Sentences with phrase «by skeptics groups»

Yet the IPCC still primarily focuses on these two facts, in part to counter misinformation campaigns by skeptics groups backed by fossil fuel interests that oppose caps on greenhouse gases.

Not exact matches

He also relies heavily on claims made by human rights groups and the United Nations in supporting his case against the Assad regime — claims that some skeptics have said are made with zero verification.

The groups have «renamed the category formerly known as «Bible Antagonists» as «Bible Skeptics,» and now define the category as people who «selected the most negative or non-sacred view of the Bible from five options, saying they believe the Bible is just another book of teachings written by men, containing stories and advice.»

Adapted excerpt from The New I Do: Reshaping Marriage for Skeptics, Realists and Rebels by Susan Pease Gadoua and Vicki Larson, with permission from Seal Press, a member of the Perseus Books Group.

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.

Yet nagging doubts remain, stoked by two persistent skeptics: David Pimentel, a professor of ecology and agricultural sciences at Cornell University, and Tad Patzek, a professor of geoengineering from the University of California at Berkeley who started the UC Oil Consortium, an industry - sponsored research group.

«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.

Attracted to fringe scientists like the small and vocal group of climate skeptics, Republicans appear to be alienated from a mainstream scientific community that by and large doesn't share their political beliefs.

We had firsthand experience dealing with climate skeptics, amplified by advocacy groups like the Competitive Enterprise Institute and a lot of the think tanks that were allegedly funded by ExxonMobil and other firms.

We carefully studied issues raised by skeptics: biases from urban heating (we duplicated our results using rural data alone), from data selection (prior groups selected fewer than 20 percent of the available temperature stations; we used virtually 100 percent), from poor station quality (we separately analyzed good stations and poor ones) and from human intervention and data adjustment (our work is completely automated and hands - off).

(For skeptics who speculate that the survey might have been conservative - leaning by its nature, the same group of respondents also favored Democrat Barack Obama over Republican Mitt Romney for president 51 percent to 40 percent.)

As for why his group came to a different conclusion than the one reached by Hanushek and other skeptics, Johnson suggested that earlier efforts to find a a connection between school spending and results were simply confounded by the range of factors that affect the kinds of adults that kids become.

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.

Later, I realized that Michaels — a prime skeptic who received income through his affiliation with the Cato Institute, an antiregulatory group that was supported substantially by energy companies — had essentially entered the mainstream.

Here is an interesting link that was posted by Richard Courtney on the Yahoo Group Climate Skeptics.

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 company's support for a small, but influential, group of climate skeptics has damaged the United States» reputation by making our government appear to ignore conclusive data on climate change and the disastrous effects climate change could have.»

«Climategate», or «Swifthack» was a media story about a set of hacked emails that was pushed by a group of avid climate skeptics, including bloggers Steven Mosher, Steve McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, Patrick Condon, Lucia Liljegren, Charles Rotter and Anthony Watts.

«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.

There is «empirical evidence» but it's identified by skeptics despite efforts by government funded agencies and environmental groups to block, deny, and discredit with personal attacks.

By editing CNN and PBS news stories so that some saw a skeptic included in the report, others saw a story in which the skeptic was edited out and another group saw no video, Krosnick found that adding 45 seconds of a skeptic to one news story caused 11 % of Americans to shift their opinions about the scientific consensus.

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.

I do that because I think that she is very unscientific in the selective nature in how she, say, throws many «skeptics» under the bus to characterize «skepticism» by some completely unvalidated association between some ill - defined rhetoric from some ill - defined group.

We learned from the PBS» «Climate of Doubt» that during the last four years, the momentum was lost by those who called for climate action and gained by a small group of skeptics who rallied the Tea Party grassroots movement to push the issue off the agenda.

The investigative blogger Deep Climate has been working to set the record straight on how an orchestrated campaign by members of Congress, industry - funded global warming denialist groups and PR operatives, and professional «skeptics» has spread misleading information about the paleoclimate... Continue reading →

We carefully studied issues raised by skeptics: biases from urban heating (we duplicated our results using rural data alone), from data selection (prior groups selected fewer than 20 percent of the available temperature stations; we used virtually 100 percent), from poor station quality (we separately analyzed good stations and poor ones) and from human intervention and data adjustment (our work is completely automated and hands - off).

After spending time at the largest gathering of world class climatologists, meteorologists, physicists, engineers, and economists, among other very brainy folks, I came away with the feeling that the battle remains joined by this hearty group, otherwise derided as skeptics and deniers of global warming.

By calling the science «still incomplete,» Bush also lent new credibility to the tiny handful of industry - sponsored «greenhouse skeptics» who have been thoroughly discredited by the mainstream community of climate researchers — including the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the National Academy of Sciences and other blue - ribbon scientific groups that deem global warming to be real, immediate and ominouBy calling the science «still incomplete,» Bush also lent new credibility to the tiny handful of industry - sponsored «greenhouse skeptics» who have been thoroughly discredited by the mainstream community of climate researchers — including the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the National Academy of Sciences and other blue - ribbon scientific groups that deem global warming to be real, immediate and ominouby the mainstream community of climate researchers — including the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the National Academy of Sciences and other blue - ribbon scientific groups that deem global warming to be real, immediate and ominous.

