Sentences with phrase «about skeptics like»

Just like we complain about skeptics like Pielke and Christy etc letting their work be miscontrued, Mann et al stood by after their original HS and let others treat it with the confidence that they themselves couldn't assign to it.

Not exact matches

But in some ways it's skeptics like Flagg, at Triangulum Partners, who invite the insurers to re-engage advisors and agents about the value of indexed products.

All the skeptics out there reading this, you obviously like to read so why don't you go do some real research and read the Bible to get information about Christianity or ask The Creator, God Almighty Himself.

Notional Christians are most concerned about a candidate's experience, while skeptics worry about whether a candidate seems to care about people like them.

It's like declaring modern fundamentalism the victor and conceding that the skeptics were right all along about how this whole thing was nothing more than a fad.

I've never been a skeptic, never been disillusioned with the Church or Christianity like I am now, and I've never struggled with cynicism about the Christian culture, so it all feels new and foreign and terrifying, like I don't know where this is coming from or who I am becoming in the process.

Not only do Susan Pease Gadoua and I talk about the reality of assumed monogamy in The New I Do: Reshaping Marriage for Skeptics, Realists and Rebels, but many others, like columnist and author Dan Savage, have questioned why sexual fidelity should trump stability.

As a result, Pepperberg's work has won accolades for its persuasiveness from the likes of Oxford animal behaviorist Marian Stamp Dawkins, an authority on animal consciousness and a skeptic about many studies in the field.

Sagan was a proud skeptic and wrote an excellent book on the subject, the 2500 scientists who contributed to the IPCC were skeptics, and I like to think I am also skeptical about my own ideas.

When I first heard about Hitman: Contracts I must say I was a little bit of a skeptic, it kind of sounded like a slew of missions thrown into a game.

I think the skeptics, at least over the past five years or so, were proven right with regard to the artists who are making abstract paintings that are perfect for the way they are consumed: They make a lot of them, there's a green one and a blue one and a pink one, and you can collect them all like toys in a Cracker Jack box, which is what they're all about.

Some of the reason that «the people» are not as persuaded about this as you'd like is the steady, and gradually louder, drumbeat from the skeptics.

In a few years, as we get to understand this more, skeptics will move on (just like they dropped arguments about the hockey stick and about the surface station record) to their next reason not to believe climate science.

As you might imagine, self - professed climate skeptics (most climate scientists say they are, like any scientist, implicitly skeptical), have been crowing about how this year's ice conditions are confounding both climate campaigners and climate scientists.

If the truth is that Erik Conway and / or others told Oreskes about «corrupted skeptic scientists» such as Dr S Fred Singer in mid-summer 2004, then she simply looks like she was waiting for an excuse to launch the kind of personal attack she despises.

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.

Skeptics also need to be careful about saying inconvenient things about the US dollar or they will end up like DSK.

Before the pause anybody who talked about ohc like peilke was rated a skeptic or denier.

And in addition, think about all the wasted energy the «climate community» spent mitigating the impact of «deniers,» when «skeptics» could have helped out by listening more carefully to the «climate community,» and trying to understand «the climate community's» arguments, and adding to progress on increasing our understanding of the causes of climate variability and change — rather than apologizing or ignoring the input from scientists like Fred Singer — who deliberately lifts a conditional clause from a larger sentence, divorces it completely from context, and creates a fraudulent quotation in order to deliberately deceive, or Ross McKitrick who slanders other scientists on purely speculative conclusions about their motivations, or guest - posters at WUWT who call BEST «media whores,» or the long line of denizens at Climate Etc. who falsely claim that the «climate community» ignores all uncertainties towards the goal of serving a socialist, eco-Nazi agenda to destroy capitalism.

This attitude is EXACTLY what causes unfortunate actions like the making of the 10:10 video — it is only a small step from believing, as Romm says he does, that skeptics are «trying to destroy a liveable climate» to making a movie that jokes about killing them all (or, to be frank, to feeling justified in acts of eco-terrorism).

And the ones that do are called «climatologists» and are conducting their work right alongside all the other climatologists and are talking about the actual weaknesses of the theories and data, which unfortunately for the «skeptics» turns out to be a lot less than they'd like to think.

So no need to appeal to the usual, debunked «skeptic» talking points about urban heat island effects and the like, in order to explain lack of amplification over land.

And then lied about it when pressed on the issue and backdated your response to make it look like you revealed the information before skeptics figured it out?

It was a member of the «team» in one of the climategate e-mails who was fantasizing about how to beat up skeptics he did not like.

It's funny that despite all the skeptics whining about chartmanship and graphs they have been totally unable to stop the likes of Easterbrook pushing this zombie argument.

Declarations that skeptic climate scientists knowingly lie about the certainty of man - caused global warming as paid shills of the fossil fuel industry appear devastating...... but dig deep into the details, and all those claims look more like a «Keystone Kops - style» farce.

I don't like the skeptic argument of «science isn't about consensus», meaning that we can just ignore any and all consensuses, that they don't give better than chance outcomes.

