Sentences with phrase «agw denialists»

It is precisely because Al Gore has been so effective a persuader that he has been subject to so much unwarranted criticism by AGW denialists; and you can be sure his receipt of a Nobel Prize will have increased his persuasiveness to uncommitted readers.

Edward Greisch (# 62), I disagree with your argument, if only because most published AGW denialists, creationists, and even geocentrists could pass the Engineering & Sciences Core Curriculum.

Replacing «Bush» with AGW denialists, and «Democrats» with climate scientists, would make this an accurate representation of journalism on climate research.

I should add that AGW denialists are in the same camp as creationists because they willfully disbelieve science they do not understand so that they can rationalize closely held, pig - headed beliefs which only serve to preserve the status quo.

1) A paper was published in a peer reviewed journal with data that was viewed by AGW denialists as proof of their viewpoint.

Ironically, the religious professors of geology from the 1800s would now be the AGW denialists, and the individual scientists whose field work contradicted the biblical tale would be the accepters of AGW today.

I can almost always predict what silly reasoning AGW denialists will use, because I'm already familiar with the reasoning used by AIDS denialists and other science denialists (such as young Earth creationists); Denialists tend draw on the same pool of tactics.

People who tell what errors cAGW theories have, are almost always greeted as AGW denialists.

That's why the AGW denialists, like creationists, and denialists of other varieties, are forever pressing for verbal debates.

I also suggested that the ones thinking that a very small chance of something going wrong in the LHC being enough to stop it go to the AGW denialists and tell them that even a small chance of catastrophe MUST be avoided.

As for me, I threw out an idle suggestion that AGW denialists may be more aptly compared with HIV denialists than with flat - earthers.

Not exact matches

Denialists get everything else that isn't straight AGW stuff.

As our stubborn AGW - denialists can see, their «right» to «speak out» on RC is unabridged under US law.

As others have said, the paper is already being used to excuse denialists» delusions despite the fact that the authors, themselves, say clearly that their paper does not contradict AGW and should not be used to assert it does.

There is no such clash between modern physics and climate science; rather, AGW sceptics (even those few who may still deserve that title rather than «denialist») are in the position of Darwin's opponents in biology and geology — desperately hopping from one will - o» - the - wisp objection to another, without any sign of an overarching theory.

Skeptical Science's list, with points assigned to individual AGW - denialist arguments, could be a place to start.

This really is the problem: Mr. IAT is once again rebunking the denialist meme that AGW can't be a globally urgent problem if climate scientists don't voluntarily internalize the marginal climate - change cost of their private fossil carbon emissions.

It seems clear that the UHI effect is a real physical effect and the complaint from AGW skeptics and denialists is that the strong (and real) warming in urban areas is contaminating regional and global temperature averages.

It would be good to show the vast volume of work done in climate science supporting the concept of AGW, as some names (and the IPCC) are getting a bit worn over time through having their work (only) seemingly tarnished by the denialist camp.

Indeed Victor is presenting a denialist's myopic version of AGW.

However, two are from journalists (I'm not sure what a discussion of ocean warming below 2000m has to do with the price of cheese, mind), one a quote from a piece written by a NASA employee interviewing a climatologist, and KKTung is some sort of misguided mathmatics professor and very denialist in his approach to AGW.

# 125 MARodger: «However, two are from journalists (I'm not sure what a discussion of ocean warming below 2000m has to do with the price of cheese, mind), one a quote from a piece written by a NASA employee interviewing a climatologist, and KKTung is some sort of misguided mathmatics professor and very denialist in his approach to AGW.

Do you think it's respectable to rebunk undead AGW - denialist memes long since decisively debunked by working climate scientists?

Why do you continue to assert some 10 % of the people as «denialist fringe» of AGW, when even Andy states that firm skeptics are a number more like 20 % and that this information is taken from Al Gores «We» organization, which fails to count any of the undecided vast middle of their own non-committed 73 % as being skeptics?

