Sentences with phrase «agw sceptic»

I am an AGW sceptic from life experience.

I am sorry to say to my fellow Greens that I am now an AGW sceptic.

I am an AGW sceptic and I did not participate in, let alone see Lewandowsky's survey in 2010.

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.

There are plenty of AGW sceptics out there who come from a wide range of intellectual angles.

Once you give examples a meaningful discussion can take place, however unfortunately for the AGW sceptics once this happens and you cut through the smokescreens, inaccuracies etc. there isn't a great deal left.

It would be an irrevocable black mark on us who are AGW sceptics.

We AGW sceptics have been desperately seeking «an ounce of evidence» that CO2 is the problem the UNIPCC would have us believe so perhaps you can supply answers to the following:

Well James realclimate seem to take posts from other AGW sceptics as long as they behave themselves, were you a naughty boy;)?

While I consider myself as sceptical about AGW I am also sceptical of many of the anti AGW sceptics as well.

IPCC = Ecclesiastical Council ARs = Documents of belief and dogma Publishing Scientists = Prophets and false prophets Climate Science = Church AGW adherents = Laity AGW sceptics = Heathens Climate Scientist's Doubts = Crisis of Faith Climate Scientist who holds a dogma to be false = Heretic

Nick — further to my above response I am of the view that most armchair AGW sceptics have little clue about the issues just as most armchair energy policy sceptics and armchair free trade sceptics have little clue.

Richard like other religions it also uses the concepts like «heretics» used for those that fail to believe in the «right way» and creation of «evil «which explains way they need to paint AGW sceptics as not merely wrong but «mad or bad» And above all its amazing how often the word «belief» are seen in what is supposed to be science.

On the other hand, if the AGW sceptics were mostly ordinary people who fear the anti-energy, anti-development agenda of the Green radicals, they would become less prominent due to the weakening of the enemy.

Indeed — if Big Oil / Big Gas wants to fund political stooges to protect its profits, it would make more sense to fund anti-nuclear-power campaigners, rather than AGW sceptics.

Not exact matches

By closing the argument on the theory of AGW from the start and going as far as calling sceptics «Holocaust deniers» the «Warmers» have raised the stakes against themselves.

I received interesting comments from AGW proponents and sceptics alike which showed an astonishing range of differing interpretations and understandings of the greenhouse effect none of which bore much relation to the actuality.

The panel included notorious cimate sceptic Richard Lindzen, and yet, in spite of his contribution, the panels worrying conclusions about AGW and its impacts went well beyond those of the IPCC.

There are many interesting comments from proponents of human caused climate change (AGW or anthropogenic global warming) and from sceptics which show an astonishing range of differing interpretations and understandings of the so called Greenhouse Effect none of which bear much relation to the actuality.

Ironically it is always us sceptics who accuse the AGW warmers of not really understanding the biospheric environment they profess to be constantly hugging.

There is a lot of room for the sceptics between this position and H1: AGW (it obviously narrows as the confidence levels reduce, but so does what is being claimed on either side).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't «recent cold and snowy winters» used as evidence by Judith's climate change denier friends, sorry sceptics, that AGW isn't really happening after all?

If you widen the gap between H1: AGW and H1: ~ AGW then as you infer there is more room for the sceptic.

A sceptic doesn't consider that H0: AGW has been rejected with 90 % confidence, that is all.

For both sceptics or AGWs it is the long term data that tell the facts: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CO2-dBz.htm http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/dBz.htm

So the sceptics should try and falsify AGW and the GE.

In which case, a story reporting James Hansen's claim that global warming will «result in a rise in sea level measured in metres within a century» will be put in the AGW dominant / exclusive categories, while a story along the lines of «global warming unlikely to cause significant problems to New York City in the near future» will find itself in one of the sceptic categories — even though the latter is closer than the former to the IPCC position.

The vagueness of the AGW presentation wouldn't be a problem, we beleive, if the presentation of the debate by the likes of Stewart was not as one characterised by goodies and baddies — «scientists» and «sceptics» respectively.

I am neither a climate sceptic, nor an AGW believer, nor an agnostic on the subject.

Well, I enjoyed it, for its absurdity, and for its lumping together genuine AGW deniers with impact and policy sceptics, and adaptationists.

I have encountered much confusion about the relevance of so called diabatic and adiabatic processes in the minds of both alarmed proponents of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) and in the minds of many sceptics.

THE word «sceptic» has come to be associated with anyone who does not subscribe to the consensus view on anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

I have been following agw as a sceptic for several years now and I can honestly say that George Monbiot saying this is without doubt the most stunning and amazing thing I have heard.

A lot of sceptics think the AGW hypothesis is sufficiently falsified already, so the «urgency» clause does not pertain, and so «special treatment» of the issue is not required.

If Hansen accepts that, there is no major argument between we sceptics and the AGW advocates.

I was intrigued by the timeline of this story since it struck me that if a high profile sceptic had been the first to point out this error then that could have been very damaging to the «politics prior the science» AGW believers.

Scientists themselves are the greatest sceptics and if there any holes in the AGW theories and / or climate models then they will be discussed publicly.

1) you already answered this one; you are a true sceptic, ready to acknowledge AGW as soon as you see evidence thereof.

Also, when «sceptics» object to the dominant behaviour of CGM in teh AGW theory, they always get thrown back that the theory rests on much more.

Being a sceptic of AGW I don't care what this guy is saying, on the one hand.

3) Given that a true sceptic should concede some role for AGW (L1), given that climate variation is a cause for alarm as such, would you support a climate policy based on some cap and trade, assistance for adaptation, REDD, climate research funding?

The guy is not a sceptic of AGW, just critical of the IPCC.

But if as Kevin Trenberth argues that for every «1 degree Celsius sea surface temperature anomalies gives 10 to 15 percent increase in rainfall», then the science is correct about AGW and the sceptics are just raving on.

Warmists at least partially justify their AGW hypothesis on the basis that sceptics haven't come up with something better.

In any case, there's no denying that you have gathered a very comprehensive collection of explanations, generally backed by pertinent links, for most arguments AGW - sceptics may come up with.

Also, perhaps a more open - ended question would be what does he think the average sceptic MEANS when they say «I am sceptical about AGW, or CAGW, or the consensus position on climate sensitivity, or IPCC statements, or the possibility of mitigation...»

I have a dialog on another blog about AGW, And oneof the sceptics claims that there is not enough CO2 being added to the atmosphere to make a difference.

I've been trying very hard not to fall into either the «sceptic» or «AGW believer» camp over this - my comments have been intended ONLY as informed comment on the code itself and the problems that code like that can create.

Now it may well be that the scientists themselves have good and solid arguments (I don't know, I've never managed to get that far), but most non-technical «lay» sceptics judge AGW by the people who they meet arguing for it.

There are few things funded ($) in the world as AGW science and green economy, and Gleick attempted to demonstrate (by a fraud) that sceptics are funded by bigoils.