Sentences with phrase «as global warming skeptics»

The world's science community is slowly but surely coming to the same conclusion as global warming skeptics: the UN's IPCC is nothing more than political propaganda devoted to the anti-empirical science of big green special interest groups / lobbyists.

I was one of those scientists who was derided as a global warming skeptic until I pointed out all scientists must be skeptics and the world had warmed since 1680 — the nadir of the Little Ice Age.

Not exact matches

The views of a visiting pope, respected by Catholics and many non-Catholics alike as a moral and spiritual leader of great prominence, will not make persons now unconcerned about global warming suddenly begin to grow concerned, nor even make skeptics of religious freedom begin to take its claims more seriously.

The Oklahoma senator has earned a reputation as one of the country's leading skeptics of global warming, and has called the theory «a hoax.»

For their part, though, global warming skeptics such as atmospheric physicist Fred Singer maintain that cold weather snaps are responsible for more human deaths than warm temperatures and heat waves.

As Pat Michaels, a climatologist and self - described global warming skeptic at the Cato Institute testified to Congress in July, certain studies of sensitivity published since 2011 find an average sensitivity of 2 degrees C.

As is typical when cold weather strikes, climate skeptics, including Donald Trump, pounced on the weather as proof that global warming is not happeninAs is typical when cold weather strikes, climate skeptics, including Donald Trump, pounced on the weather as proof that global warming is not happeninas proof that global warming is not happening.

U.S. geoscientists are accustomed to being used as a punching bag by climate change skeptics in Congress, who challenge the science of global warming.

This is an attitude that some sincere climate change «skeptics» (as opposed to ExxonMobil - funded deliberate frauds) exhibit: their so - called «skepticism» arises from an a priori sense that human activities can not possibly affect the Earth system in the way that the theory of anthropogenic global warming describes.

This aspect of their work is rarely if ever mentioned by the authors themselves, and still less in citations of the work in skeptics» tracts such as that distributed with the «Global Warming Petition Project.»

ASU's longtime climate skeptic Robert C. Balling continues to reject conclusive scientific evidence that humans are the primary cause of global warming and was listed as a recipient of prospective payments in Heartland's leaked budget for work on their «Climate Change Reconsidered» reports.

In these high latitudes, temperatures are predicted to warm so fast and to such a degree so as to cause unprecedented melting of ice that even the most ardent of climate skeptics would be forced to concede the verity of global warming theory.

Climate - change skeptics have pointed to the emails as evidence that researchers were manipulating data to make global warming look more serious than it is.

Now, there's nothing wrong with making mistakes when pursuing an innovative observational method, but Spencer and Christy sat by for most of a decade allowing — indeed encouraging — the use of their data set as an icon for global warming skeptics.

The study is presented as a broadside on one of the central tenets of global warming, in a fashion echoing skeptics» coverage of the «hockey stick» issue.

This is an attitude that some sincere climate change «skeptics» (as opposed to ExxonMobil - funded deliberate frauds) exhibit: their so - called «skepticism» arises from an a priori sense that human activities can not possibly affect the Earth system in the way that the theory of anthropogenic global warming describes.

The skeptics» press, especially as echoed in Crichton's State of Fear states that the Kilimanjaro retreat can have nothing to do with anthropogenic global warming, because it began in the 1880's, before any appreciable CO2 response is expected.

If you want to label me a skeptic or claim that I «argue against global warming,» then so be it, but I don't consider my position as such.

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.

In fact, I was by default not doubting the global warming classic interpretation till I started reading multiple sources on the net, and as my self - confession as a recent skeptic shows, the argument from the denialist camp are not only convincing to petrol gulping rednecks, but also to a very scientifically minded, atheist european (although, I must admit, I like motor sports; — RRB --RRB-.

This aspect of their work is rarely if ever mentioned by the authors themselves, and still less in citations of the work in skeptics» tracts such as that distributed with the «Global Warming Petition Project.»

Given that skeptics, taken as a whole, put forward a nearly infinite variety of often conflicting and contradictory beliefs regarding global warming and climate science, exactly what is a climate scientist supposed to agree with?

