Sentences with phrase «by climate skeptics as»

The «Amazongate» column, authored by Jonathan Leake, Science & Environment Editor of the Sunday Times, was immediately seized upon by climate skeptics as further evidence to discredit the IPCC just two weeks after it was found to be using shoddy glacier data in its 2007 climate assessment.

The slowdown in the upward march of global average temperatures has been greeted by climate skeptics as evidence that the climate is less affected by greenhouse gases than thought.

Not exact matches

By Joachim Marc Christensen The election of self - proclaimed climate change skeptic Donald Trump as the next US president has sparked uncertainty regarding the future of our climate.

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.

Richard Betts, the head of the climate impacts section of Britain's Met Office, recently left a comment on the «skeptic» * blog Bishop Hill stating that thresholds for climate danger, such as the much ballyhooed 2 - degree limit enshrined in recent climate pledges, were not determined by science:

If people then run into legitimate criticism of uncertainty and climate policy by well respected skeptics (e.g.: Lindzen), then there is the danger that they will label your site as political and not scientific, and you could lose credibility in the eyes of some people.

The skeptics are contaminating this collaboration by portraying an abusive distortion of the facts as the expertise of qualified skeptical climate authorities.

This «two - camps theory» is then used as a justification to cite (in the name of supposed balance) counter-arguments by «climate skeptics» with doubtful expertise.

As a lay person (albeit with a Science degree) I find it interesting that the last 7 posts on this site have been disputing claims by Climate Change skeptics or data / studies that may / may not support their case.

No doubt the «skeptics» would be pleased by such an «anomoly», using it as further evidence that the climate models are wrong.

Also, the brief period I spent scanning abstracts [no time this week to read papers] indicates a difference of opinion suggesting whether there is a correlation between clouds and CRF (including a no by Balling and Cerveny Theoretical and Applied Climatology 75:3 - 4 pp. 225 - 231 — which may be a good indicator as there was a skeptic flurry last year over connecting CRF to climate as another try at natural causes being responsible for recent climate change).

So if the hockey stick is incorrect & climate varies wildly from natural causes, then even a «small» (as skeptics view it) input of human GHGs, would then have a much larger impact by virtue of triggering a more sensitive and wild nature.

(Small note: «climate skeptics» brought an earlier, erroneous draft version of this graphic to the public, although it was marked in block letters as a temporary placeholder by IPCC.)

The observed CO2 increase in the world ocean disproves another popular #fakenews piece of the «climate skeptics»: namely that the CO2 increase in the atmosphere might have been caused by the outgassing of CO2 from the ocean as a result of the warming.

These climate models are NOT the same as weather models, I might add, which is one of the lies spun by many climate skeptics to try to inject uncertainty into the debate.

This dialogue about him being full of pontifical nonsense flows one way, without a response, this silence is a buffer extending his life span as a legitimate skeptic by default, since he can't stand the heat from real climate scientists left on the way side, crushing legitimate science away from any chance to reach a badly mislead audience, simply because he is more popular in the fringe right wing media world dwelling on sound bites and stupidity.

A British reporter brought up the batch of e-mail messages and files that a British climate research center says were stolen from one of its servers and that have since been seized upon by skeptics and foes of cuts in greenhouse gases as evidence of corruption in climate science.

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.

As a longtime fighter against the oil and coal interests that bankroll climate skeptics, I am delighted by Desmogblog's posting of the Heartland disinformation documents.

With the release of a major climate science report by the United Nations coming this week, the self - proclaimed climate «skeptics,» better referred to as the climate deniers or flat - earthers, are kicking it into high gear for their fossil fuel clients and right wing ringleaders.

When Nobel prize winner Ivar Giaever came out as a climate skeptic he cited a problem posed by a man named Ilan Samson.

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»?

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.

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.

As you may know, the HADCRUT global surface temperature dataset, often preferred by climate «skeptics», got increased Arctic coverage in ver 4.

The hacker proceeded to comment on other, lesser - known climate change skeptic blogs including the Air Vent (run by Patrick Condon), as well as on a blog titled Climate Sclimate change skeptic blogs including the Air Vent (run by Patrick Condon), as well as on a blog titled Climate Sskeptic blogs including the Air Vent (run by Patrick Condon), as well as on a blog titled Climate SClimate SkepticSkeptic.

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.

And, as CAGW skeptics are well aware, this level of «grubering» is part and parcel of the techniques used by proponents of the climate - doomsday dogma.