Other feedbacks like clouds, (poleward and deep) convection may alter that in positive or negative ways, but that is exactly what the current debate between skeptics and warmers is about.

A rather wooly - headed theory about how science should be used to inform political debate was rapidly bent into a hammer for «skeptics» to pummel any scientist they didn't like.

Skeptics are not crybabies about comments like the alarmist crowd is.

What I love most about «skeptics» is that they say that they don't doubt that ACO2 might warm the climate — they only have questions about the certainty related to the magnitude of the effect, but then they turn around and offer an argument like AK's that effectively argue that there is no scientific basis for reducing the uncertainties related to the magnitude of the effect.

Anyway, I look forward to you asking for more precise language when «skeptics» talk about «fraud climate scientists» advancing their «socialist agenda» via an «AGW cabal» — certainly rhetoric that sounds like «conspiratorial gibberish,» don't you think?

Joshua, go learn the science so you, like me, can dismiss the silly things andy says about skeptics and focus on the science.

It has already been pointed out that if he in the same article speaks about something like skeptics in such an incredibly ignorant fashion, why should his science be any less so?

Headlines like «2014: The Most Dishonest Year on Record» have been posted on climate skeptic blogs, such as Watts Up With That, and a commentator for the popular British newspaper The Daily Mail all but accused NASA of lying to the press and the public about global temperatures, despite the open discussion of uncertainties both in NASA's press materials and during a press conference with audio that is publicly accessible.

Besides, warmists can perfectly debunk that claim about no increase in the nonsensical «global temperature» fake skeptics like so much.

Scientists usually end up saying denier because they only really hear about those denying CO2 is a GHG and that the earth is warming, and they don't like skeptic (because they are themselves skeptical) and other terms haven't stuck.

Dr Tamsin Edwards: «Scientists usually end up saying denier because they only really hear about those denying CO2 is a GHG and that the earth is warming, and they don't like skeptic (because they are themselves skeptical) and other terms haven't stuck.

They want to know about my interactions with skeptics, like I was the first person to walk on the moon or something.

Hence skeptics are extremely adamant there was a very cold and global little ice age, but from the other side of their mouth they will rubbish all lines of evidence like tree ring reconstructions and the instrumental record that are needed to make such an adamant claim about the little ice age.

The above «Climate of Doubt» program qualifies as such with its blatant insinuation about skeptics corrupted by illicit money, as does its prior 2008 program «Heat», in which only unidentified skeptic scientists were shown while the narrator said «Not only have big oil companies not invested much in renewables, but for years they were among the largest contributors to so - called climate change denier groups, groups like the Heartland Institute, the organizer of this 2008 convention.»

I'm not going to hand - wring and pearl - clutch and moan from my fainting couch (I just got a new one, btw) about McKtrick — but I will point out that until folks like Judith and other «skeptics» (and «realists) are less selective in their «outrage,» nothing will change.

For all the concern about the paper, and the rhetoric of the authors (some of which I think is ligit, btw), and the reaction of the authors to the criticism — for all the hand - wringing, pearl clutching, and moaning from fainting couches, what we get in the end from «skeptics» is something like this — a comment I'm borrowing from Climateaudit:

The scientists are defending the UNFCCC and IPCC as part and parcel of the same thing, and a climate scientist that is concerned about climate change but not supporting the UNFCCC policies (like myself) gets lumped into various categories like skeptic, etc (see the doubt post).

It like, when it comes to questioning the statistical expertise and scientific bona fides of Mann and his sycophants and their apocryphal «hockey stick,» the Left demands that skeptics should employ the principles of the scientific method before they are even entitled to an opinion about whether rotten fish really do stink.

Watch the global warming issue zooming by in a superficial manner and all the horrific claims — increasingly extreme weather events, imperiled polar bear populations, skeptics who are paid to lie about the truth of all of this — sound like they are true.

Behind closed doors, climate scientists talk like real people (skeptics), in a way no parroting True Believer would have ever had nightmares about.

Skeptics don't like to say any science is «settled» but as Joshua pointed out, they often say «most skeptics would agree...» which implies that some things are settled in climate science, and there is probably about half a dozen of these things that they would agree with the mainstreaSkeptics don't like to say any science is «settled» but as Joshua pointed out, they often say «most skeptics would agree...» which implies that some things are settled in climate science, and there is probably about half a dozen of these things that they would agree with the mainstreaskeptics would agree...» which implies that some things are settled in climate science, and there is probably about half a dozen of these things that they would agree with the mainstream about.

Unless people like this are part of the defined model skeptic, then papers about scepticism will miss the mark.»

Tie this all together, and what we have is Gelbspan's central bit of «evidence» not proving a sinister industry directive exists where skeptic climate scientists are paid to lie, and the collective narratives about what led him to investigate skeptics has too short of a timeline to be feasible, with details so inconsistent that it looks more like a fabrication hiding the true details of the entire situation.