Sentences with phrase «contrarian talking points»

Yet you and (especially) Max have been cheerfully pontificating about all sorts of contrarian talking points, not just Prof. Alley.

After smearing the CBC as if it were a government propaganda arm, the duo moved on to a depressingly familiar litany of contrarian talking points:

There are very clearly two parts to this paper — the first is a poor summary of the practice of climate modelling — touching all the recent contrarian talking points (global cooling, Douglass et al, Karl Popper etc.) but is not worth dealing with in detail (the reviewers of the paper include Willie Soon, Pat Frank and Larry Gould (of Monckton / APS fame)-- so no guessing needed for where they get their misconceptions).

... we argue that the appeal to uncertainty in public discourse, together with other contrarian talking points, has «seeped» back into the relevant scientific community.

So, here's a plug for the MOOC I am contributing to that attempts to promote learning through rebutting contrarian talking points.

When I first read about Howard's speech, the admission of political expediency driving policy struck me as much as the familiarity with contrarian talking points and hollow understanding of the science.

[DC: Now you get into two long - ago debunked contrarian talking points.

Testimony from actual climate scientists would be infinitely preferable to the tired contrarian talking points, all debunked long ago, from this lot.

This is followed by the usual bogus contrarian talking points, and a swipe at the avarice of business people «cashing in» on the «new carbon economy».

The least you can do is to coatrack the usual contrarian talking points, like Andy did with Lew and C13, or handwave to footnotes with most formal references missing.

Suggestions that are really a rehash of contrarian talking points or otherwise problematic will be considered off - topic and may be edited, deleted and / or moved elsewhere at my sole discretion.

In an interview with me last year another of the authors, Prof Michael Mann, described the period of an alleged slowdown as the «faux pause», saying that «global warming hasn't stopped, even though you still hear those contrarian talking points.»

Rebuttals are not hard to find (if you go to «start here» on the top of the RC page, and scroll to the section that says «Informed, but seeking serious discussion of common contrarian talking points» each one of those links discusses this claim, and similar ones).

Perhaps provide somewhere that Skeptical Science is a handy, user - friendly reference for answers to contrarian talking points — keeping in mind that the tutorial, in addition to providing general background, has to have some relevance to the way the opposition is likely to argue (misrepresent).

A favourite climate contrarian talking point is that there was a pause or «hiatus» in warming from 1998 until the early part of the current decade.

To be perfectly clear: Talk of a «hiatus» or a «pause» in global warming has been a contrarian talking point for about a decade, and there is clear evidence that this framing was picked up by the media (see Max Boykoff's article in Nature Climate Change last year) and has now been picked up by some climate scientists.

I'd just like to make sure I understood your post correctly: the common answer to the «contrarian talking point» that much of the observed recent climate change could just be caused by natural variability in the climate system is that this would imply, broadly speaking, heat being moved from the oceans to the atmosphere — whereas we observe the opposite, oceans storing heat.

Not exact matches

«His new blog «A few things ill - considered» has a point - by - point rebuttal of almost all the most common «contrarian'talking points.

Well, that journal has a troubling history of serving as a platform for skeptics, who publish contrarian articles that were channeled back to Republicans, such as Senator Inhofe, to use as talking points.

Here's another recent example — Pielke and his fellow conservative contrarian colleague Dan Sarewitz had an article in the Financial Times recently («Climate policy robs the world's poor of their hopes») that I think misses the mark so badly, in a let's - be-provocative-and-act-like-we're - the - real - progressives way, that it would be tempting to ignore it, except that it's in a high - profile publication and feeds misleading talking points to a right - wing corporate political and economic culture.