As you may have inferred from my response to his slides, we climate skeptics at Stanford, whose GCEP project has as noted above been fingered by Greenpeace as an ExxonMobil - funded climate - skeptic organization, are highly skeptical of the IPCC that Lindzen describes, and are deeply into denial of that sort of climate nonsensAs you may have inferred from my response to his slides, we climate skeptics at Stanford, whose GCEP project has as noted above been fingered by Greenpeace as an ExxonMobil - funded climate - skeptic organization, are highly skeptical of the IPCC that Lindzen describes, and are deeply into denial of that sort of climate nonsensas noted above been fingered by Greenpeace as an ExxonMobil - funded climate - skeptic organization, are highly skeptical of the IPCC that Lindzen describes, and are deeply into denial of that sort of climate nonsensas an ExxonMobil - funded climate - skeptic organization, are highly skeptical of the IPCC that Lindzen describes, and are deeply into denial of that sort of climate nonsense.

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.

The Oregon Petition has been used by climate change skeptics as proof that there is no scientific consensus, however they fail to note the controversy surrounding the petition itself.

Those engaged in this disinformation campaign can be distinguished from responsible climate skeptics because the climate change denial campaign is a collective social movement run by professional advocacy working to discredit climate change» (Hoffman, 2011: 5) As such, this movement is not engaged in reasonable scientific skepticism but advocacy that stresses scientific uncertainty.

Climate skeptics are going to have to up their game if they want to be taken seriously by science experts such as the Met Office and decision makers who are a bit brighter than this.

If you are an adherent of sound scientific method, you must NECESSARILY be a skeptic in this as in all other areas of inquiry, and the «climate scientists» complicit in the push for the abrogation of scientific method are by definition NOT «doing science, gathering data, testing,» but rather presenting the seeming of scientific investigation while all the while using that masquerade to advance public policy measures predicated upon malicious nonsense.

As we stated in the first entry, climate skepticism should be encouraged rather than vilified provided that skeptics play by the rules of science including publishing in the peer - reviewed literature, not making claims unsupported by scientific evidence, and not engaging in tactics discussed in this series.

As in the «settled science» is rife with unsettled contradictions, the accusation that skeptic climate scientists are corrupted by illicit money doesn't have a shred of physical evidence to back it up, and one of the main promoters of the accusation is a person apparently plagued with credibility problems.

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?

Some climate «skeptics» have suggested explanations as to why their interpretation of global warming shown in Figure 1 is actually the correct one, arguing that global warming is really just a «step function» caused by natural cycles and «climate shifts.»

For example, the constant refrain about how «the consensus» was wrong about plate tectonics is useful for «skeptics» to exploit - and then argue that the existence of a «consensus» on climate change isn't meaningful - when they don't also consider just how pervasively we all trust the product of scientists» work, and by extension the power of shared opinion among experts, as we live our daily lives.

* In a blog post for Climate Audit, a prominent climate skeptic blog, he used Stevens» study to suggest that as CO2 levels double in the atmosphere, global temperatures would rise by only 1.2 to 1.8 degrees CClimate Audit, a prominent climate skeptic blog, he used Stevens» study to suggest that as CO2 levels double in the atmosphere, global temperatures would rise by only 1.2 to 1.8 degrees Cclimate skeptic blog, he used Stevens» study to suggest that as CO2 levels double in the atmosphere, global temperatures would rise by only 1.2 to 1.8 degrees Celsius.

5) False premises are routinely thrown around as facts, i.e. that skeptics engage in death threats (although this is little more than an allegation by one climate scientist under investigation at the time) with no legal action taken to support it or any publication of emails etc..

OF course many skeptics kid themselves over this as well, by taking a few extreme examples, and arguing that people want climate change to be a problem.

An article with a distorted quote from a climate report published in 2008 and with an alleged quote by Phil Jones in the third person about himself coming from second or third hand, a crowd of «skeptics» in the comment section, including you, who are taking all of this at face value without doing any fact checking and who see themselves confirmed in their preconceived views by this, and you are trying to sell this to me now as «common knowledge».

As almost everyone (alarmists and skeptics) agrees, climate change is continuous, accompanied by associated temperature changes.

For me, as with countless other skeptics, my engagement in the climate discussion started with me reading a blog written by a Canadian statistician with the temerity to challenge the orthodoxy and state, «YOU»RE DOING IT WRONG!!!

The Western Fuels Association co-op members were small and besieged by national news stories that gave only the crisis side of the climate change issue and desperately needed a national campaign with professional support from reputable academics with long track records as outspoken skeptics.

The Oregon Petition has been used by climate change skeptics as proof that there is no scientific consensus.

The «skeptic scientist accusation» is what I consistently refer to in all of my writings as the idea that their climate assessments are fabricated under a top - down directive by fossil fuel industry executives.

«Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming» chews up these sound bites, such as: «97 percent of scientists agree» with the conclusion that humans are causing catastrophic climate change; or, skeptics of the «consensus view» are paid off by big fossil fuel industries.