My first inclination is to be a bit skeptical about the claims that human-produced carbon dioxide is the direct contributor to global warming.
The Senate came one vote short of granting approval to build the Keystone pipeline. Democrats say the pipeline could accelerate global warming. Then people who've been outside today said, 'Sounds good to me. Let's accelerate that global warming.'
I drove an electric car for seven years because of its advanced technology, not because I have any concerns about energy resources. I have none at all. And when environmentalists say that global warming is dangerous, unprecedented and that we'll have a tipping point for atmospheric carbon dioxide, it's just nonsense.
Sensible policies on global warming should weight the costs of slowing climate change against the benefits of slower climate change. Ironically, recent policy initiatives, such as the Kyoto Protocol of 1997, have been introduced without any attempt to link the emissions controls with the benefits of the lower emissions.
Kyoto costs a lot, does nothing to prevent calamity, and pays no compensation in the event of loss. If my insurance broker offered that sort of policy, I would not carry insurance. Instead what my broker offers is a policy that costs a little and pays full compensation in the event of loss. If someone wants to propose that as a policy on global warming, I'm all in favour.
What we need to do is stop global warming; that's the only way to stop your peanut butter cups from melting... And if that doesn't do the trick, then put them in the fridge... Or better yet, eat them.
Christians and Muslims can still get along. On issues such as global warming and helping the poor.
We know it (meat eating) is indisputably the number one cause of global warming. So what does it mean exactly to be an environmentalist on a daily basis if you are not thinking about the number one cause of global warming or one of the top two or three causes of all other environmental problems? Does it mean you are necessarily someone who doesn't care about the environment? Obviously not, but it might mean you have a blind spot for something big.
Global warming isn't real because I was cold today! Also great news: world hunger is over because I just ate.
We are about half a century away from being ecologically and economically bankrupt because of global warming
Climate is not responding to greenhouse gases in the way we thought it might. If increasing carbon dioxide is in fact increasing climate change, its impact is smaller than natural variation. People are being misled by people making money out of this.
Non-believers in the greenhouse scenario are in the position of those long ago who doubted the existence of God ... fortunately for them, the Inquisition is no longer with us!
Is the warming unprecedented? Probably not. There is abundant historical and proxy evidence for both hotter and cooler periods in human history. Is it our fault? Again, maybe. The correlation of increasing warmth with increasing carbon dioxide concentrations is particularly weak; that with solar energy and with ocean movements is much stronger.
We are running out of time, we must have a planetary solution to a planetary crisis.
We are now running out of time.
Humankind has suddenly entered into a brand new relationship with our planet. Unless we quickly and profoundly change the course of our civilization, we face an immediate and grave danger of destroying the worldwide ecological system that sustains life as we know it.
Are we likely to see rising sea-levels? Not in our lifetimes or hose of our grandchildren. It is not even clear that sea-levels have risen at all. As so often in this domain, there is conflicting evidence. The melting of polar or sea ice has no direct effect.
Global warming is such a politically charged issue that we are losing our perspective on the issue and more importantly losing an open forum from which to discuss the issue. If we lose the right or comfort level to openly discuss and debate this issue we will not be able to tackle it efficiently and economically.
How reliable are the computer [climate] models on which possible future climates are based? Not very. All will agree that the task of modeling climate is vast, because of the estimates that have to be made and the rubbery quality of much of the data.
Several decades ago, a detachment of the American right cut itself loose from reason, and it has been drifting along happily ever since. If the birthers are more evidently kooky than the global-warming "skeptics" or the death-panellers or the supply-siders or the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, they are, in their fundamental disregard for the facts, actually mainstream.
I think about our planet. I mean how to make it a better planet. The global warming issue is a concern to me very much. Just make the world a better, happier place. It's our home. I'd like to see us do a better job of taking care of it.
I consider the concept of a global mean temperature to be somewhat dubious. A single number cannot adequately capture climate c hange. This number, as I see it, is aimed mostly at politicians and journalists.
There is no doubt there is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, caused by the burning of fossil fuels. It should have an effect on the climate, but the numbers indicate that effect is relatively minor.
Too many journalists and scientists have built their careers on the global-warming alarm. Certain newspapers have staked their reputation on it. The death of this theory will be painful and ugly. But it will die. Because it is wrong, wrong, wrong.
Time is running out for nature and wildlife around the world
Follow AzQuotes on Facebook, Twitter and Google+. Every day we present the best quotes! Improve yourself, find your inspiration, share with friends
or simply: