Sentences with phrase «wrong about global warming»

«Delingpole: Climate Alarmists Finally Admit «We Were Wrong About Global Warming»,» Breitbart, September 19, 2017.

Like PP McGuinness, they'll jump on to the nuclear bandwagon without ever admitting they were wrong about global warming.

Summary: The expert consensus was wrong about global warming; the AGW hypothesis is without empirical evidence merit; climate science is not settled, nor will it be in near future; and climate change will continue regardless of CO2 emissions.

The ultra-Greens have a moral «out» if they are wrong about global warming.

Are you confident enough that if, say, you turned out to be wrong about this fact, that you accept that you're probably wrong about global warming in general?

If they are wrong about global warming and it isn't getting warmer, something has to be addressed.

To agree with such «conclusions», one would have to either conclude that the majority of scientists are simply wrong about global warming OR that the public itself, on average, is, well, stupid and irresponsible.

Not exact matches

Kröpelin says that the new findings will help climatologists fine - tune their computer models — which he says were wrong about what happened to the Sahara — to more accurately predict the effect of global warming.

If the Norwegians on that latitude are worried about GLOBAL warming; something is wrong somewhere

I hope you're wrong though, because the thought of 10 more years of the deniers screaming (increasingly loudly) about how global warming is a bunch of not happening BS is a bit more than I for one can take.

I know that is hard when it comes to such a politically charged issue as anthro global warming... but as new data and information comes in, the spirit of science should be to analyze and interpret it, with the intent to find the truth about our world — not prove someone else wrong or ourselves right.

There are right ways and wrong ways for scientists to fight back against the climate skeptics who are trying to confuse the public about global warming.

Nevertheless I say again that I'd like to see someone of stature in science or someone of high visibility in the national media challenge Professor Happer specifically about the contrast between the very headline on his WSJ op - ed («Global warming models are wrong again») and what's asserted by this RC posting (and by Lazarus @ 31) about the retrospective reliability of Hansen et al. (1981).

Marco @ 47: I see what you mean about the general relevance and importance of the posting that you cited, but I'd still like to see someone of stature in science or someone of high visibility in the national media challenge Professor Happer specifically about the contrast between the very headline on his WSJ op - ed («Global warming models are wrong again») and what's asserted by this RC posting (and by Lazarus @ 31) about the retrospective reliability of Hansen et al. (1981).

Thank goodness the Trump Train has not or will not be derailed by people like McCarthy, who obviously knows - infinity (not just nothing but boundlessly and harmfully wrong) about either global warming (aka climate change) or economics.

And I've also pointed out that since I find you all to be wrong about 99 % of everything else we've discussed, I would be quite remiss, if not insane, to take your word for global warming as a hoax, or even as false.

I find concerned liberals are loath to talk about how consistently wrong climate models have been or about the «pause» in global warming that has gone on for over fifteen years, while climate skeptics avoid discussion of things like ocean acidification and accelerated melting in Greenland and the Arctic.

Although global warming strikes me as one of those issues where there is no real balance and it is wrong to create an artificial or false equivalence, there is no harm and some possibility of benefit in inviting skeptics about the human contribution and other factors to speak, but in a setting in which the context of the vast majority of scientific evidence and speakers is also made clear.

← Back to FALSE ALARM: Why Almost Everything We've Been Told About Global Warming is Misleading, Exaggerated, or Plain Wrong

In an essay «Why the Global Warming Skeptics are Wrong» in the New York Review of Books of Feb. 22, 2012, Yale professor William D. Nordhaus attempts to counter the arguments of a group of 16 prominent scientists who published an essay, «No Need to Panic about Global Warming,» in the Wall Street Journal on Jan. 27, 2012.

The end - of - the - world prognostications from the Left of global warming catastrophe that never came but, the Left never cared if they were right or wrong about that and it does not worry them that the EPA prefers politics to science.

He is wrong about why global warming took place the last half of last century.

If you are wrong about humans causing catastrophic global warming, will you give all the money you «earned» from your alarmism back?

They are stating that all of the predictions from the last couple of years about global warming causing all of this crazy weather are all wrong.

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?

I lost many of the interest in infowars, alex jones and mike adams once i realized mike cut off Dane when he was about to shed light on this issue... why wouldn't they admit they were wrong with global warming hoax... this is the real issue on global warming!

