Sentences with phrase «warming skeptic if»

Albert Einstein would almost certainly have been a global warming skeptic if he were alive today.

Not exact matches

If you know any brussels sprouts skeptics, this salad is a great dish to get them to warm up to the vegetable.

Skeptics ask, How can warming be happening if we're getting big snows?

CLIMATE SKEPTIC: a person who has not yet been convinced anthropogenic global warming is happening, but is open to being convinced if presented with the evidence.

If they were a skeptic that claimed to have information — many of them do, many of them claim to «know» that future warming will be lower than the IPCC consensus — then it should be possible to find odds for a bet — as the post says.

Thinking laterally, I would say if you want to convince the skeptics that it isn't the sun causing recent global warming, do more research on the sun.

This aspect of their work is rarely if ever mentioned by the authors themselves, and still less in citations of the work in skeptics» tracts such as that distributed with the «Global Warming Petition Project.»

If they were a skeptic that claimed to have information — many of them do, many of them claim to «know» that future warming will be lower than the IPCC consensus — then it should be possible to find odds for a bet — as the post says.

CLIMATE SKEPTIC: a person who has not yet been convinced anthropogenic global warming is happening, but is open to being convinced if presented with the evidence.

Seems to me that if that number were made public, and talked about, it would disspell a lot confusing talk from the skeptic side about «how cold it was in Nebraska last winter, and how that proves that man made global warming is a hoax».

If you want to label me a skeptic or claim that I «argue against global warming,» then so be it, but I don't consider my position as such.

This aspect of their work is rarely if ever mentioned by the authors themselves, and still less in citations of the work in skeptics» tracts such as that distributed with the «Global Warming Petition Project.»

If climate skeptics are wrong and sensitivity is closer to the middle range, both scenarios above will see warming greater than 2 °C.

A sledgehammer message if there ever was one: Nasty, greedy billionaire industrialists who hatched a plan to pay skeptic scientists associated with think tanks to lie to the public, and the hard evidence is that sinister - sounding «reposition global warming» phrase.

This is very important because if it is low, as some climate «skeptics» argue, then the planet will warm slowly and we will have more time to react and adapt.

And wouldn't those talking points pack a fatal punch with reporters if you could say a Pulitzer winning investigative reporter discovered a leaked coal industry memo which was proof for skeptic climate scientists being paid to «reposition global warming as theory rather than fact.»

If half of past warming, or about.4 C is due to man, that means climate sensitivity is around 1C, exactly the no - feedback number that climate skeptics have thought it was near for years.

Don't forget when «skeptics» claimed that Mojib («if my name weren't Mojib Latif it would be global warming») Latif said that global warming has stopped and that we should expect global cooling.

Would skeptics accept that the modern era is warmer than Medieval times if it came from someone else.

Some climate change skeptics have wondered if urban heat islands may be contaminating global warming data.

I think you'd have better results if the sweepstake was for which prominent skeptic admits the world is still warming first.

I guess the only result that would have satisfied skeptics is if Marcott didn't compare the reconstruction to recent warming.

Makes you wonder if any of the «skeptics» were similarly concerned over other lengthy periods when the observed warming was greater than the model projections.

This means there are now 3 levels of rebuttals addressing the skeptic argument «humans aren't causing global warming»: If other climate bloggers are interested in allowing their existing articles to be used as advanced rebuttals to skeptic arguments, please contact me.

What if the climate experts conducted an actual experiment that would prove whether the global warming skeptics were right or wrong about world - wide warming being overstated?

Thinking laterally, I would say if you want to convince the skeptics that it isn't the sun causing recent global warming, do more research on the sun.

But if you say that the warming has «paused» or «stopped,» and then if you also say that you think that ACO2 warms the climate, then you are being illogical, and you are a «skeptic» not a skeptic.

It was used to refute the claim from a prominent French skeptic that it has been as warm in the past and it was placed there with commentary from the French group leader of the IPCC (GIEC) as if it was gospel.

If 2014 really is the warmest year on record, then it's certainly wrong to say that global warming «stopped» back in 1998 — a favorite line of climate skeptics like Sen. James Inhofe (R - OK).

