Sentences with phrase «attacks by climate skeptic»

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.

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.

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.