Sentences with phrase «warming sources who»

Not exact matches

«I do not know the source of that original document, but I assume it was sent to me because of my past exchanges with Heartland and because I was named in it,» said the scientist who has sparred often with Heartland and others who do not believe in the scientific underpinnings of man - made global warming.

The cooling effect of aerosols can partly offset global warming on a short - term basis, but many are made of organic material that comes from sources that scientists don't fully understand, said Joost de Gouw, a research physicist at NOAA's Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colo., who is unaffiliated with the studies.

Trump, who has called global warming a hoax and has promised to quit the Paris Agreement, was considering ways to bypass a theoretical four - year procedure for leaving the accord, according to the source, who works on Trump's transition team for international energy and climate policy.

Phyllis Nagy's straightforward screenplay contains the drama to the tight exchanges of its source material, but Haynes benefits just as much from regular director of photography Edward Lachman, who resurrects the shadowy, noir - like shadings of «Far From Heaven» while imbuing the more intimate scenes with a warm palette that enhances the romanticism in play.

«The ALLi community has turned out to be a warm and wonderful bunch of people who are a fantastic source of knowledge, camaraderie and advice.

And allowing pampered cats to hurt and kill even a small number of chipmunks, baby squirrels, baby rabbits, birds, or any individuals who don \» t have the luxury of warm secure homes with an abundant food source provided to them is simply unfair.

Many of us live with pit bulls who are family dogs, agility dogs, therapy dogs, bed warmers, and sources of endless love and fun.

Does this include the Amish dogs that are in rabbit cages 24/7 with no heat source to keep them warm in the Winter, and who will go around enforcing this law?

People often ask us how to keep their barn cats (and other outdoor cats) warm in winter... Below, we have gathered together information we received from our barn owners and from knowledgeable animal professionals who graciously share advice on Masscats.org (sources are cited) Photo credit: Jeff Worth By the way, if you click through to Amazon -LSB-...]

I know some here will decry that I am not talking about the issues because I do not try to obsfuscate with a discussion of the spot market price of coal vs long - term contracts, or use of coal in locations other than Kansas, or Al Gore's footprint, but the issue of Global Warming IS politics (non-ratification of Kyoto and negative flag - waving ads about politicians who oppose coal), it IS public relations («Clean Coal», cleanest coal - fired plants, surface mining and mountain - top reoval rather than strip mining, etc.), and it IS about misrepresentation (Peobody framing the debate as coal vs NG when it is really coal vs every other energy source), and it IS about greed (the coal industry doing everything it can to scuttle every other energy alternative).

This shift away from CO2 - centric emissions debates is also evident in a group blog post by analysts at the Center for American Progress, who propose a «multiple multilateralism» approach on climate that, among other things, seeks quick steps on sources of warming other than carbon dioxide — particularly sooty Arctic pollution and gases already considered under the existing ozone - protection treaty.

This seems really odd: the publlc demand made by scientists who are most alarmed by global warming is precisely not that more money go into reasearch, but rather that money go into research to increase fuel efficiency to develope carbon - emission - free fuel sources.

Because I advocated for a careful risk analysis of the probabilities associated with global warming models and projections he immediately casts me as someone who has no interest in conservation or alternative energy sources.

The troll's first citation is to good old Wikkithing which presently contains an unchallenged quote from Scarfetta & Wilson (2014) who are well known as being denialist sources that would warm the cockles of any cold - blooded troll.

If even Bjorn Lomborg sees the merits of the world spending $ 100 billion a year to address global warming, is there anyone who can find a downside to raising a grand total of $ 35 million a year (beyond money already committed by national governments) to protect 42 «source sites» — areas of tiger territory with populations that are sufficiently healthy to repopulate neighboring regions with suitable, but tiger-less, habitat?

Obama's formulation in the State of the Union speech — the notion that even skeptics should support a climate bill because it was what the economy needed — had been developed by an unlikely source: Frank Luntz, one of the dark princes of Republican messaging, who a decade before had written a founding document of GOP global warming denial.

