Sentences with phrase «warming skeptics often»

Global warming skeptics often cite contradictory reports from a generation ago warning of global cooling.

Not exact matches

Climate skeptics often make precisely this claim, citing the warming pause as evidence.

We often see «skeptics» suggest that the additional warming stored in the ocean can't possibly come back to affect tropospheric temperatures in any meaningful way, but the record levels of energy being stored in the Indo Pacific Warm Pool has impacted and made possible the record tropospheric temperatures Australia saw in 2013.

Given that skeptics, taken as a whole, put forward a nearly infinite variety of often conflicting and contradictory beliefs regarding global warming and climate science, exactly what is a climate scientist supposed to agree with?

It has been often said by climate skeptics that the modern warming peaked in 1998 and we are entering a period of decades of global cooling.

Many skeptics contend that liberal environmental agendas are behind alarming global - warming headlines, though often skeptics bring policy agendas of their own.

This statement is often used as a litmus test for belief regarding global warming, i.e. you believe this statement (consensus) or you don't (skeptic).

Now, since 2007, at the height of the global warming scare tactics about arctic sea ice, the antarctic sea ice extents anomaly CONTINUOUSLY exceeds 1.25 Mkm ^ 2 for 3 years straight now, and is larger than 1.5 Mkm ^ 2 so often for such long times that it is not even newsworthy on a skeptic site.

People who challenge the claims of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are often labeled «global warming skeptics».

Assuming that you're one of those «skeptics,» and looking at the range estimations of likely impact based energy balance that are often promoted by «skeptics» (although certainly there are many «skeptics» who think that there is no possibility that ACO2 will warm the climate to any measurable extent)-- then we can reasonably assume that you agree that there is a «fat tail» potential for high impact consequences from BAU.

As Figure 1 shows, over the last 37 years one can identify overlapping short windows of time when climate «skeptics» could have argued (and often did, i.e. here and here and here) that global warming had stopped.

The claim is often made that climate realists (a.k.a. skeptics) can not point to peer - reviewed papers to support their position that there is no evidence of «dangerous global warming:» caused by human emissions of so - called «greenhouse» gases, including carbon dioxide.

Fake skeptics have been banging this drum so much that I am afraid even many scientists are being influenced into believing faulty conclusions repeated often based on incorrect methods for assessing warming trends.

The two make a range of often - repeated claims by climate change skeptics, including that there have been «no increase in frequency or intensity of storms, floods or droughts,» that sea ice isn't melting considerably, and that there is supposedly no scientific consensus regarding global warming.

As has often been the case, official climate science is now agreeing with what skeptics identified several years ago: Antarctica is not warming.

Weakening Solar Output Won't Slow Warming Over Next Century One argument often cited by climate skeptics and global warming deniers is that solar cycles are responsible for at least part of the warming we're seeiWarming Over Next Century One argument often cited by climate skeptics and global warming deniers is that solar cycles are responsible for at least part of the warming we're seeiwarming deniers is that solar cycles are responsible for at least part of the warming we're seeiwarming we're seeing now.

Their paper notes, in spite of the fact that «the scientific consensus on global warming and climate change is remarkable,» journalists — especially on television — often treat it as «an unsettled controversy,» giving equal time to climatologists and skeptics.

The Coordinating Lead Authors explained that «climate skeptics» often point to this warm spell to question the IPCC for not acknowledging such warm spells.

Just reminds me of the climate gate email that is not often discussed where someone (I do nt recall who off hand) notes its good that the skeptics at least have not yet made a point yet about the discrepancy between land and ocean temps, as the land should follow the sea and can not warm at a faster rate for any physical reason.