The core finding is that temperatures over the continents have warmed about 1 degree Centigrade (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) since 1950, matching earlier independent analyses by American and British climate researchers that had been repeatedly
attacked by climate skeptics and opponents of curbs in greenhouse emissions.
They are referring to the Michael Mann hockey stick study from ten years ago that has been the subject of
attacks by climate skeptic bloggers for many years now.
Not exact matches
But he also said his decision to fraudulently acquire and then leak a set of explosive documents from the conservative,
climate skeptic think tank was prompted
by sustained
attacks from
climate deniers.
When scientists and advocates, motivated
by these biased perceptions, take action
by responding with tit - for - tat
attacks on
climate skeptics, it takes energy and effort away from offering a positive message and engagement campaign that builds public support for
climate action and instead feeds a downward spiral of «war» and conflict rhetoric that appears as just more ideological rancor to the wider public.
But how much longer can her credibility hold together, if even her own friends see her as someone who can't seem to get historical facts correct about her personal situation, combined with her claims of being
attacked by US Senator James Inhofe being undercut
by her own words, and her apparent failure to fact - check elemental details surrounding a core set of evidence she relies on to indict «corrupt
skeptic climate scientists»?
In the fall of 2003, just days before a critical U.S. Senate resolution to acknowledge the threat of human - caused
climate change, an article in the journal Energy & Environment — regarded
by many as a haven for
climate skeptics — engaged in unsubstantiated
attacks of the hockey stick.
This is the same NPR which featured two
attack pieces on
skeptic climate scientist Dr Willie Soon here and here, in which the first piece said Dr Soon was valuable to the «forces of
climate denial» (the now non-functioning link was to an older version of Dr Soon's Heartland Institute bio page, later replaced
by a newer one), and the second piece cited the same Kert Davies who I traced back to the time when the false «crooked
skeptic climate scientists» accusation first got its media traction.
There's ego there, there's scathing criticism of
climate change
skeptics, and there's a growing sense of themselves being under siege
by vitriolic personal
attacks,
by global warming denialism,
by harassment,
by frivolous Freedom of Information Act requests, and so forth.
When I started looking into different blogs I was shocked
by the aggressive, humiliating and selfish communication style of many so called «
climate scientists» using their time more for advocating «settled» science and
attacking «
skeptics», than for research.
All this pride, despite the presence of
skeptic climate scientist Dr John Christy (Ph.D., Atmospheric Sciences) in the first McCain hearing (not listed in Ozone Action's list from that same hearing), and the presence
skeptic climate scientist Dr S. Fred Singer (Ph.D., physics) in the second hearing, a person previously held in massive dislike
by Ozone Action regarding his congressional hearing appearance on topic of ozone depletion, and held in massive dislike
by Ozone Action on the topic of global warming — in a press release
attack of Dr Singer, (screencapture here), having Kalee Kreider — future spokesperson for Al Gore — as one of the contacts.
As a relatively new line of criticism coming from
climate change
skeptics, Myron Ebell argued that delegates from Third World countries largely appear at events such as talks in Lima just to collect a per diem payment and «shop in glamouris cities,» as phrased
by the Republic Report in their article «Deniers» Latest
Attack on UN Summit: Poor Countries» Delegates Show Up Just for the Per Diem.»
This exchange, from a listserv maintained
by the National Academy of Sciences, captured scientists discussing ways to more effectively counter the
attacks on their credibility from
climate skeptics and conservative politicians, which Stanford climatologist Stephen Schneider, in the email dialogue, likened to a «smear campaign» of «neo-McCarthyism.»
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.