Sentences with phrase «against skeptic»

Much like Bernie Madoff's ponzi scheme, this scheme, with its constant infusions of material that could be libel / slander against skeptic climate scientists, was also doomed to fail from the start, built on a foundation of sand about its core «evidence» that was pushed by a person who never won a Pulitzer, and whose narratives don't line up right.

Rep. Don Beyer could have kept his mouth shut on who is writing rebuttals to use against skeptic climate scientists.

Some of you might recognize one of its top bloggers, anti-skeptic book author Ross Gelbspan, a guy who has been blogging at the site against skeptic scientists since Jan 2006, just three months after the site was created.

I barely scratched the surface in my June 8, 2013 blog post about the way the central illicit funding accusation against skeptic climate scientists — in its successful media traction form — traces to Ross Gelbspan.

And as I've noted on several times, Ozone Action and Ross Gelbspan sure appear to be the epicenter of the fossil fuel industry corruption accusation against skeptic climate scientists.

When the best argument against a skeptic is to insult them, it just reinforces the fact that the skeptics are right.

The first link in my article takes readers to a prior one where I show how the very same Sheldon Rampton appeared before a US House hearing and regurgitated an accusation phrase against skeptic scientists that was made famous by anti-skeptic book author Ross Gelbspan and the enviro - advocacy group Ozone Action in 1996 - 7 — these people have every appearance of being the epicenter of the accusation that skeptic scientists operate under a coal / oil industry directive to fabricate false assessments in exchange for mega-millions...... an accusation that has no evidence to support it that I can find, and its central piece of evidence is a 1991 coal industry memo that no one is allowed to see in its complete context.

Given all that I've dug up on the origins of the «industry - corrupted skeptic climate scientists» accusation, I'd call it a can't - lose wager if you bet that the «e-mail message circulated at a U.S. climate research lab» which Myanna Lahsen referred to owes its «funded by the oil and coal industry» accusation against skeptic climate scientists to Gelbspan / Ozone Action.

I'm not against the skeptic (with supporting arguments) because it provides for a healthy debate.

Start dissecting their narratives, comparing them side - by - side while looking for physical evidence corroborating Ross Gelbspan's «industry corruption» accusation against skeptic climate scientists, and a very different picture becomes clear: these people's narratives don't line up right, they collectively have no evidence backing up their accusation, and this prompts serious questions of whether core leaders of the global warming movement are totally oblivious to this situation, or if they knew their narratives had no merit from the start.

To recap: Ross Gelbspan accuses a prominent skeptic scientist of being involved in a global warming «misinformation campaign», and he claims a key «leaked memo» phrase he supposedly found is the smoking gun evidence for his overall accusation against skeptic scientists.

His own citations only seem to fuel the fire regarding a enviro - activist misinformation campaign against skeptic climate scientists that's entirely based on just one single set of worthless evidence.

All are enslaved to Gelbspan's accusation against skeptic scientists, as I detailed in a 2012 WUWT guest post.

that the «writers (at RealClimaet.org) try again and again to concoct what appears to be deep critiques against skeptic arguments, but end up doing a very shallow job.

they might dare to question whether his entire accusation narrative against skeptic climate scientists has any merit

Shaviv, who calls the website «Wishfulclimate.org,» noted that the «writers (at RealClimaet.org) try again and again to concoct what appears to be deep critiques against skeptic arguments, but end up doing a very shallow job.

For people like Borenstein, the one last thing to ask in this whole exercise is what the breaking point must be for him and other mainstream media reporters regarding their faith in Gelbspan's ability to defend his basic accusation against skeptic climate scientists and all his narratives surrounding it.

One that ends up being a case study of how any given corruption accusation lodged against skeptic climate scientists is separated from Ross Gelbspan by three degrees or less.

And that enviro - activists» collective accusation against skeptic climate scientists might backfire under tough scrutiny, potentially exposing them — Shabecoff, Gelbspan, Naomi Oreskes, «Greenpeace USA née Ozone Action,» and Al Gore — as people engaging in the kind of racketeering action they claim is being done by the fossil fuel companies?

I use the word «authority» loosely here in the case of Hertsgaard, as he, like the UCS, is really nothing more than yet another person enslaved to the accusation against skeptic climate scientists most famously first seen in Ross Gelbspan's 1997 book.

when Gore was using those documents as a weapon against skeptic climate scientists in 1992..

