Sentences with phrase «called sceptics»

Contrary to media stereotypes, many so - called sceptics — such as Abbott, John Howard, Maurice Newman and this writer — recognised that the rise in carbon dioxide as a result of the burning of fossil fuels led to moderate warming.

But we must listen more carefully to these so called sceptics who are suggesting that CO2 is not the problem - otherwise we could be wasting valuable resources in changing something that will make no difference.

-- whereas the so - called sceptics or contrarians have relatively trivial funding, and are often self funded.

Generally the so called sceptics should not be excluded from the reports moreover there should be a chapter or even a special report on the sceptics including the argumentation against them.

Haven't we been told that the science of global warming is settled beyond doubt and that all that's left to the so - called sceptics is the odd errant glacier that refuses to melt?

Those so called sceptics always dismiss the science and never add anything substantive to the discussion.

When I call myself a sceptic, I mean that I take a scientific approach to the evaluation of claims.

This is encouraging, because the 25 % who do not «believe» that temperatures have risen are plainly in denial; the evidence for warming is so strong that just about all the prominent so - called sceptic scientists acknowledge it.

By closing the argument on the theory of AGW from the start and going as far as calling sceptics «Holocaust deniers» the «Warmers» have raised the stakes against themselves.

When warmists started calling sceptics denialists, I immediately knew that they're projecting — they were the ones who denied climate change.

If you are to call yourselves sceptics, you need to be sceptical all the time, and stop swallowing whole all the denier rubish that is published on this and other websites.

I imagine my Prime Minister, Copenhagen time, would not have said, «Flat earthers», «anti-science sceptics», nor ’50 days to save the earth» or other ministers using the D word, and the then UK Minister of State for Energy and Climate, calling sceptics — «climate sabatouers» with the obvious (terrorist) concerns over that language, on a mere hypothesis.

Notwithstanding this record he has been vilified for his activities as a man - made - climate - change realist (sometimes called sceptic).

Call me a sceptic, Oliver, but that link includes quotes from Buddhism — a religion first mentioned several hundred years after the Buddha's death; he did not found a religion — but nothing from the Buddha's own voluminous teachings.

One of our main quibbles with the way the climate change debate is presented is precisely that the IPCC «consensus» belies a broad range of nuanced positions and arguments — both scientific and political — as does the so - called sceptic camp.

appeals to personal experience and authority by someone who calls themselves a sceptic..

Not exact matches

In it, McKibben calls Justin Trudeau a «stunning hypocrite» on climate change whose actions make him a «brother» to climate sceptic Donald Trump.

As Tory sceptics applaud what any sane observer would call a major foreign policy disaster, could it be that Cameron is in the process of taking the UK out of the EU without a referendum?

Environment secretary faces calls for his resignation, as Green campaigners warn that a climate change sceptic should not be in post during extreme weather events

The Tory sceptics have been calling for a referendum.

Now surely Lib Dem pro-Europeanism has been loud and clear, a heart - warming clarion call in the growing Euro - sceptic mood of the times.

The environment secretary faced calls for his resignation today, as Green campaigners warned that a climate change sceptic should not be left at Cabinet level during extreme weather conditions.

The Tory sceptics - the «sour right», as Douglas Hurd aptly calls them - refuse to recognise that no amount of activism will solve their biggest problem, the health of the British economy.

Their concerns have been sparked by two simultaneous developments: increasing public criticism by key Republicans of research funded by agencies like the National Science Foundation (NSF) and a congressional power shift that has placed many vocal so - called climate change sceptics and opponents of environmental regulations in positions of power.

During the 1990s, Palmer was a central figure in the coal industry's funding of climate sceptic scientists through a now - defunct organisation called the Greening Earth Society.

During the 1990s, Palmer was a central figure in the coal industry's funding of climate sceptic scientists through a now - defunct organisation called the

Baumbach, like De Palma, is often accused of repeating himself, or at least sticking to the same dialogue - heavy style, but even sceptics couldn't call his work «impersonal».

I call it Global Warming Sceptic Bingo!

And given that it's Burns Night tonight, and our PM's a Scotsman (that's the one who called climate sceptics «flat earthers»), this line from the poet might be appropriate for him, Pachauri, Gore and many, many others:

It's because discussing science with so called climate sceptics, (IMO deniers), is akin to discussing Evolutionary theory with religious fundamentalists.

The closest thing to a challenge are the scientific discussions offered by «sceptics», «deniers», «realists» or whatever you want to call them.

I'm accusing him, and most other so - called climate sceptics, of allowing their political views to guide, or override, their scientific judgement.

I have extensively read scientist Mike Hulme's presentation of climate change as PNS, but do you know of any other alarmist or sceptic scientists calling it as PNS?

There are many interesting comments from proponents of human caused climate change (AGW or anthropogenic global warming) and from sceptics which show an astonishing range of differing interpretations and understandings of the so called Greenhouse Effect none of which bear much relation to the actuality.

Curry calls Mann's bluff — he should make plain what is the scientific claim which is in dispute, but which shouldn't be, and which are the claims in general that sceptics seemingly deny.

what it demonstrates is how far so - called «sceptics» will go to create doubt about climate science in the in the public perception.

If they want to be called «sceptics» they need to consider that option as well.

However, as a scientist, I am proud to call myself a long - time sceptic regarding the pseudo-scientific nonsense of anthropogenic global warming.

In typically vaudevillian manner, Monckton played to the cameras by pointing at the University of Queensland's John Cook — who was there to interview sceptics — calling him a «crook» in French and English.

Though not CMOS's first public statement, it was one of the most «vocal about climate change of late» due to the fact «that Canada's new Conservative government does not support the Kyoto Protocol for lower emissions of greenhouse gases, and opposed stricter emissions for a post-Kyoto agreement at a United Nations meeting in Bonn in May [2006]» and because «a small, previously invisible group of global warming sceptics called the Friends of Science are suddenly receiving attention from the Canadian government and media,» Leahy wrote.

I have encountered much confusion about the relevance of so called diabatic and adiabatic processes in the minds of both alarmed proponents of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) and in the minds of many sceptics.

«Presumably in your view only deniers and sceptics (why not call them tanks?)

Obviously there are credible and sceptical sceptics I would call myself the latter.

There are no TV stations that give sceptics (always called «Deniers» by the TV) a chance of even saying what the problems are with the warmists beliefs, so people in Australia are pretty much screwed.

I watched the shows with friends who are both «believers» & «sceptics» and surprisingly the «believers» commented that both shows, in different ways, were hardly concealed propaganda pieces in support of the so called consensus on manmade global warming.

It's called climatedebatedaily.com, and presents the latest important news about climate change in two columns, one for those who accept the global warming orthodoxy and one for the sceptics.

By Richard of EUReferendum It's been a heady few months for climate sceptics — or «deniers» as the opposition loves to call us.

Indeed, I would say that most climate researchers are now close enough to our position to be called «sceptics».

The mistakes he makes demonstrate the problem with many arguments that put the environment at the centre of their perspective, even those who do not call for the execution of sceptics.

I am quite a noisy commentator on the energy scene, would probably be called a «climate sceptic» (which I am not) by many, and agree that the questionnaire is simplistic.