FALSE ALARM: Why Almost Everything We've Been Told About Global Warming is Misleading, Exaggerated, or Plain Wrong» Why climate science isn't «certain»: response to a reader I on 26 Sep 2010 at 12:01 pm #

It's a desperate attempt to cling to what they've claimed for quite a while, in spite of being wrong about it all along because it simply never happened: a «pause» in global warming.

(1) My almost - finished book, False Alarm: Why Almost Everything We've Been Told About Global Warming is Misleading, Exaggerated or Plain Wrong, documents many of these distortions of fact.

BUT, other important / related parameters — BRDF (bidirectional reflectance distribution function)-- albedo i. /: 00 solar local time Neural network based on CYCLOPES and MODIS / wrong ALSO Need to make assumptions about carbon lost via respiration to go from GPP to / Cox et al. (2000) Acceleration of global warming due to carbon - cycle feedbacks in a coupled / / JRC / FastOpt: http://www.fastopt.com/topics/publications.htmlhttp://www.fastopt.com/topics/publications.html 50 0 = water; 1 /

But it does mean that the IPCC's climate scientists were wrong about future global warming, and that the consensus is now changing due to actual climate reality.

«The only accurate way to report that one out of four Americans are skeptical of global warming is to say, «A poll finds that one in four Americans are wrong about something,»» Oliver said.

Another is that this article basically says that everything we've been told about how global warming works is wrong.

If the company later contradicted warnings about global warming issued by scientists it funded in the 1980s, that would be justified by the fact that those warnings were almost certainly wrong.

If people assumed a continued global warming (as the AGW promoters do now) rate of about 0.15 deg C in the 1940s, they would have been found to be wrong now as shown in the following graph.

Also, I hate to sound like a broken record (as I said this about the «Southern sea ice is increasing» page too), but I don't see why we need both this page and the one called «IPCC global warming projections were wrong,» as they both seem to cover the same topic.

Putting James Hansen aside, the whole logic that «climate scientists got it wrong in the 70's so they must be wrong now» is a flawed ad hominem argument that says nothing about the current science of anthropogenic global warming.

Kaboom — I agree about the six months: Obama will be the hope of the Western world, and Bush can be safely blamed for just about everything that has gone wrong with the planet over the last eight years (as can Global Warming, when you think about it.)

Back in the olden days, in the days when they had the sort of «stable» climate we are all now expected to aspire to, long before anyone had thunk up global warming or anything, they used to amuse themselves of an evening by singing about how natural variability is always going to happen whether the models be right or wrong.

There only purpose in requesting this data is to find something wrong with it and then demand that nothing be done about global warming.

Everyone from Al Gore to Bill McKibben has been mislead by the wrong statistical techniques, but, most importantly, not about global warming per se, but the rate of global warming.

Everything I have read since I began my research in 2007 convinces me more and more that most of what we, the public, have been told about global warming is misleading, exaggerated, or plain wrong, including the claim that the planet is warming (it hasn't since at least 1998).

Now that we have seen proof that the infamous hockey stick chart was dead wrong, the warming trend of the 90's has faded into a cooling trend, we know that CO2 forcing is a non-starter and the Arctic ice cap has returned to normal there is no evidence, no scientific case, no grounds for the continuing hype and frenzy in the media about Global Wwarming trend of the 90's has faded into a cooling trend, we know that CO2 forcing is a non-starter and the Arctic ice cap has returned to normal there is no evidence, no scientific case, no grounds for the continuing hype and frenzy in the media about Global WarmingWarming.

Not only have its models been conclusively wrong about CO2 - caused global warming over the last 15 years, but the climate models» regional predictions are often diametrically opposite of reality.

In order to wrong - foot sceptics, activist climate scientists (for that is what they must be if they are not agnostic about global warming) have had to reinterpret the evidence.

The paper was entitled «Why Models Run Hot» and sought to provide an explanation for the most salient fact about the climate - change debate: why the turn - of - the - century climate models were all wrong and failed to foresee the two - decade global - warming «pause».

Copyright © 2018 FALSE ALARM: Why Almost Everything We've Been Told About Global Warming is Misleading, Exaggerated, or Plain Wrong.

How can many, many respected, competitive, independent science folks be so wrong about [global warming](if your [skeptical] premise is correct).

That leaves the first question, which is how so many «respected, competitive, independent science folks [could] be so wrong» about the causes and dangers of global warming, assuming they are wrong.

While Christy only considered the possibility that climate models are wrong, Taylor considered three possibilities: (1) the surface temperature record is biased high, (2) a factor other than human greenhouse gas emissions is causing global warming, or (3) the «assumptions about greenhouse gas theory are wrong.»