Sentences with phrase «called skeptics like»

Not exact matches

But it's not a gift that can be called upon on command, like magic, as a skeptic may expect to see in order to be convinced.

Ok so I am a huge skeptic of things like this that I call hippie dippie.

Others, like a call for a publicly available, searchable inventory of approved projects, are designed to allow skeptics of greater access to monitor what the government is doing with the data.

Hawkers of «ionizer» water machines (like Kangen) claim healing alkaline water benefits; skeptics call it snake oil.

If it ultimately bows to convention — leaving Saldana, like Gillan, to make the most of a shallow female role (Gamora, at one point, is inexplicably called a whore)-- that streak of smart silliness makes Guardians of the Galaxy just different enough to be fun for comic book fans and skeptics alike.

You'll never think of James, the Camino, or the making of the stories you believe in the same way.AUTHOR INTERVIEW: Q: Who is this is juicy, erudite entertainment meant for?A: History nerds, religious seekers, rational skeptics, thinking people, and anyone who likes Monty Python or thinks they might want to take a long walk on the Camino de Santiago.Q: Can we learn from any other historical source why Jesus really called James a «Son of Thunder»?

Call me a skeptic, but the Fed likes to maximize its own flexibility in applying policy, and gradualism fits that bill.

You will disagree, of course, but I still believe that it would be better tactics in the face of the meaningless but easily exploited decade of temperature flattening, to engage with the skeptics rather than to seek to dismiss out of hand with name - calling and the like.

I'm starting to call things like this, «Skeptic Scrabble».

Just because you don't like him, you try to delegitimize him by refusing to call him a scientist, but instead a «climate skeptic,»... and then you tell us not to call names!!!

Disputing that there is an effect called the greenhouse effect from the physical properties of gasses like CO2 only leaves you in a position where anything you say is hevily discounted and you make other skeptics look bad.

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 capitalism.

That people like you could call themselves skeptics is truly a shame, and unfortunately a sign of the times.

So anyone who does not agree with Man - made carbon driving weather is referred to as a «Climate Skeptic» however a great name for someone who does believe in this new religion you could call a «Climate Synoptic» just like a bad weather chart (Synoptic) they get it wrong so many times.

And the ones that do are called «climatologists» and are conducting their work right alongside all the other climatologists and are talking about the actual weaknesses of the theories and data, which unfortunately for the «skeptics» turns out to be a lot less than they'd like to think.

People who continue to call into question the basic radiative transfer physics, people who continue to cherry - pick selected pieces of information without understanding it, etc are not acting like «skeptics.»

And AGW hysterics like to call skeptics deniers, in what is clearly the most obvious case of projection on the global stage.

Gore calls on his climate faithful to treat global warming skeptics like racists and homophobes By Ben Geman Former vice president Al Gore on Monday called for making climate change «denial» a taboo in society.

If people like Bjorn Lomborg, Judith Curry and Matt Ridley are called deniers — I have to admit to being at least a skeptic.

The media like their ABC refuse to have so called skeptics on their media to argue any points.

Don't waste your time calling for RICO investigations of the IPCC or the consensus scientists — it just makes skeptics look bad (like the other side).

Gore calls on his climate faithful to treat global warming skeptics like racists and homophobes

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.»

I think you'll find as most skeptics (like my self) have that you'll get a much better level of balanced discussion on so called «skeptic» blogs than you will on so called «warmist» (i.e. pro-AGW) blogs / forums.

Intelligent skeptics like Judith Curry or Robert LIndzen or could name dozens of actual scientists who believe like I do that there was warming in the 80s and 90s and man has added some (in parts per milllion) of CO2 to the atmosphere but should we be alarmed and call CO2 a pollutant - NO.

By effectively drawing a line around academia and calling it «science» and persuading all the press, politicians, etc. to see those inside as legitimate to speak on subjects like climate and those outside as therefore illegitimate, it means that no matter how qualified or experience we skeptics are, that we will always be deemed as illegimate.

Yes, it's true — skeptical, legitimate climate scientists like the ones who run this site have been very frustrated by the deliberately deceitful pseudoscience, outright lies — and most recently vicious personal attacks against them — that have been cranked out for the last couple of decades by fossil fuel industry - funded frauds and cranks and given unwarranted legitimacy by the mass media, and regurgitated ad nauseum on blogs everywhere by Ditto - Heads who unquestioningly believe whatever drivel is spoon - fed to them by the phony «conservative» media, and call themselves «skeptics» for doing so.

Oh please, skeptics are people who question all sides of an issue (like most qualified climate scientists), and climate contrarians are rarely that, which is why many of us call them fake skeptics.

If you're interested in seeing what playing the player instead of the ball looks like, check out the alarmist site Only In It For the Gold, where Michael Tobis unleashes endless vicious ad hominem against any skeptics who raise their voice (his most recent was a long diatribe against Freeman Dyson, whom he apparently considers a geriatric buffoon), and opens threads on what names one should call «denialists», regularly bans commenters who argue a point too vociferously, or anyone claiming scientific credentials but arguing against «the consensus».

While one advocate calls the aversion to allowing machines to kill the «yuck» factor, a panel of ethicists and philosophers illuminated what this difference is really about: the skeptics (like myself) are advocating a utilitarian ethical scheme (the greatest good for the greatest number), while the proponents are applying Kant's categorical imperative that no human being should be used as an instrument.