Today I offer this post as a «Summary for Policymakers» regarding my series of seven prior blog posts about a smear effort which took place back in 2007 that is a case study for examining other prior and current industry corruption accusations against skeptic climate scientists.

So, in brief descriptions, here are items having massive appearance problems in Dave Rado's Ofcom complaint, coupled with what to look for in any similar complaint lodged against skeptic climate scientists.

But that will have to wait for other posts, while the basic point comes down to this: no matter which angle Gelbspan's accusation against skeptic climate scientists is viewed, it is full of holes.

It does nothing to alleviate the appearance of any prominent accusation against skeptic climate scientists being separated from Gelbspan by three degrees or less.

The associations I point to among the man - caused global warming promoters is really just a secondary problem, with the relevance being simply to amplify the core problem: nobody corroborates the corruption accusation against skeptic scientists, and it has been devoid of evidence to prove it true from its inception.

Maybe the people who feel guilty about doubting Jesus will displace their anger at themselves against any skeptic that raises the possibility and causes the doubts to resurface.

Internally, Bannon was his biggest defender against skeptics who accused him of holding anti-Semitic views and playing up his intellectual status by insisting on going by «Dr. Sebastian Gorka.»

Against the skeptics, no fewer than five doctors declared there was «no medical explanation» of the healing attributed to Mother Teresa.

After the stunning victory, one of the scientists on the side promoting the belief in a climate «crisis» appeared to concede defeat by noting his debate team was «pretty dull» and at «a sharp disadvantage» against the skeptics.

The post is «Climate Hawks Go on Offense Against Skeptics, but Impact Uncertain.»

Yet somehow the military make some alleged climate related study and suddenly some see the military as taking sides against the skeptics.

I find it rather rich that you are defending funding, but hold it against skeptics as being «biased» such as getting an honorarium from the Heartland Institute.

What your comments do indicate however is your extreme bias against those skeptics such as myself who accept AGW as provisionally true and your rather arrogant general attitude which begins to reveal an emotional attachment to this issue, calling into question your own objectivity.

Naomi Oreskes admitted to a congressional panel in June 2016 that she «was invited about a year or so ago to New York to speak to the staff» of Schneiderman, who spearheaded the legal attack against skeptics.

Find me a statute that could be used against skeptics, you won't find any.

Possibly, but likely more appropriate is Mann's accusation against skeptics.

Reconciliation will be difficult so long as you and others on the left fail to express doubt or remorse over the errors, exaggerations, and unethical tactics that continue to be used against skeptics.

Today Gore's whiney foul mouthed diatribe against skeptics and how he can not push his AGW vision without dispute has gone viral on the internet.

Certainly AGW promoters have wasted no effort in calling for legal actions against skeptics.

What did they all know about the worthlessness of the «corrupt skeptics» accusation in their current push to use RICO laws against skeptics, and when did they know it?

Wouldn't want to end up on a list of «alarmist psycho rants» against skeptics, would ya.

I am actually very sensitive to abuse from warmists directed against skeptics, often complain about it, and do my utmost never to reciprocate when targeted by skeptics myself.

joining Mann in the fight against skeptics, striking his own blow in the fight?

Curry gives that a free pass too, and accuses anyone of bringing that up of waging a «holy war» against skeptics.

And how much higher do the faults in his overall accusation against skeptics have to pile up before the whole thing collapses?

Plenty of personal attacks have been lodged against the skeptics too.

Unfortunately he got away with all of this because, as usual, the ABC had stacked the panel and the audience against the skeptics.

If you're interested in seeing what playing the player instead of the ball looks like, check out the alarmist site Only In It For the Gold, where Michael Tobis unleashes endless vicious ad hominem against any skeptics who raise their voice (his most recent was a long diatribe against Freeman Dyson, whom he apparently considers a geriatric buffoon), and opens threads on what names one should call «denialists», regularly bans commenters who argue a point too vociferously, or anyone claiming scientific credentials but arguing against «the consensus».

Not exact matches

He also relies heavily on claims made by human rights groups and the United Nations in supporting his case against the Assad regime — claims that some skeptics have said are made with zero verification.