Sentences with phrase «warmist causes»

There are over 30 postulated warmist causes for lowering the world temperature, Steven.

Merely pointing out, for example, that CO2 can be heated by providing an energy source invisible to the human eye, is obviously meaningless in relation to the Warmist cause, unless you are extremely gullible, and fervently desire to believe the unbelievable.

You are clearly not a regular reader of the Telegraph, whose line is generally in favour of the warmist cause and whose two regular contirbutors as «envorinmental correspondents» Geoffrey Lean and Lousie Gray are both very firmly committed to the alarmist / catastrophist cause.

In fact, their ability to ridicule the warmist cause is so rotund that I've often wonder if these trolls might not the fabled «deniers» pretending to be the most maniacal wamists in order to ridicule them all.

There has been a lot written about the so - called «scientific consensus» by those who wish to promote the warmist cause, that this new essay is needed to redress the balance and set the record straight.

One could argue that this will be lost as radiation or convection, but that doesn't help the flux warmist cause since a warmer earth resists further heating.

After all, the warmist cause is so much better funded, and able to mobilise vastly more resources than any climate sceptics.

Not exact matches

Global warmists determine that the carbon dioxide caused from man as the amount we have today over what existed before the Industrial Revolution.

In Australia, during a drought, we had the warmists saying the drought was caused by increased surface temperatures.

I was told by a warmist scientist that it wouldn't warm up at all, but that it is in the stratosphere where the CO2 is significant and causes warming.

But perhaps the most damaging revelations â $ «the scientific equivalent of the Telegraphâ $ ™ s MPsâ $ ™ expenses scandal â $ «are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.

It seems likely to cause some real wailing and gnashing of teeth among the warmists.

What's especially silly about the «we can't think of anything else» argument is that the warmists can't explain what (if anything) caused the Little Ice Age or the Medieval Warm Period.

I consider her to be by no means a sceptic - although many warmists perceive her as such - and bringing her firmly back into the all embracing arms of the IPCC would, I suspect, cause the sceptics considerable dismay, although not dealing a fatal blow by any means.

Doesn't fit the AGW message pounded into pliable brains... most the MSM are cheerleaders for the warmists and a troubling percentage of them are forgetting the message change to well, climate change vs the old too narrow warming schtick... of course we know that the sun's solar minimum is caused by big oil.

More recently, Hansen has predicted that sea levels will rise five metres (16 feet) over the next century due to carbon - caused warming, a view that is extreme even by warmist standards, and Hansen has even urged sabotage of coal plants.

We seem to see that the rise of Warmists, caused the rise of the coolists.

But if you wish to argue whether CO2 can cause warming or whether humanity is a source of CO2, I'm sure you find heaps of warmists pleased to debate anything, ANYTHING, but the obvious failings in the CAGW hypothesis.

How can the Warmists be so sure the 0.7 C warming of the 20th century was caused by increases in man - made CO2?

Even our regular warmist contributors seem to dislike grossly falsified data to promote their cause.

«Climate science» as it is used by warmists implies adherence to a set of beliefs: (1) Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations will warm the Earth's surface and atmosphere; (2) Human production of CO2 is producing significant increases in CO2 concentration; (3) The rate of rise of temperature in the 20th and 21st centuries is unprecedented compared to the rates of change of temperature in the previous two millennia and this can only be due to rising greenhouse gas concentrations; (4) The climate of the 19th century was ideal and may be taken as a standard to compare against any current climate; (5) global climate models, while still not perfect, are good enough to indicate that continued use of fossil fuels at projected rates in the 21st century will cause the CO2 concentration to rise to a high level by 2100 (possibly 700 to 900 ppm); (6) The global average temperature under this condition will rise more than 3 °C from the late 19th century ideal; (7) The negative impact on humanity of such a rise will be enormous; (8) The only alternative to such a disaster is to immediately and sharply reduce CO2 emissions (reducing emissions in 2050 by 80 % compared to today's rate) and continue further reductions after 2050; (9) Even with such draconian CO2 reductions, the CO2 concentration is likely to reach at least 450 to 500 ppm by 2100 resulting in significant damage to humanity; (10) Such reductions in CO2 emissions are technically feasible and economically affordable while providing adequate energy to a growing world population that is increasingly industrializing.

What most definitely is scandalous is the vile hypocrisy of Soon's harrassment by the warmist establishment, which receives billions every year from the US government, left - wing charities, and billionaire activists like Tom Steyer and George Soros to prop up their bankrupt cause by promoting exactly the kind of junk science which Soon (and similarly principled scientists) have made it their business to shred.

There are two groups in the climate debate: those who believe human CO2 is causing global warming / climate change and those who don't, respectively labeled Warmists and Skeptics.

One notes that the warmists have no mechanism by which CO2 causes localised weather anomalies.

It has been difficult to explain why the Earth started warming in the 1970's and that lack of explanation has allowed the warmist crowd to convince many people that the CO2 emissions of mankind are the cause.

I'd be more sympathetic to the «warmists» cause if I saw them embrace these new numbers.

Maybe ever more shrill predictions of excessive heat, excessive cold, famine, pestilence, flood, fire, earthquake and Ebola, might reinforce the faith of the ever dwindling band of irrelevant Warmists, by causing global temperatures to rise.

The hiatus has caused even rabid warmists to reconsider their absurd estimations of climate sensitivity?

We are a «special» breed that frequent here, and while our friends may tolerate our warmist or skeptical rantings, they generally couldn't care about the details, and they won't until it hits them in the pocketbook, washes away their house, causes the price of food to skyrocket, or the shelves are simply empty.

Since it is nonsensical that the CET would drive the NAP, I was sharing amusement at the confusion of effect and cause so characteristic of Warmists.