Sentences with phrase «by global warming skeptics»

He will be sorely missed by global warming skeptics, as he made our life so much easier by just being himself.

The MWP is frequently cited by global warming skeptics as evidence that the consequences of global warming are not all negative, especially as they relate to agricultural production.

(New Scientist) Archer has perfectly pitched answers to the most basic questions about global warming while providing a sound basis for understanding the complex issues frequently misrepresented by global warming skeptics.

The ocean oscillations cited in these stories have been raised by the global warming skeptics for the last ten years to explain what we saw between the mid» 70's and 2000 was nothing more than a natural cycle.

Not exact matches

He points to the fact that Smith is currently investigating the activities of federal climate scientists whose research last year undermined claims by Climate Change skeptics that global warming was going through a «hiatus».

The views of a visiting pope, respected by Catholics and many non-Catholics alike as a moral and spiritual leader of great prominence, will not make persons now unconcerned about global warming suddenly begin to grow concerned, nor even make skeptics of religious freedom begin to take its claims more seriously.

► 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 issues.

Since levels of greenhouse gases have continued to rise throughout the period, some skeptics have argued that the recent pattern undercuts the theory that global warming in the industrial era has been caused largely by human - made emissions from the burning of fossil fuels.

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.

September 13, 2006, No Sunshine for Global Warming Skeptics, by JR Minkel.

The warming pause has been «exploited by climate skeptics to refute global warming,» the paper states.

This aspect of their work is rarely if ever mentioned by the authors themselves, and still less in citations of the work in skeptics» tracts such as that distributed with the «Global Warming Petition Project.»

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.»

[Response: Indeed — I think one of the strongest indications that the science behind anthropogenic global warming is very solid by now, is the lack of quality and intellectual honesty of the counter-arguments and the lack of credibility of the skeptics personnel.

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 global warming.»

Now, there's nothing wrong with making mistakes when pursuing an innovative observational method, but Spencer and Christy sat by for most of a decade allowing — indeed encouraging — the use of their data set as an icon for global warming skeptics.

More broadly scoped, a variety of factors are present, some of which are widely used by skeptics of global warming, and others which are used by proponents.

Government in the U.K. and other places outside of the United States seem to have supported the consensus IPCC findings on global warming, which has kept their skeptics at bay in their countries for the most part (except perhaps in Australia which is heavily influenced by interests in the U.S.).

A skeptic of global warming recently pointed me toward an article by Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Define democracy however you like; I find your refusal to acknowledge the harm done by the fundamental dishonesty of the global warming skeptics to be not only puzzling, but deeply troubling.

His indifference to the harm done to the public mind by the AGW deniers is perhaps why so many skeptics find comfort in Pielke's message, and why so many casual observers mistake him for a global warming skeptic.

Critics note that his work has been frequently cited by «global warming skeptics,» [3] Dr. Pielke and his allies have praised his independence and called his critics «climate McCarthyists.»

This is contributing to all of us going down the tubes together as a result of global warming skeptics and deniers who are playing around with the well known casino rule of «gambler's ruin» by always betting against the house.

Skeptics have long cited Doran's research to show that global warming is a flawed theory motivated by alarmist scientists more interested in scaring up huge research grants than in pursuing the evidence with honesty and integrity.

One is that, for some people, the skeptics» grasping at any story that might support their climate change denial strategies creates needless confusion for people who are unsettled, and even frightened by the threats posed by global warming.

In fact, I was by default not doubting the global warming classic interpretation till I started reading multiple sources on the net, and as my self - confession as a recent skeptic shows, the argument from the denialist camp are not only convincing to petrol gulping rednecks, but also to a very scientifically minded, atheist european (although, I must admit, I like motor sports; — RRB --RRB-.

Partisanship by NOAA administrators on the climate change - hurricane debate followed the partisanship by NOAA National Weather Service on climate change - skeptic debate by 12 years which started just after the Gore book on global warming book came out.

This aspect of their work is rarely if ever mentioned by the authors themselves, and still less in citations of the work in skeptics» tracts such as that distributed with the «Global Warming Petition Project.»

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.

Recently, a union was SLAPPed by a corporation that alleged that the union's organizing activitiesThe wording of the subpoena makes clear that Virgin Islands» attorney general Claude Walker will be utilizing the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) act to silence global warming skeptics and crush political opponents.

The letter portends to offer facts about «climate change deniers, but readers can't even get further than the first paragraph without running into an unsupportable talking point about skeptic climate scientists saying global warming «isn't happening / happening, but for natural reasons / happening and caused by humans, but it's not so bad.»

«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 global warming.».

A meteorologist by training, Ellsaesser is a retired «guest scientist» at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and a widely - quoted global warming skeptic.

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.».

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.

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.

Warmists project their climate change denial very nicely and obviously on skeptics, by calling them climate change (or global warming) deniers.

«These papers should lay to rest once and for all the claims by John Christy and other global warming skeptics that a disagreement between tropospheric and surface temperature trends means that there are problems with surface temperature records or with climate models,» said Alan Robock, a meteorologist at Rutgers University.

«Conversation with global warming skeptic Anthony Watts,» YouTube video uploaded by user «PBS NEwsHour,» September 17, 2012.

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.

So the real bombshell here from my perspective is that the promotion of Nic Lewis's work by skeptics represents a shift in skeptics attitudes towards that of accepting CO2 and man are the prime control knob for recent and ongoing global warming.

His comment was singled out by skeptics, who claimed scientists were covering up the truth about global warming.

That doesn't seem like it will solve this mainly because the «skeptics» left now are too self - invested and self - identifying with their view to be swayed by anything including a resumption of global warming and continued melting.

a # 3: the ones that accepted the phony global warming — they are NOT Skeptics, BUT Warmist in - bedded into the skeptic's camp; recognized by their botanical name:» the Fake Skeptics»

except all of course all those bets on global warming, taken up by foolhardy skeptics, where the orthodoxy has cleaned up.

Your fellow skeptics could help strengthen the case for global warming by agreeing with you.

VP: Your fellow skeptics could help strengthen the case for global warming by agreeing with you.

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