Sentences with phrase «against skeptics who»

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».

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.»

Not exact matches

People who blithely go through life too busy or indifferent to ask hard questions about why they believe as they do will find themselves defenseless against either the experience of tragedy or the probing questions of a smart skeptic.

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.

Frank Field and Michael Portillo both said tat it would be better for Scotland to go independent, Michael gove was described last year in a spectator article as the greatest leader Labours never had, portillos first political hero was Harold Wilson, and black Tory lord John Taylor said of Portillo that he was just pretending to be Thatcherite to further his career in the 80's So to take the view that there are some non Blairite, non Corbyinsta, EU skeptics who appeal to the Socially conservative, yet Social democrat view of politics, what was needed was a 42 year old, Admirer of Frank field and Michael Portillo, who was against Iraq, voted leave, and didn't back David miliband for leader in 2010

Bill Hare, who leads a group of top climate scientists and economists at Berlin - based Climate Analytics who helped produce the UNEP gap report, said Geden's accusations «could not be more wrong» and lumped the researcher in with climate skeptics and other naysayers «who systematically downplay the risks of climate change and argue against action to reduce emissions on spurious and ill - founded grounds.»

I was one of the curious skeptics who heeded the call and came to the 92nd Street Y. Writing about the brain and other scientific subjects had given me a strong immune defense against hype.

This is not a debate between rational scientists and some well meaning group of honest skeptics who use honest logic and honest reason to formulat honest arguments against the science.

This is contributing to all of us going down the tubes together as a result of global warming skeptics and deniers who are playing around with the well known casino rule of «gambler's ruin» by always betting against the house.

There are right ways and wrong ways for scientists to fight back against the climate skeptics who are trying to confuse the public about global warming.

We / I am labelling those who are not skeptics, but who have an irrational and prejudiced disbelief against GW.

The purveying of propositions like these by a few scientists who do or should know better — and their parroting by amateur skeptics who lack the scientific background or the motivation to figure out what's wrong with them — are what I was inveighing against in the op - ed and will continue to inveigh against.

Invited to speak at a similar Vatican event in 2015, Jerry Brown, a darling of Planned Parenthood, railed against climate - change skeptics, calling them well - financed «troglodytes» who are determined to «bamboozle» the gullible.

-- Once again, I wonder whether the physicists, those most attuned to hard and serious science, are the ones to save science from cargo cultists, for it is the physicists who speak out against the orthodox, the physicists who are skeptics of incredible, unproven, untested (or worse, tested and failed) claims.

And thanks to you, and Mr Watts, and probably many others from skeptic camp who can not accept the idea that AGWers are taking no chances in this fight against opponents of their «new religion».

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.

Here is a list of skeptics who have lost money betting against computer climate models.

As they tend to do from time to time in an effort to distract from the climate science consensus, a group of scientists who are also climate «skeptics» have published an opinion - editorial (op - ed), trying to make the case against taking action to address climate change.

Others discussed how to deal with skeptics, some displaying a hostility to contrarians that seemed surprising to people who haven't followed the growing nastiness of the fight against global - warming science, which has come to resemble the fights over abortion and evolution.

So now the question is no longer about what would have prompted questions about skeptic scientists» funding to come up at «an obscure utility hearing in Minnesota», it's about why an assistant A.G. would insert material into a public hearing against some of its expert science witnesses concerning an industry corruption insinuation based on a suggestion coming from a private citizen who had nothing to do with the topic at all just eight or so weeks earlier.

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.

Those who push using RICO laws against «corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change» («other organizations» meaning conservative think tanks and any skeptic climate scientist having any association with such entities) are likely emboldened because they've never before encountered push - back on the very core of their accusation.

Indeed — there is a beautiful irony in «skeptics» who argue against mitigation policies — on the basis of «alarmism» about the costs of mitigation.

Most «skeptics» are not acolytes of the Koch brothers, but people who have not thus far been convinced that the problem is as serious as represented or that the prescribed policies (wind, solar especially) provide any form of valid insurance against the risk.

For people who don't read skeptic blogs it will be news that there are claims of scandal and corruption about temperature data adjustments around the world, against institutions that are (or were) respected household names.

He also dismissed climate change skeptics as Flat Earthers and urged US citizens at all levels to take steps to reduce climate change causing emissions and push back against those who would work to undermine US policy to reduce the threat of climate change.

Pingback: Who's Behind The Campaign to Bring RICO Charges Against «Climate Skeptics?»

The AMS joins a cast of individual scientists who have spoken out against the inquiry, including several who are strong advocates for climate action and have been highly critical of skeptics:

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.

No, they say there are multi-thousands of scientists comprising a scientific consensus against a handful of skeptics who are «paid industry money to manufacture doubt».

After using World Earth Day to warn about the impact the changing climate is already having on the US, [Obama] used his annual stand - up routine in front of White House journalists to rant against his «stupid, short - sighted, irresponsible» climate skeptic opponents who throw snowballs in the Senate to illustrate global warming isn't happening.

On September 1, 2015, Jagadish Shukla, president of the tax - exempt Institute of Global Environment and Society (IGES), who is also a climate professor at George Mason University, led a group of 20 academics calling for RICO action against all climate skeptics, their organizations and fossil fuel companies.

It's amazing that Joshua, who tries to pretend he is impartial, hasn't been railing against them and attacking them for years, instead of continually picking on trivial and irrelevant points by Judith in he posts and by rational skeptics in blog comments.

The governor's race in Florida is expected to pit Gov. Rick Scott (left), a climate skeptic who has repealed virtually all of the state's climate policies, against former Gov. Charlie Crist (right), a Republican - turned - Democrat who has pledged to make tackling global warming a top priority if he's elected.

Does your giving critiquing and giving policy advice to the Aussies mean we won't have to read any more xenophobic diatribes from you against non-US skeptics who discuss the current idiotic US energy policy?

We've swapped a centrally organized government effort to distort climate science for a kind of grassroots, guerilla war against it, driven by blogs and skeptic scientist amateurs who nourish a powerful sense of self - motivation, a generous helping of anger and outrage, and seem to smell blood in the water.

The NUMERATE skeptics who gave up the arguments against TOBS were JerryB who then convinced me in 2007 and I believe NicL in a post he did in the 2010 time frame somewhere on JeffIds I think it was in a comment.

(Admittedly, that is unfair to the skeptics like Ira and Willis who at least try to fight against this sort of clear nonsense in violation of basic laws of physics.)

Figured if I searched for various ties to big oil, I'd find something on Democratic Arizona Congressman Raul Grijalva who is behind the Witch Hunt against Climate Skeptics...

There was the climate scientist who became the best thing that ever happened to climate skeptics, and would not have been able to win a debate against a primary - school Year - 1 distracted opponent.

Yes, it's true — skeptical, legitimate climate scientists like the ones who run this site have been very frustrated by the deliberately deceitful pseudoscience, outright lies — and most recently vicious personal attacks against them — that have been cranked out for the last couple of decades by fossil fuel industry - funded frauds and cranks and given unwarranted legitimacy by the mass media, and regurgitated ad nauseum on blogs everywhere by Ditto - Heads who unquestioningly believe whatever drivel is spoon - fed to them by the phony «conservative» media, and call themselves «skeptics» for doing so.

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.

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

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.