Sentences with phrase «by climate skeptics in»

Those deliverables included research papers, Soon's public appearances and presentations, a book chapter, and a report used by another climate skeptic in testimony before Congress.

Not exact matches

For Christian climate skeptics, a sort of Pascal's Wager is the very least that could be considered on the issue of climate change: If your skepticism is right — and despite evidence from countless sources — and climate change is not caused by man in any way, than a lack of action will maintain the status quo.

A 30 percent cut in emissions from 2005 levels by 2030 is a big number — less than environmental groups want but far more than the president can get via Congress, where climate change skeptics rule the House and the Democratic Senate so far avoiding bringing a climate change bill to the floor during Obama's presidency.

► In other climate change news, Leigh Dayton wrote on Tuesday that in April, «the University of Western Australia (UWA) in Perth announced plans to set up an Australian Consensus Centre (ACC), chaired by [global warming skeptic Bjørn] Lomborg, that would conduct policy research on overseas aid, Australian prosperity, agriculture, and regional issueIn other climate change news, Leigh Dayton wrote on Tuesday that in April, «the University of Western Australia (UWA) in Perth announced plans to set up an Australian Consensus Centre (ACC), chaired by [global warming skeptic Bjørn] Lomborg, that would conduct policy research on overseas aid, Australian prosperity, agriculture, and regional issuein April, «the University of Western Australia (UWA) in Perth announced plans to set up an Australian Consensus Centre (ACC), chaired by [global warming skeptic Bjørn] Lomborg, that would conduct policy research on overseas aid, Australian prosperity, agriculture, and regional issuein Perth announced plans to set up an Australian Consensus Centre (ACC), chaired by [global warming skeptic Bjørn] Lomborg, that would conduct policy research on overseas aid, Australian prosperity, agriculture, and regional issues.

«The language style used by climate change skeptics suggests that the arguments put forth by these groups may be less credible in that they are relatively less focused upon the propagation of evidence and more intent on refuting the opposing perspective,» said Pennycook.

Muller launched his own climate study at the University of California, Berkeley — the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project — in order to better study temperature measurements, taking into account much of the concerns expressed by skeptics.

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.

The first five articles in the journal consisted of a pair by Ouadfeul, another two by climate skeptics, and the fifth article had «a significant amount of self - plagiarism.»

In 1998, Tony Lupo boasted that climate skeptics outnumbered the consensus view that global warming is happening and caused by people, proclaiming, «there is no scientific consensus whether global warming is a fact and is occurring.»

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.

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.

After the stunning victory, one of the scientists on the side promoting the belief in a climate «crisis» appeared to concede defeat by noting his debate team was «pretty dull» and at «a sharp disadvantage» against the skeptics.

It is notable that while the climate alarmist movement is funded by billions of public funds and the skeptic side is funded by a few million at best and the alarmists are losing badly, the explanation is found in credibility.

Further to 12 and eric's response: I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough: in the second sentence by Stefan that I quoted, «this» can only sensibly refer back to the whole of the first sentence, giving the reading That carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are increasing rapidly in the atmosphere due to human activity is a measured fact not even disputed by staunch «climate skeptics.

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.

The fund is designed to help scientists like Professor Michael Mann cope with the legal fees that stack up in fighting attempts by climate - skeptic groups to gain access to private emails and other correspondence through lawsuits and Freedom of Information Act requests at their public universities.

(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.)

[1] Henceforth skeptics are excused from ever naming all the great scientists they claim support their position, but who must operate in total secrecy to protect themselves from persecution by the climate science establishment that is the modern equivalent of the Spanish Inquisition.

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.

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.

Your condescension won't hide the fact that the uncertainty among the skeptics is founded on the fact that the link by which small changes in the sun's output are magnified into large changes in climate.

Obama's formulation in the State of the Union speech — the notion that even skeptics should support a climate bill because it was what the economy needed — had been developed by an unlikely source: Frank Luntz, one of the dark princes of Republican messaging, who a decade before had written a founding document of GOP global warming denial.

