... those who are absolutely certain that the rise in temperatures is due solely to carbon dioxide have no scientific justification. It's pure guesswork.
Global warming doesn't care what's in your bank account." -Sinead Starling
There is much debate in the scientific community as to the precise sources of global warming.
I'm often asked whether I believe in Global Warming. I now just reply with the question: "Do you believe in Gravity?"
Global warming is controversial, of course, but the controversy is mainly over whether human activity is driving it.
Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.
Sticking your head in the sand might make you feel safer, but it’s not going to protect you from the coming storm.
We pull out of the ground death, we burn death in our power plants, and then we act shocked when we get death in the form of oil spills and global warming.
The climate change debate is basically not about science; it is about ideology. It is not about global temperature; it is about the concept of human society. It is not about nature or scientific ecology; it is about environmentalism, about one - recently born - dirigistic and collectivistic ideology, which goes against freedom and free markets.
Personally, I have already turned down the Downing St thermostat by 1 degree
Global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter.
Global warming my gluteus maximus
I hope to contribute to a global warming of hearts and a climate change in human consciousness.
Scientists like Bjorn Lomborg in The Skeptical Environmentalist have, in my opinion, properly nailed environmental extremists for these exaggerated scenarios.
Today, we can see with our own eyes what global warming is doing. In that context it becomes truly irresponsible, if not immoral, for us not to do something.
Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.
No matter what Donald Trump says, it's clear that global warming is rapidly changing conditions on our planet.
Global warming has long since passed from scientific hypothesis to the realm of pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo.
I am convinced that policies meant to reduce alleged carbon dioxide-induced global warming will be destructive.
There is no global warming problem, there isn't going to be a global warming problem. Sit back and enjoy the sunshine.
The right response to the non-problem of global warming is to have the courage to do nothing.
I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process [IPCC process] that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.
Ideology on which the Kyoto Protocol is based, is a new form of totalitarian ideology, along with Marxism, Communism and socialism.
Unless we stop dumping 70 million tons of global warming pollution into the atmosphere every 24 hours, which we are doing right now ... the continued acceleration of this pollution would destroy the future of human civilization.
There is a movement of more people recognizing global warming as a danger, recognizing the human contribution to global warming, recognizing the necessity for doing something about it. So there's a trend in that direction, and that trend is consistent with what a climate swerve - which is, as we're both saying, a mindset.