Carson's choice to deliberately increase her use of uncertainty in «Silent Spring» came as a bit of surprise since in the well documented cases of tobacco, acid rain, and global warming, it was the skeptic's strategy to amplify doubt, not the scientist's.

Your list of credible global warming skeptics ends the argument as far as I'm concerned: a politician (Klaus), an industry propagandist (Moore), and a businessman (Coleman).

So three periods of no global warming since 1957 and the overall conclusion, using the correct skeptic logic + statistics, is that the world of 2012 is as warm is the world in the 1950's.

In my previous blog post, I showed how one anonymous op - ed writer tried to casually drop the «reposition global warming as theory rather than fact» phrase into his piece to insinuate skeptic climate scientists received illicit industry money in exchange for the promise to lie to the public.

Wordy as the letter is, it could be boiled down much like Al Gore's 2006 movie or the collective lot of the entire catastrophic man - caused global warming into a 3 - part talking point: «the science is settled» / skeptics are industry - funded & orchestrated liars» / «reporters may ignore skeptics because of the prior two reasons.»

The majority of internet references I initially found credited the accusation to ex-Boston Globe reporter / book author / «Pulitzer - winner» Ross Gelbspan, and his «discovery» that the fossil fuel industry was paying skeptic scientists «under the table» to «reposition global warming as theory rather than fact» — according to a leaked coal association memo he supposedly found.

A bombshell report from the German publication «ScienceBlogs» reveals that renowned geophysicist and former socialist party leader Dr Claude Allegre --- France's most outspoken global warming skeptic — may be considered as the next French Environment Minister in President Nicolas Sarkozy's administration.

Are the U.S. winter extremes proof that global warming isn't happening or is even a hoax, as some skeptics suggest?

Yes, the notion that scientists tow the global warming line in exchange for fame and money seems to ignore the many benefits of being a published climate scientist who tows the «skeptic» line, or even seems to sympathize with some of their talking points — who are valuable, as market theory would predict, because they are very scarce.

As I've said on several occasions here and elsewhere, the major problem with global warming believers» enslavement to the «reposition global warming as theory rather than fact» phrase is that it is not in any way proof of an arrangement between between skeptics and industry officials involving payments made for false climate assessmentAs I've said on several occasions here and elsewhere, the major problem with global warming believers» enslavement to the «reposition global warming as theory rather than fact» phrase is that it is not in any way proof of an arrangement between between skeptics and industry officials involving payments made for false climate assessmentas theory rather than fact» phrase is that it is not in any way proof of an arrangement between between skeptics and industry officials involving payments made for false climate assessments.

But what is surprising is that notorious global warming denier S. Fred Singer was described at a skeptic conference today as a Nobel prize winner, a flat out lie.

Skeptic scientists and speakers such as Tom Harris have been quite consistent on saying that what little global warming we've seen over the last century is not conclusively proven in IPCC climate assessments.

And wouldn't those talking points pack a fatal punch with reporters if you could say a Pulitzer winning investigative reporter discovered a leaked coal industry memo which was proof for skeptic climate scientists being paid to «reposition global warming as theory rather than fact.»

And that reality has been demonstrated over and over again, most recently in the work of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, led by Dr. Richard Muller, who began his comprehensive assessment as an avowed climate skeptic and ended it convinced by the clear evidence that global warming is happening and is caused by human activity.This conclusion is emphatically shared by the best and brightest of the global scientific community, including our own National Academy of Sciences.

The reason progressives constantly obscure the meaning of terms like skeptic, «global warming,» «AGW» (when you mean CAGW), is so you can convert your political opinions into «science,» and then falsely label your political opponents as anti-science.