A key site for addressing a wide range of questions raised by climate change «skeptics» is Skeptical Science (www.skepticalscience.com)-- in particular the questions discussed with references to the scientific literature at http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php.

Richard Lindzen was part of a group of climate change skeptics to speak at a «climate summit» arranged by the Texas Public Policy Foundation shortly before the UN climate summit in Paris.

The results lead the authors to conclude that * *** «this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and Climate Changes caused by global warming.».

-- a study that found low - end climate sensitivity and is frequently cited by climate skeptics — Hope calculates a reduction in the SCC of about 45 % for a low climate sensitivity world.

Neither Gelbspan nor anyone repeating his accusation ever proved the money trail led to an industry directive to lie about global warming science; none of them have proved skeptic climate scientists were instructed to mimic tobacco industry tactics; journalists have demonstrably not offered overall fair balance in to skeptic climate scientists; the «wedge» being driven is one arguably pounded by enviro - activists who push the «skeptics don't deserve fair media balance» talking point; and Gelbspan was not the first one to bring up this talking point.

What every skeptic I am aware of, when allowed to speak in complete sentences and paragraphs says is that the climate is not doing much, that climate has always changed, and that it is not changing in the dangerous ways predicted by the AGW community.

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.

Pt 7, «Cancerous Greenpeace / Desmogblog / Gelbspan Stuff»: What's detailed in this post is how Dave Rado's Ofcom complaint is first and foremost pushing absolutely nothing more than guilt - by - association «evidence» to indict skeptic climate scientists of industry - funded corruption, and secondly, how Rado, much like any other prominent accuser, is enslaved to an accusation narrative which ultimately relies on sources who repeat material which inevitably traces back to Ross Gelbspan and the clique of enviro - activists surrounding him when he and they got the first real media traction for the accusation.

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.

But it doesn't end there, the error is not merely some random oversight, it instead sends curious investigators down a twisted trail to find out what its specific origins are... only to end up at a 1990s place run by a person who is seen in the latest 2016 efforts to demonize Exxon and any skeptic climate scientists who may have had an association with «big oil» companies.

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.

Joshua: «And in addition, think about all the wasted energy the «climate community» spent mitigating the impact of «deniers,» when «skeptics» could have helped out by listening more carefully to the «climate community,» and trying to understand «the climate community's» arguments, and adding to progress on increasing our understanding of the causes of climate variability and change...»

