Sentences with phrase «denialist claims»

Indeed, it would probably be quicker to list Coalition politicians who have never publically made denialist claims.

We're all too familiar w / GW denialist claims and their reasoning already.

Perhaps we need a site that goes beyond the «most common denialist claims» so nicely debunked at Skeptical Science to include these kinds of finer grained fabrications?

Will denialist claims then heat up once again?

Bob's just rattling through the usual tired and debunked denialist claims, misrepresenting evidence, demonstrating his ignorance of real scientific process or squawking «the models are wrong!»

Anthony Watts «don't have a dog in this fight» but wants us to think that at least one of the comical Lord Monckton's denialist claims are true.

an OpEd in the Financial Post (which, like the Wall Street Journal, is a refuge for denialist claims).

You should be skeptical of skeptic denialist claims of conspiracy, and wary of making such claims yourself unless you've confirmed things.

Its the denialists claiming there must be a «hidden cause» and you can not disprove this, which is of course an absurd position to take.

Conclusion By circling the earth 15 times per day, for years on end, observing constantly, the GRACE satellites * can * do see plainly what some denialists claim is impossible to see at all: gravitational shifts from melting ice - caps.

(denialists claim «they're protecting their funding»)

Furthermore, the AMO is based on SST's, and yet the denialists claim that the SST - hurricane link is not very robust when it suits their purposes — yet it is robust enough to state that the AMO determines Atlantic hurricane frequency and intensity?

And even his crticism isn't as great as the denialists claim, but it's good enough for them.

Looks like the denialist claim that global warming peaked in 1998 is clearly shot down (as if it had any legs to stand on in the first place): http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2116873.ece

It was presented to test stupid denialists claims that refereed underpinning data of the global warming thesis was compiled with «trickery» or with false «assumptions».

Not exact matches

Taylor also argues that the paper's claim that «the most prominent denialists are conservative white males,» overlooks the other side of the political equation.

PlantPositive do not specifically talk about Dr Mercola claims, but Paleo's arguments about cholesterol and other issues that in some ways are similar (Dr Mercola is a cholesterol denialist just as Paleo).

the denialist iceage claim didn't manifest in arctic sea ice.

The link is the usual denialist chaff invoking PDO and citing the Oregon Petition and what ever to explain Alaska's temperature rise and to claim the raise is not out of the ordinary.

Having said all that, I think certain types of climate denialists should be banned from websites, if they are just spamming, or making outrageous claims with just pure lists of propaganda slogans, with nothing to back up their claims.

The climate change denialist John O'Sullivan (3-4-12), who claims he is a legal expert, has fabricated a statement and attributed it to Chicago FBI Special Agent Royden Rice.

The claim that the NASA data can't be trusted has recently turned up at WUWT once again because we had compared these data to a cooling forecast made by two German climate denialists, and the comparison wasn't exactly looking good for that forecast.

Denialists will also claim that corn will grow well on thawed - out tundra, an idea I think most farmers would find silly.

He is saying that the «destroying our fat, happy society» claim is the game of the denialists.

It's incredibly hypocritical of global warming denialists to whine that compilations of global temperature anomaly like GISTEMP have large distances between recording stations and this makes them an inaccurate estimate of global anomaly and then we have a global warming denialist extraordinaire, Roberts, claim that a SINGLE locality, Central England, can provide an adequate estimate of global anomaly.

Wherein Judith Curry is caught out on regurgitating denialist trope without bothering to even cursorily verify the veracity of the claims, and turns out to be nothing but a tone troll.

I think climate scientists know about these, but can't really make definitive claims, so they don't get into peer - reviewed articles much... or else other scientists might attack them with ferocity (even substracting denialists from the equation here).

You claim you want to understand, but don't read the science, you read denialist opinions (not science, opinion.)

And of course none of the denialists who claimed that warming peaked in 1998 or that warming has leveled out make a peep about being wrong... again.

The less data you collect on global warming, the more room there is for a handful of denialists to claim that it isn't really happening — that's been the story on ocean warming for the past decade, hasn't it?

It all looks so legitimate, and few people have the time to fact check claims in the denialist blog, let alone the scientific knowledge to be able to do it.

Aaron, the fact that you claim there are two sides to this argument shows me that you don't understand the science, because the denialists publish bupkis.

In other words, we can and should note that we are probably hitting the 400 ppm barrier, but then later when we drop slightly below, temporarily, 400ppm, the climate science denialists will be all over that claiming that there is no global warming.

What the graph does show is signs of acceleration 1993 - 2007 but then there are a couple of large negative steps 2007 - 10 turning the graph into something a denialist could easily claim showed deceleration.

If you plug the phrase «five of the ten hottest summers» into google, you get only 3 hits, all from denialist websites, and two of them claim that they occurred in the 1800's, not 1930's.

Even the denialists, like the communists, are fooling people by claiming they have scientific truth.

The csccp report makes the claim — confidently repeated by Dan, as by so many denialists before — that cold is ever so much more lethal than heat.

We've seen a bizarre (well, if you know the climate denialist scene, not so bizarre) misreporting about Millar et al., focusing on the claim that climate models have supposedly overestimated global warming.

I think a while back the skeptics and denialists were actually using the cooling in the stratosphere (or perhaps some other part of the atmosphere) to claim AGW was not happening.

«To be clear, I'm not claiming that the denialists are going to shut up anytime soon.

To be very clear, I'm not claiming that the denialists are going to shut up anytime soon.

Abdalati has graciously skewered these denialist propagandists by reminding everyone that they haven't produced any scientific evidence to back up their claims — no data, no peer - reviewed research.

They can then link to their comments and articles, on other denialist websites, and claim credibility due to their association with a suitably well qualified climate scientist.

The classic example of a denialist TILT is the OISM Petition Project, which claims to have the signatures of31, 487 scientists who question the scientific consensus on climate change.

The program host Thom Hartman, criticized the Heartland Institute and claimed that more people in the US are denialists.

Nova is an Australian climate denialist and author of «The Skeptic's Handbook,» a crash course in false science claiming global warming isn't happening and isn't human - caused.

«One single proof» is a deceptive rhetorical flourish used primarily by denialists designed to apparently negate a preponderance of circumstantial evidence by claiming that without a specific key proof, the whole argument is invalid.

It can form no part of rational skepticism to allow these flimsy - yet - deadly denialist medical claims to pass unchallenged here on WUWT.

Anyway, if you're like other denialists, then your claim on Antarctic ice is probably based on the following NASA press release about the following Antarctic ice study:

Perhaps you should be admonishing these institutions selling it that way if you don't agree rather than claiming it's some denialist straw man?