As ever, the fatal problem with enviro - activists» enslavement to the «reposition global warming as theory» phrase as proof that skeptics are paid illicit money to lie about certainty of global warming is that there is no evidence of it being a top - down fossil fuel industry directive of any kinAs ever, the fatal problem with enviro - activists» enslavement to the «reposition global warming as theory» phrase as proof that skeptics are paid illicit money to lie about certainty of global warming is that there is no evidence of it being a top - down fossil fuel industry directive of any kinas theory» phrase as proof that skeptics are paid illicit money to lie about certainty of global warming is that there is no evidence of it being a top - down fossil fuel industry directive of any kinas proof that skeptics are paid illicit money to lie about certainty of global warming is that there is no evidence of it being a top - down fossil fuel industry directive of any kind.

Although global warming strikes me as one of those issues where there is no real balance and it is wrong to create an artificial or false equivalence, there is no harm and some possibility of benefit in inviting skeptics about the human contribution and other factors to speak, but in a setting in which the context of the vast majority of scientific evidence and speakers is also made clear.

There's no significant change in the understanding of climate change or global warming which continue to be valid expressions (while CAGW is just a concept invented by skeptics to use as they like and in a way that does not reflect main stream views).

In my prior piece about the spread of Ross Gelbspan's accusation that skeptic climate scientists are paid by the fossil fuel industry to «reposition global warming as theory rather than fact ``, I barely skimmed the surface of the sheer number of repetitions of it.

Global warming believers need only to counter dry recitations of skeptic science material with assertions about the numbers of «IPCC scientists», declare this to be the settled consensus opinion, then claim there is leaked memo evidence proving skeptics are paid industry money to «reposition global warming as theory rather than fact» — hoodwink the public, in other Global warming believers need only to counter dry recitations of skeptic science material with assertions about the numbers of «IPCC scientists», declare this to be the settled consensus opinion, then claim there is leaked memo evidence proving skeptics are paid industry money to «reposition global warming as theory rather than fact» — hoodwink the public, in other global warming as theory rather than fact» — hoodwink the public, in other words.

And when I say situation, I mean both global warming as well as the skeptics.

Former Virginia state climatologist and global warming skeptic Pat Michaels («Hurricane Pat,» as we once fondly dubbed him) pops up in an email as someone that a scientist from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California would like to attack --- and not just in the latest issue of a peer - reviewed journal.

However, Kelly Sims Gallagher is not merely a coincidentally handy local Tufts University professor, she has direct connections with the same set of leaked industry memo phrases seen within the growing numbers of California global warming lawsuits — the «reposition global warming as theory rather than fact» strategy phrase and the «older, less - educated males» / «younger, lower - income women» targeting phrases — which are widely repeated elsewhere as proof that the fossil fuel industry «pays skeptic climate scientists to participate in misinformation campaigns» undermining the certainty of catastrophic man - caused global warming (despite those memos being worthless as evidence, but that is another matter).

Dig deep enough in the «crooked skeptics» accusation, and you ultimately discover that in regard to the notion about skeptics being in a pay - for - performance arrangement with anybody in the fossil fuel industry, there's only one usable weapon in the enviro - activists» arsenal to indict those skeptics as industry - paid shills: the supposedly leaked industry memo set from a public relations campaign called the «Information Council for the Environment» (ICE) supposedly containing the «reposition global warming» strategy goal, which targeted «older, less - educated males» and «younger, lower - income women.»

Ross Gelbspan, as a self - described reporter who was angered by the discovery of skeptic climate scientists being «paid sort of under the table by the coal industry» to spread «false information,» has had entire second career promoting the idea that we could be making better headway in stopping man - caused global warming it it weren't for the industry funded coordinated misinformation campaign.

As the description says, many of the posts take to task the published arguments of global warming skeptics and these rebuttals help to sharpen one's climate science reasoning and logic.

This means there are now 3 levels of rebuttals addressing the skeptic argument «humans aren't causing global warming»: If other climate bloggers are interested in allowing their existing articles to be used as advanced rebuttals to skeptic arguments, please contact me.

In 2010, Liu and Curry (that's climate «skeptic» Judith Curry) arrived at the same conclusions as the Manabe and Zwally papers, but predicted that global warming will eventually catch up with Antarctic sea ice and cause it to decline over the second half of the 21st century.