Sentences with phrase «with global warming arguments»

Gas is far better than coal (less CO2 / energy delivered, less other pollution), and it is interesting to see them promoting it versus coal with global warming arguments.

Anyway, as a result of these flaws, and again having little to do with the global warming argument itself, the Senate voted 95 - 0 in 1997 not to sign or ratify the treaty unless these flaws (which still exist in the treaty) were fixed.

Not exact matches

J. Alan Pounds, a biologist at the Monteverde Cloud Forest Preserve and one of the researchers who originally put forward the argument that global warming played a role in the extinction of the golden toad, disagrees with the paper's conclusions.

[Response: For the record, I think any reasonably educated person, whether with a technical degree or not, should be able to understand and critically evaluate the basic arguments involved in predictions of global warming.

Often, the argument forwarded by some folks is, in essence, that since the climate naturally fluctuates to a degree, global warming is inevitable and we should just live with it and not bother to change the status quo (and certainly not in a way that discomforts those who conveniently hold this view!).

This seems in disagreement with the argument in CaltechWater.pdf (and surely elsewhere) that with global warming prcipitation ought to increase.

As various arguments for action on global warming have failed to blunt growth in emissions in recent years, environmental groups and international agencies have sometimes tried to turn the focus to diseases that could pose a growing threat in a warming world — with malaria being a frequent talking point.

The earth has had significant Global Warming for some 20,000 years now... The only real argument is to the degree that mans activity has augmented that... We just came out of one - point - five - million years of continuous glaciation with sheets of two mile thick ice down past the 44th parallel... I will cheerfully deal with warming issues over that, anyWarming for some 20,000 years now... The only real argument is to the degree that mans activity has augmented that... We just came out of one - point - five - million years of continuous glaciation with sheets of two mile thick ice down past the 44th parallel... I will cheerfully deal with warming issues over that, anywarming issues over that, any day...

With or without global warming, there's a solid argument that improved understanding of planetary dynamics, particularly the climate system, is essential to sustaining human progress given how risks rise as populations expand, build, farm and concentrate in zones that are implicitly vulnerable to hard knocks like floods, droughts, heat and severe storms.

Therefore, if anyone claims to be part of the 97 percent, it means they disagree with the contrarian argument that humans are having a minimal impact on global warming.

The point is that to argue that «there is no such thing as global terrorism», or that «there is no such thing as global warming» is to fail to take issue with the idea that evidence of global terrorism or anthropogenic global warming is sufficient argument for the execution of the «War on Terror», or for «drastic action'to mitigate climate change.

«there is no such thing as global terrorism», or that «there is no such thing as global warming» is to fail to take issue with the idea that evidence of global terrorism or anthropogenic global warming is sufficient argument for the execution of the «War on Terror», or for «drastic action'to mitigate climate change.

What The Science Says: If anyone claims to be part of the 97 %, it means they disagree with the contrarian argument that humans are having a minimal impact on global warming.

«But», you could now say to me, «granting, for the sake of argument only, that Miliband and others may be going rather too far, surely there is clear scientific evidence that human - induced global warming presents a serious problem which has to be dealt with.

«I am not convinced with the arguments of the group promoting global warming of an anthropogenic nature,» Zharkova told The Washington Post.

Big Oil and Big Coal funded sympathetic think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the Competitive Enterprise Institute and also outright front groups with names like Friends of Science and the Global Climate Coalition, all of which came up with an endless stream of arguments for why global warming wasn't happening and even if it was, nothing should be done aboGlobal Climate Coalition, all of which came up with an endless stream of arguments for why global warming wasn't happening and even if it was, nothing should be done aboglobal warming wasn't happening and even if it was, nothing should be done about it.

This document was recently released to the public and features the human fingerprints of global warming along with rebuttals of some of the more common skeptical arguments.

In his open letter to Martin Durkin's Wag TV, one of Five major misrepresentations of the scientific evidence in the film concerned Durkin's suggestion that the global temperature slump in the 1950s and»60s, which was concurrent with rising emissions of greenhouse gases, was problematic for orthodox global warming arguments.

I haven't made any arguments on glacier advance or decline with respect to my position on global warming.

«However, with global warming the line of argument is even sillier.

Open - minded consideration of the arguments presented by supporters and challengers of the anthropogenic global warming issue, along with decades of personal experience of climate change, lead to the conclusion that the arguments of Dr. Hug, Dr. Barratt and Dr. Nicol are more convincing than are those of the IPCC.

The filmmaker looked for the scientific evidence behind the arguments of the climate sceptics, and compared these findings with the theories from scientists who have examined the impact of man on global warming.

These people do not know each other, which leads me to view them as inquisitors (or probably acolytes) of some religious Global Warming cult, armed with good sounding arguments to convince the unbelievers, and when that fails to use stronger methods.

What we see with I term GWA (Global Warming Alarmism — as opposed to simple AGW or Anthropogenic Global Warming) is not simply an argument of science, but a complete cannon of belief and doctine which rivals the world religion.