And in addition, think about all the wasted energy the «climate community» spent mitigating the impact of «deniers,» when «skeptics» could have helped out by listening more carefully to the «climate community,» and trying to understand «the climate community's» arguments, and adding to progress on increasing our understanding of the causes of climate variability and change — rather than apologizing or ignoring the input from scientists like Fred Singer — who deliberately lifts a conditional clause from a larger sentence, divorces it completely from context, and creates a fraudulent quotation in order to deliberately deceive, or Ross McKitrick who slanders other scientists on purely speculative conclusions about their motivations, or guest - posters at WUWT who call BEST «media whores,» or the long line of denizens at Climate Etc. who falsely claim that the «climate community» ignores all uncertainties towards the goal of serving a socialist, eco-Nazi agenda to destroy capiclimate community» spent mitigating the impact of «deniers,» when «skeptics» could have helped out by listening more carefully to the «climate community,» and trying to understand «the climate community's» arguments, and adding to progress on increasing our understanding of the causes of climate variability and change — rather than apologizing or ignoring the input from scientists like Fred Singer — who deliberately lifts a conditional clause from a larger sentence, divorces it completely from context, and creates a fraudulent quotation in order to deliberately deceive, or Ross McKitrick who slanders other scientists on purely speculative conclusions about their motivations, or guest - posters at WUWT who call BEST «media whores,» or the long line of denizens at Climate Etc. who falsely claim that the «climate community» ignores all uncertainties towards the goal of serving a socialist, eco-Nazi agenda to destroy capiclimate community,» and trying to understand «the climate community's» arguments, and adding to progress on increasing our understanding of the causes of climate variability and change — rather than apologizing or ignoring the input from scientists like Fred Singer — who deliberately lifts a conditional clause from a larger sentence, divorces it completely from context, and creates a fraudulent quotation in order to deliberately deceive, or Ross McKitrick who slanders other scientists on purely speculative conclusions about their motivations, or guest - posters at WUWT who call BEST «media whores,» or the long line of denizens at Climate Etc. who falsely claim that the «climate community» ignores all uncertainties towards the goal of serving a socialist, eco-Nazi agenda to destroy capiclimate community's» arguments, and adding to progress on increasing our understanding of the causes of climate variability and change — rather than apologizing or ignoring the input from scientists like Fred Singer — who deliberately lifts a conditional clause from a larger sentence, divorces it completely from context, and creates a fraudulent quotation in order to deliberately deceive, or Ross McKitrick who slanders other scientists on purely speculative conclusions about their motivations, or guest - posters at WUWT who call BEST «media whores,» or the long line of denizens at Climate Etc. who falsely claim that the «climate community» ignores all uncertainties towards the goal of serving a socialist, eco-Nazi agenda to destroy capiclimate variability and change — rather than apologizing or ignoring the input from scientists like Fred Singer — who deliberately lifts a conditional clause from a larger sentence, divorces it completely from context, and creates a fraudulent quotation in order to deliberately deceive, or Ross McKitrick who slanders other scientists on purely speculative conclusions about their motivations, or guest - posters at WUWT who call BEST «media whores,» or the long line of denizens at Climate Etc. who falsely claim that the «climate community» ignores all uncertainties towards the goal of serving a socialist, eco-Nazi agenda to destroy capiClimate Etc. who falsely claim that the «climate community» ignores all uncertainties towards the goal of serving a socialist, eco-Nazi agenda to destroy capiclimate community» ignores all uncertainties towards the goal of serving a socialist, eco-Nazi agenda to destroy capitalism.

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

It has been often said by climate skeptics that the modern warming peaked in 1998 and we are entering a period of decades of global cooling.

«While there's nothing controversial in the letter, please keep it in confidence» a Latham & Watkins writes, forwarding a signed invitation by Nigel Lawson for Scott Pruitt to address the U.K.'s premier climate skeptic group.

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 sticIn 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 sticin the journal Energy & Environment — regarded by many as a haven for climate skeptics — engaged in unsubstantiated attacks of the hockey sticin unsubstantiated attacks of the hockey stick.

Plenty of climate skeptics in recent days have been «dealing» with the arctic ice decline by claiming satellite measurements are unreliable.

Leaving aside the PC issues associated with labeling people, I don't think their main premise that motivating skeptics by framing the issue in terms of the welfare of their society, instead of focussing on risks of climate change, works.

Oreskes, in an on - screen appearance, manages to cite S. Fred Singer and Frederick Seitz, two prominent climate - change skeptics who had once contended that smoking isn't necessarily harmful, but admits that she can't prove that they were manipulated by money.

I'll just add one response to this statement by Tom: «if you consider yourself a skeptic of climate change science, think the risks have been overblown, and oppose intervention in the economy to mitigate climate change, you probably find the comparison outrageous, and maybe even offensive.»

Back in 2008 -» 09, I was perplexed that efforts to mitigate runaway global warming were occurring despite detailed opposition offered by skeptic climate scientists.

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.

Adding to the conflicts, Hoggan is also chair of the board of directors for the David Suzuki Foundation, a radical environmental activist group run by a man who — ironically — calls for climate skeptics to join Lefebvre in jail.

The automakers responded by stating: «The so - called «climate skeptics» are not on trial in this case, and the court should resist defendants» attempt to put them on trial.