If you concede that climate skeptics have not proven in peer - reviewed journals that human - induced warming is not a very serious threat to human health and ecological systems, given that human - induced warming could create catastrophic warming the longer the human community waits to respond to reduce the threat of climate change and the more difficult it will be to prevent dangerous warming, do you agree that those nations most responsible for rising atmospheric ghg concentrations have a duty to demonstrate that their ghg emissions are safe?

If you concede that climate skeptics have not proven in peer - reviewed journals that human - induced warming is not a very serious threat to human health and ecological systems, given that human - induced warming could create catastrophic warming the longer the human community waits to respond to reduce the threat of climate change and the more difficult it will be to prevent dangerous warming, do you agree that those responsible for rising atmospheric ghg concentrations have a duty to demonstrate that their ghg emissions are safe?

Also, those that argue the certainty of anthropogenic global warming are clearly capable of being «skeptics,» if not outright «deniers,» of the evidence that suggests that CO2 levels trail temperature changes.

If one wants to play that game, there's a growing segment of scientists that have declared themselves «global warming skeptics.»

Great, if we can get the skeptics to understand why the â $ œno significant warming since [date] â $ œ argument is bogus, and quit cherry picking, it will be a victory for BOTH sides of the climate debate.

What we need is skeptics who are regulars on media to throw in a few points on global warming, even if the subject is vastly different.

Even if climate skeptics are right about the most likely scenario being a moderate warming, the possibility remains that the unlikely will occur.

In a curiosity venture to see if the Union of Concerned Scientists regurgitation of the «reposition global warming» accusation narrative was getting any media traction, I instead stumbled across an unexpected example of outright either deliberate misinformation, or one of otherwise incompetent reporting from someone who is supposed to be an authority on the topic of «industry - corrupted skeptic climate scientists».

There is this idea that floats around the climate skeptic blogosphere that somehow a cold body does not radiate AT ALL to a warmer object, as if radiation from the cool atmosphere to the warm ground violates the 2nd Law.

If your position is that global warming skeptic scientists operate under guidance from industries opposing CO2 regulation, are you prepared to provide specific proof of improper payments to those scientists, and specific proof of faults in the scientists» resulting reports that are obvious indications of industry - guided science errors?

So if Gelbspan's raison d'être was no more than to uphold the tenets of sound democracy and dispassionate investigative journalism by exposing dishonest information from skeptic scientist industry shills and debunking misguided notions about global warming having a hidden agenda of wealth redistribution and global governance.......

If you take the findings of that study, you would conclude that the skeptics in the scientific community are around 40 % as well (those who believe global warming is either mainly caused by natural causes, that there isn't enough data to make any statement, or else that they don't believe global warming is occurring stands at 38 % in that study).

For those of you in Rio Linda, it means that the public will not believe human activity causes global warming if they learn about problems the IPCC can't explain, and if Gore's big accusation that skeptic scientists are corrupt can't be proven.

Of the temperatures are going down, the faux skeptics trust the record but if we have the warmest 12 month period in during the much beloved «cooling» period then it must be wrong or distortion of data.

He knows that he is safe, because if the Fake Skeptics say: Warmist don't have even 0,0000000000001 % of the data ESSENTIAL, for knowing what is the temp; would have exposed that:» their lies about past phony GLOBAL warmings have even less data».

The researchers break down skeptics into three categories: Those who completely deny the planet is warming (trend skeptics); those who accept that the planet is warming, but question if it's caused by humans (attribution skeptics); and those who falsely claim that increasing CO2 emissions and a warming planet will be a good thing (impact skeptics).

I'd strongly suggest you do regardless if you're a «warmer» or a «skeptic.»

If Galileo were still alive today, he would be a manmade CO2 warming Skeptic.

Some skeptics ask, «If global warming has a positive feedback effect, then why don't we have runaway warming?

On the other side of things, if the warming resumes despite all of the natural factors that the AGW skeptics claim are aligned against it (PDO, sun, etc.), then can we expect the skeptics to start to accept AGW?

If the public saw scientists from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) engaged in heated debate with skeptic climate scientists, it would be deadly to the notion of catastrophic man - caused global warming.