It is basically the same reason that denialists inaccurately predicted McCain / Palin would win the presidential election, and put an end to all this AGW carbon cap and trade soc - ialist scientific conspiracy nonsense — noise generated by Limbaugh, Beck, WUWT, and various other political butterflies swirled chaotically throughout the dittosphere, preventing accurate rational assessment of the intermediate term political climate.

This flawed logic is remarkably similar to climate denialists finding some problem with some detail of agw theory, and telling us the whole thing is therefore invalidated.

And regarding AGW I am not a denialist, I look at all the available data, but NASA's and the NOAA data is very clear.

On the Keenlyside paper and the denialosphere, the denialists seem to think Keenlyside and the RC group are on opposing sides as to AGW.

I think a while back the skeptics and denialists were actually using the cooling in the stratosphere (or perhaps some other part of the atmosphere) to claim AGW was not happening.

I also remember making an argument, similar to Stephen's (# 3), when denialists would confront me with that cooling evidence as proof AGW wasn't real.

Thanks, though, for adding more evidence to the side of the «denialists,» since they now have another name they can add to their argument that AGW supporters are trying to bring in a new type of fascist regime or trying to have them silenced.

I've wondered why these denialists rant and rave about alarmism yet in their attacks on the IPCC and AGW science they say

I guess in your «denialist» point of view none of the public can have a well educated argument against AGW.

From the denialist point of view, they wonder what has taken over the brains of the AGW proponents to make them so committed to their life destroying hypothesis.

The lying by AGW promoters about funding of «denialists» is typical of cynical non-factual sales efforts.

One thing I think people forget about the denialists is that they never, ever let any AGW issue get clouded with facts.

owls001, most of the dogmatic certainty I see on AGW is amongst the denialists.

Everytime AGW is mentioned in an article that allows comments the first batch will always be the denialists repeating the same discredited talking points and heaping abuse on anyone who excepts the science.

Chris MCV wrote: ``... then it devolves into AGW promoters and Denialists debates... People will look at the debate and decide nobody knows whats going on...»

When you say that money is better spent on the problems of poverty and health (even though AGW is true) you are branded as a denialist.

This so - called response team is nothing more than an organized attempt to squash those pesky denialist scum and to defend by any means available AGW promoters.

Chris is now deploying the AGW wack - a-mole defense: When things are going the way believers want, the IPCC is the paragon of climate science and those who dispute that are denialist scum.

Now, taking even the most wildly optimistic statement of certainty of AGW — the «very likely (> 90 % probability) stated by IPCC in AR4, this hardy makes AGW a «fact» such as gravity, and thus subject to the pejorative denialist label (Catastrophic AGW and effectiveness of mitigations would have certainty far far below this 90 %).

While the core science supporting AGW is sound, easily understandable and accepted even by a large number in the denialist camp (although not everyone), which is that the direct response to a doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial levels can be expected to increase global temperatures by approximately 1.2 C, plus or minus some small uncertainity.

I don't know if the moderators will permit my previous «philosophical» comment which was verbosely critical of Objectivism, but in defense of Objectivism in the context of AGW denialism, it is my observation that the overwhelming majority of denialists who claim or appear to be «ideologically opposed to various scientific discoveries» are not operating on the basis of any such intellectual framework as Objectivism.

I think we can accept that peoples political position influences their views on AGW, there seems to be a high correlation between conservative politics and having a denialist perspective, and also between liberal politics and having an alarmist perspective, but why?

Sigh, Doug, there are three sides in the AGW debate; I believe Alarmists and Denialists are both driven by politics, the mainstream, which includes you and I, as you say, is based on the physical science.

To denialists the proposed changes to address AGW (Kyoto) can be seen as such a mechanism.

There is extraordinary passion displayed by both alarmists and denialists in the AGW debate, it's a topic that I think can be traced back to how our instincts affect the way we interact in society.

For me the question is are the paid denialists you mention fully are aware weather is not climate, (and that agw is real in general) or do they believe weather is actually climate, because agw is a liberal scam by definition, so don't believe anyone who tries to tell you weather and climate are different.