Sentences with phrase «warming issue agree»

The global temperature empirical evidence is so clear cut, and verified, that two of the most prominent climate scientists on opposing sides of the global warming issue agree on the science fundamentals: there has been no statistically significant warming over the last 15 years.

Not exact matches

Despite what officials described as a warm meeting, China and the European Union could not agree on a broader final communique meant to focus on a range of other issues discussed at the talks, including a commitment to free trade and measures needed to reduce a global steel glut.

He suggested that «most people are warming to the idea that whilst we've come together to govern in partnership together in the national interest, of course there are issues where we do not agree — and are going to be quite open and relaxed about it».

«If it's conservative white males on global warming, pick a different issue and you'll find another group that has trouble thinking in a way that agrees with experts.»

And shouldn't it have helped reduce the element of surprise that a National Academy of Sciences study already concluded that the warming seen in the surface station record was «undoubtedly real,» that Menne et al showed that highly touted station siting issues did not in fact compromise the record, that the satellite record agrees with the surface record in every important respect (see Fig. 7 here), and that numerous independent studies (many of them by amateurs) also confirmed the warming trend?

Without diminishing the reality of the issues around global warming, I agree that there needs to be less hysterical approach towards solutions.

How to arrange global warming is a complex problem.I agree to Dave Robert's some view that we should not only action to reduce greenhouse gas even it is most important issue.

If a preponderance of left wing people agree we are warming the climate, maybe they are simply correct on the issue.

Edward Lendner, who was director of climate issues in a previous White House administration, wrote last week: «In what would be the single most important contingency that could impact civil society in the United States and other nations around the world, there is no agreed upon plan for how to deal with a collapsing world in the distant future if climate change and global warming get out of control and mass migrations northward create chaos in both wealthy and poor countries.»

So should I call your «denier» stance «junk conspiracy science» even though we agree on the warming issue?

Just over half in the survey, 51 percent, say there is «a lot of disagreement among scientists» over the existence of global warming, down 11 points from 2009 but still higher than the share who say scientists agree with one another on the issue, 43 percent.

It seems the problems began when the journal's editors agreed to a special issue on «Pattern in solar variability, their planetary origin and terrestrial impacts,» in which the issue's editors had the temerity to «doubt the continued, even accelerated, warming as claimed by the IPCC project.»

I agree that it is a well - reasoned look at recent temperature records, but the missing issue is the anecdotal evidence that exists to suggest that the planet has had major periods where is has been as warm, if not warmer, than it is today.

I agree with you, Donn, that the CO2 and global warming issues have been politicized, and I think you win the day on your assertions that present policies will cause great economic harm to the U.S.

I agree with lolwot that the warming trend has accelerated, it's just the direction I take issue with...

Only 39 percent of the public believes that scientists think global warming is an issue, compared with 97 percent of scientists publishing in the field who agree that the earth's climate is warming and the trend in human - induced.

I totally agree Jennifer; when the issue theme was «Global Warming» sceptics said NO, the climate is always changing.

In short, Tol AGREES with the idea at issue - namely, that an overwhelming number of those in climate science and related fields accept global warming as real and occurring.

Democrats also are more likely to perceive a scientific consensus on the issue; 59 % say most scientists agree that the earth is warming mostly due to human activity, while 32 % think scientists do not agree.

Its supplemental online interview of the late IPCC scientist Dr Stephen Schneider quoted his opinion about the Global Climate Coalition as being «a coalition of liars and spin doctors to reposition the debate onto the issue of uncertainty, way beyond [what] the scientific community agreed with» (he probably meant to say it was the Western Fuels Association, out to «reposition global warming as theory rather than fact», an error I note at item 17 here).

Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D - CO), then representing the Clinton - Gore administration as U.S Undersecretary of State for global issues, addressing the same Rio Climate Summit audience, agreed: «We have got to ride the global warming issue.

A hard core of global warming catastrophists are socialists who support global warming abatement not because they understand or agree with the science, but because they like the cover the issue gives them to pursue their historic goals.

Having debated this issue with British Antarctic Survey scientists and found astonishingly that they had no evidence for the hypothesis that CO2 amplifies the orbital - induced warming once it has begun — they were left lamely saying that the data «is entirely consistent with» that hypothesis — I have to agree with Willis's characterisation of the very weak video above: it amplified rather than damped my doubts about that hypothesis.

In the case of the global warming issue, a person having either a set position or no position at all becomes corrupted by industry money the moment he or she agrees to engage in dishonest behavior prompted from that payment.

It is often the case that the old warmer / denier categories split people who agree with each other on a certain issue.

First, in regard to Ross Gelbspan, it appears Blakemore has a backpedal situation that most people would agree a reporter should never be caught doing, then there is a problem with a particular line in Blakemore's ABC News bio, and finally there is the larger problem of how the global warming issue seems to owe its life to the sheer lack of rigorous journalism about it.

With climate change talks running into their second week, the International Energy Agency (IEA) issued a statement directed to the negotiators, warning that its analysis «shows achieving the internationally agreed climate goal of limiting warming to two degrees Celsius is becoming more difficult and more expensive with every passing year».

Surprisingly, the statement by the sixteen scientists that «CO2 is not a pollutant» is defended by reference to a common dictionary rather than to a scientific source.d But in the end they agree that the real issue is whether this «component» will «cause significant and destructive global warming.»

What we should do is identify the most ambitious mitigation scenario in AR5 and, based on this, agree a global budget to 2050, as well as agreed levels of emissions for 2020, 2025 and 2030, all consistent with a reasonable chance of keeping warming below 1.5 C. Subsequently, we should identify a methodology based on historical responsibilities and respective capabilities, and which is adjusted for development needs, to define developed countries» commitments on key issues such as mitigation and finance for 2020, 2025 and 2030.

On the global warming issue posted by Justin, I can't say that I agree with his observation.

The other issues contribute to the range of uncertainty in projections of future warming projected by the IPCC and others, but this range does not include zero, a point which is agreed by most or all of those working on these topics as I've noted.

I agree that there are semantic issues, but I don't think heat storage in the oceans or warming ice are among them.

I agree that Alex Jones is wrong on a number of issues and dangerously wrong on the issue of global warming, but it should also acknowledged that he reports a lot of truth that the mainstream media won't report, the latest example, being the gaping holes in the official story about the story of Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab and Flight 253, «Authorities Quietly Reverse Underwear Bomber Official Story».