The short version of it is Senator Ted Cruz displayed two charts created by Steven Goddard, a pseudononymous blogger who is well known for frequently claiming global warming is a hoax and accusing people of commiting fraud to promote it, without saying what the source for the charts were.

The Independent Institute ($ 2.65 million) «hasn't done much on the issue since 2009 or so,» according to a source familiar with the organization, who added: «Maybe two percent of the Institute's effort is on Global Warming, maybe seven percent if you count all environmental issues.»

In October 1998, CEI staff figured prominently in a press advisory sent to reporters by the conservative Media Research Center, offering them as «credible sources» who can show that «many scientists are skeptical of climate change theories,» «a warmer earth may be a prosperous earth,» «global warming policies would harm the US economy,» and «the Kyoto protocol could undermine US national security.»

Please, provide a plot of the number of scientists who dare speak against global warming alarmists vs. year, with the source.

And to all of you who have posted misinformation and / or copied those sources as «proof» there is no global warming, or that the danger is not real... THIS is your wake up call!

The well is poisoned: those who reject global warming are now so firmly committed to rejecting any source that contradicts their convictions that trying to change their minds is about as uphill as any public communications effort could ever get.

His probe follows revelations that Wei - Hock (Willie) Soon of the Harvard - Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, who disputes the scientific consensus that human activities are the main driver of global warming, failed to disclose research funding from Exxon, Southern Company, and other fossil - fuel industry sources.

Another example are the Small Island Developing States (SIDS) who are simultaneously facing extreme events such as typhoons, extreme storms and sea level rise that threatens to literally sink their islands, ocean acidification and warming which threaten their marine life and fisheries, and salt water intrusion into their fresh water sources and agricultural land.

But PLEASE, if you have a name of someone on the skeptical side who has denied that warming (from SOME source) has occurred, please let us have it.

In general, too much of [the reporter's] information came from sources who had an incentive to exaggerate the threat [global warming poses to the world]-- and these sources influenced his reporting for the whole of his trip.

The non-scientist Naomi Oreskes, who was not only criticized as being an unreliable source for determining what constitutes being «a science paper on global warming,» but also a person who can't reliably recount her own personal history events accurately.

An investigation by Democratic lawmakers into the sources of funding for scientists who challenge details of the greater global warming narrative has already forced one scientist to call it quits.

Absent from mainstream media reporters over the last two decades is an elemental question which could be posed to any politician or public figure who says people skeptical of man - caused global warming are paid to lie: who was the source for the accusation and did that source ever provide any physical evidence to back up the accusation?

We are also aware that climate scientists who adhere to the human - induced warming hypothesis have responses to most of these sources of doubt.»

According to Harris Interactive, «The sharp drop in those who believe that greenhouse emissions will cause global warming will make it harder for leaders to introduce new policies to promote alternative energy sources and reduce our carbon footprint.»

Those who don't ignore basic principles (and understand that heat has no momentum, nor can flow from a colder source to warm the surface), recognize that it's a laughable attempt to invest CO2 with divine powers of anticipation.

These feedbacks are the primary source of uncertainty in how much the earth will warm (side note: the question that most climate scientists who study the forcing due to CO2 try to answer is, how much will the long - term globally averaged surface temperature of the earth rise due to an rapid rise of CO2 to twice its industrial level, that is, 270 ppm to 540 ppm; it is currently about 380 last time I checked, and rising at ~ 3ppm / year, although this rate of change appears to be accelerating).

The parallel sources to these in the global warming argument are the 19,000 scientists who signed the OISM petition that human expulsion of CO2 is not harmful.

Maibach, who is now working on a further project to measure the effects the views of weathercasters have on their audience, added: «Most members of the public consider television weather reporters to be a trusted source of information about global warming - only scientists are viewed as more trustworthy.»