Along the same lines, I do not find credible arguments that any product of peer review is therefore inherently corrupted by tribalism — any more than I feel that any «skeptical» analysis in the «skeptical» blogosphere is inherently flawed due to tribalism among «skeptics» as a group.

When pressed, Oliver was not able to identify which scientists he was using as a source, La Pressereported, but his staff pointed to an article by Lawrence Solomon, a Canadian writer and infamous climate - change skeptic and denier, and the founder and executive director of Energy Probe, an environmental policy organization and fossil fuel lobbyist group.

The group also organized the Bali open letter signed by 100 climate change skeptics and published in the National Post.

Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist at Texas A&M University, has released a scientific paper (Dessler 2011) that looks at the claims made by two of a small group of «skeptic» climate scientists who regular SkS readers will be familiar with: Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen.

The above «Climate of Doubt» program qualifies as such with its blatant insinuation about skeptics corrupted by illicit money, as does its prior 2008 program «Heat», in which only unidentified skeptic scientists were shown while the narrator said «Not only have big oil companies not invested much in renewables, but for years they were among the largest contributors to so - called climate change denier groups, groups like the Heartland Institute, the organizer of this 2008 convention.»

Thus, your determination that Dan's interpretation of the evidence is biased by his priors (when he says that the manifestation of these phenomena isn't disproportional in one ideology group as opposed to another) whereas your interpretation of the evidence to show that Republicans, conservatives, and «skeptics» are less prone to these phenomena (in an issue where they are highly identified, no less) seems more than just a tad ironic.

It would seem to me that if you want to argue that «skeptics» are, as a group, less influenced by identity and emotion in their reasoning about climate change than «realists,» you should be able to design some kind of mechanistic hypothesis for why that is the case, come up with some experiment methodology for collecting and analyzing data that would support your theory, and then collect the data and write it up.

A 2010 investigation by the Institute for Southern Studies found the John Locke Foundation to be one of the most outspoken climate skeptics in North Carolina, working together with other groups funded by the Koch Brothers and Art Pope.

As part of our contribution, CSW commented that the document might carry greater relevance for decision - makers who want to advance a needed adaptation agenda to an unconvinced or climate - skeptic audience (a very real possibility) by including more explicit language on the ways in which climate change issues can be framed to appeal to diverse groups — for example, emphasizing the potential damages to people and property to one community, the negative impacts to industry in another.

A study of major U.S. newspapers found that up to 1994, climate scientists who were highly respected by their peers were cited considerably more frequently than the skeptics associated with conservative think tanks, but after 1995, as the conservatives grew more active, newspapers cited the two groups about equally.

That's why a relatively small group of hardcore anti-clean energy climate skeptics in the right - wing base has exercised effective veto power over American climate policy: they have the intensity and they're backed by money.

Attracted to fringe scientists like the small and vocal group of climate skeptics, Republicans appear to be alienated from a mainstream scientific community that by and large doesn't share their political beliefs.

The word «skeptic» will work well although 1) many of us apparently don't do «politically correct» and 2) I think you're conflating two different groups of skeptics in that one phrase and 3) GW is «generally» accepted by most skeptics and some A contribution is obvious to many of us, but it's the extent of the A as the cause that's in question.

Chaired by Pence, the group includes familiar House climate skeptics like Joe Barton (R - Texas), John Shimkus (R - Ill.)

[quote] Verheggen et al increased their sample by including a group of AGW «skeptics» who would not otherwise have met the criteria.

Verheggen et al increased their sample by including a group of AGW «skeptics» who would not otherwise have met the criteria.

-LSB-...] It is worth the reminder that China ranked only second to Germany as the largest public investor in cleantech in 2007, according to a much - circulated 2008 report by the Climate Group (a must - read for green China skeptics).

The first link in my article takes readers to a prior one where I show how the very same Sheldon Rampton appeared before a US House hearing and regurgitated an accusation phrase against skeptic scientists that was made famous by anti-skeptic book author Ross Gelbspan and the enviro - advocacy group Ozone Action in 1996 - 7 — these people have every appearance of being the epicenter of the accusation that skeptic scientists operate under a coal / oil industry directive to fabricate false assessments in exchange for mega-millions...... an accusation that has no evidence to support it that I can find, and its central piece of evidence is a 1991 coal industry memo that no one is allowed to see in its complete context.

The result, as the BBC says, «a graph remarkably similar to those produced by the world's three most important and established groups [NOAA, NASA, and the Met Office and Climatic Research Unit], work had been decried as unreliable and shoddy in climate skeptic circles.»

In my view what we are seeing is a concerted attempt by the «skeptics» to portray themselves as the voice of moderate opinion instead of the fringe group they actually are by trying to persuade people that the use of strong language to describe the risks we face is de facto an indication of an extreme (ist) opinion.

Instead of publicly expressing their views, a group of parliamentarians said skeptics should parrot the imploding official narrative: The notion that global warming, which even leading alarmists admit has been on «pause» for 17 years in defiance of every UN climate model, is caused by human activities and requires planetary carbon taxes and more government control.

Building on the principles of collaboration called for by ethereum inventor Vitalik Buterin, CME Group's blockchain lead Sandra Ro acknowledged skeptics of the consortia model, saying that a rotating board was specifically designed to minimize a single member's influence, while a tech - focused sub committee would help drive innovation.