Sentences with phrase «by denialists»

There is a good article on the PR methods used by denialists in Eur J Public Health vol 19 pp 2 - 4.

You could also have mentioned the reception given by denialist blogs like WaUWT when their «scientific authority» is questioned.

p.s. re the comment filtering script — no need to unrec comments by denialists who're already on the list; just (if you wish) unrec the drive - bys.

In talking about how we know humans are changing the climate and why climate change is a clear and present danger, Field and MacCracken bring sanity and clarity to a discussion that has been confused by denialist attacks on the IPCC and the climate science community.

Despite the stolen e-mails being nothing more than private discussions being taken out of context and misrepresented by denialist blogs and mainstream media, a number of investigations were conducted to ascertain any wrongdoing on the part of the climate scientists whose e-mails had been hacked.

I did some background research into the response by the denialist Jennifer Marohasy about her Cox, BOM, Gavin and Nasa / Giss claims and the IPA in Oz who funds her as a «research fellow».

The measurements are not in doubt — even by denialists at BEST.

Not to derail this topic, but I'm getting bombarded by denialists sending me links to Inhofe's latest claim of 650 scientists disputing that CO2 is causing global warming, etc etc..

[Another way to look at this is to note that a dry report, like what the IPCC and NAS put out, that critically evaluates the science will lose almost everytime in a «debate» against something put out by the denialists with the expressed intent of convincing people of a certain point of view by cherry - picking the evidence and so forth.]

In the face of such temptation, we can readily understand why the scientific gains of the IPCC would be everywhere, in every way, rejected by the denialists and naysayers.

My response is to ask Tom or anyone to point to a statement by denialists about the science that is both true and outrageous.

Again, I want to point out that these aren't my assumptions, they're not made up out of whole cloth by some denialist, these are the assumptions which the very scientists who tell us about climate change themselves think are the driving forces and likely outcomes.

Well, the reaction of Phil Jones is very understandable, considering how harrassed he and many other colleagaes were by denialist sharks, who had nothing in mind but abuse and distort their data for mud slinging.

In truth, Duffy's piece, like stories carried by denialists around the world, was a massive distortion.10 Duffy's piece was written in a way that suggested that the data correction undermined the temperature record for the whole world.

That Schwartz's result is heralded as the death - knell of global warming by denialist blogs and Sen. Inhofe, even before it has been officially published (let alone before the scientific community has responded) says more about the denialist movement than about the sensitivity of earth's climate system.

imagine for a moment you've been teleported to a parallel universe where powerful interests and ideologues wouldn't be out to game such a system from day one to further their myopic interests, as they without question would (look at the reviewer comments on ipcc drafts by denialists for a mere inkling - that's the effort that goes into something that has little to no bearing on anything):

And have you read that, five months after the judgement, it was revealed that the whole effort was conceived by denialist Christopher Walter, also known as «Lord Monckton» — or that it was funded by gravel magnate Robert Durward, founder of the anti-environmental group U.K. Scientific Alliance?

Since NASA's name is so often taken in vain by the denialists, the following links make interesting reading.

But he warned that the results are likely to be «abused by denialists» and are being misrepresented, «willfully or through misunderstanding, by climate science contrarians.»

And when it comes to the public «debate,» let's talk less about lapse rates and more about the lapses of honesty by the denialists.

I think The Guardian has done a generally good job, but this is a war in which the slightest mistake is magnified by the denialist machinery, so we have to be extremely careful, and, more than anytihg else, we have to correct every mistake.

Heck, even the research Kevin did for this thread tracking down the amount of money spent by the denialists took some effort, and would scarcely be considered some kind of background «common knowledge».

UPDATE: See Peter Sinclair's insightful on the phony case made by the denialists and their inability to accept the results of the NSF inquiry: «Climategate» Debunked Again.