What we see with I term GWA (Global Warming Alarmism — as opposed to simple AGW or Anthropogenic Global Warming) is not simply an argument of science, but a complete canon of belief and doctine which rivals the world religion.

I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish with your argument, Peter, for or against Global Warming, but all you manage to do is make the question a moot point, at most... which is exactly what the answer already does....

If anyone claims to be part of the 97 percent, it means they disagree with the contrarian argument that humans are having a minimal impact on global warming.

My argument is not with the properties of Co2 itself, it's with the global warming hypothesis with respect to CO2.

IMO, nuclear is inevitable with or without the global warming issue and the only thing we're really discussing is the veracity of the Malthusian argument that a future with low - cost energy would be an environmental disaster due to over consumption.

As has been the case with other attempts to vilify, intimidate and silence experts who disagree with alarmist views on global warming and climate change, Kaine presented an argument rife with logical fallacies — appeals to emotion, straw men, ridicule, oversimplification and misrepresentation.

Two, in response to arguments from some climate change skeptics, many scientific organizations with expertise relevant to climate change have endorsed the consensus position that «most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities» including the following: • American Association for the Advancement of Science • American Astronomical Society • American Chemical Society • American Geophysical Union • American Institute of Physics • American Meteorological Society • American Physical Society • Australian Coral Reef Society • Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society • Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO • British Antarctic Survey • Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences • Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society • Environmental Protection Agency • European Federation of Geologists • European Geosciences Union • European Physical Society • Federation of American Scientists • Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies • Geological Society of America • Geological Society of Australia • International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA) • International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics • National Center for Atmospheric Research • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration • Royal Meteorological Society • Royal Society of the UK

In January, 2012, Levant featured Timothy Ball on his show and discussed Ball's belief that there has been no global warming since 1998, a debunked argument that has long been popular with climate change skeptics.

, Ross McKitrick continues to try to move the goalposts on climate action with a misleading argument about global climate models, while harping on the tired old «warming pause» meme.

Because the GCMs, physical arguments indicate a decrease of variability with global warming.

This cycle is one factor in why arguments about the global nature of the Medieval Warm Period being a global event need to be looked at with some scepticism.

It is why a very good argument can be made that even if man - made global warming causes a few more hurricanes, it may well be better to be wealthier and ready to deal with them than be poorer and more vulnerable to fewer storms.

The arguments change all the time: this year it is «global warming has stopped», while last year it was «hurricanes aren't linked with warming», and the year before «satellites don't show any warming of the atmosphere».

I am currently experiencing a heated argument with another poster on another website concerning Global warming and the validity of the IPCC report and its followers and their agendas, etc..

With the model so far off from reality, independent scientists say it's hard to make an argument for ethanol as a global warming policy.

On November 6, 2013, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D - R.I.) seemingly channeled Babbitt, expanding the «same kind of arguments they used against acid rain...» line into a 19 minute U.S. Senate speech covering ozone layer depletion, acid rain, and global warming, with the title of «The Deniers» Playbook.»

A woman on the train the other day was in an argument with the guy opposite her, about global warming.

Have their arguments been accepted by peer review and contrasted with the relevant science; and do those arguments successfully show that global warming is not human caused?

Global warming is a question that many are saying is a catasrophe for the planet, that will determine the spending of trillions of dollars around the globe and yet Michael is worried about giving data to someone with a dubious argument?

Then thereâ $ ™ s the pesky issue of â $ œconsensus.â $ Alarmists typically counter any fact - based global warming argument with the assertion that the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has already ruled on the issue, and therefore â $ œthe science is settledâ $ and â $ œthe debate is over.â $ â $ œMild winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms, â $ IPCC claimed in its 2001 Third Assessment.

Consoli's presentation dealt with a completely different issue: the necessity (his argument) of developing the hydrogen economy in order to address global warming.

But it all goes to prove that if you want to keep up to date with the latest information and arguments about global warming, this is the place to come.

See also:: Shhhh, We've Got a Secret: Soil Solves Global Warming, Part 1,:: GM Food Debates Heats Up with Global Warming,:: The Argument against GMO Image: Yale Daily News

This is the argument that the tobacco industry used for decades to keep people confused about the link between tobacco smoking and lung cancer (and to keep smokers smoking), and it is the argument that the fossil fuel industry continues to use, and will use as long as they can get away with it, to keep people confused about the link between anthropogenic global warming and extreme weather events (and to keep them burning fossil fuels).

I think one problem with the «it's really hot therefore global warming» argument is that people do not see it in the (quite correct) terms you are presenting it.

If the author is already peddling denialism based on limited facts used out of context, and this new paper is published likely just to be used as the latest red herring distraction in the global warming argument by examining «Svalbard and Greenland temperature records» in a too limited time span without relevant context, which, just in case some may not have noticed does not represent the region known as planet Earth, uses too short a time span in relation to mechanism outside of the examined region because it is in fact a regional analysis; one is left with a reasonable conclusion that the paper is designed to be precisely what I suspect it is designed for, to be a red herring distraction in the argument between science and science denialism regarding global warming.