptation, where fixing the vulnerabilities to today's climate would include an extra margin to deal with tomorrow's, would top the agenda of the new administration.

In the begin period of RC, there were several interesting discussions, where warmers and sceptics both could have their view.

In one of my other recent articles, I describe how the PBS NewsHour's 1996 - to - present bias in its global warming discussion segments presents only four instances where any semblance of skeptic science points were mentioned out of more than 355 on - air broadcast discussions (plus a few online pages directly relating to some of those segments).

Now, it doesn't go in the direction it sounds like you prefer, the long series of discussions on the science end up endorsing much of the core of the modern scientific consensus around the physics of greenhouse and global warming (though pointing out places where public media frequently argues well beyond the science).

Today I link to «The Practice of Personal Attacking Global Warming Skeptics — Rather than Responding to Their Scientific Criticisms», a guest post at Tony Heller's blog by Dr William Gray, where Dr Gray offered this bit in a longer story: «Why are the warmers so afraid to have open and honest discussion about the basic nitty - gritty assumptions of their AGW hypothesis?

Not only did you attack my comment on the basis of my fairly offhand reference to hydrocarbon formation, (my intial comment primarily related to the dead zone off the Oregon coast and its possible causes and effects) you used my comment to claim that this website, which is one of the few places where unbiased scientific discussion of global warming appears outside of strictly academic circles, has «way too much junk science».

WordPress Tavern is a warm and inviting community where those interested in the software can hang out with fellow WordPressers to engage in enlightening discussions.