Sentences with phrase «denialist knows»

Arguably, the most influential source of misrepresentation and ridicule is the Murdoch broadsheet, the Australian, which not only turns over its opinion pages to every denialist no matter how loopy but regularly features news stories that grossly misrepresent climate science.

I think in some cases the denialists know climate is not weather but deliberately promote deceit with malice and intent to spread doubt and to protect business interests.

# 63 nigelj said think in some cases the denialists know climate is not weather but deliberately promote deceit with malice and intent to spread doubt and to protect business interests.

Not exact matches

«Question everything — but have the sense to know when your questions have been suitably answered, and don't become a denialist.»

You know, the global warming denialists who for years have managed to say, «Well, the case is not proven.

No doubt the denialists will find reason to celebrate.

You know where the denialists would go with it, and that's what would REALLY be damaging to science.

The happy band of denialists (presumably the gang of nine who advise Judge Alsup with their nonsense) have been «quietly but very busily investigating how much global warming we may cause, known as the «equilibrium - sensitivity» question.»

I remember the upsurge of confidence and boldness amongst the denialists after their conference in New York Last year organised by the Heartland Institute and as we know another one is coming up for March 2009 (perhaps it would useful for a number of us to attend).

Just remember scientists are up against a media that only wants to publish the latest celebrity scandal, and denialists determined not to learn anything no matter how brilliantly it is described.

And you know what makes denialists boil over with rage, as you have repeatedly done?

Did you know that Anothony Watts is raising the dead in order to dredge up Nobel Prize winning global warming denialists?

And I have no illusions about most of the denialist characters that appear, they are as stubborn as god knows what.

Without blogs such as RealClimate I would not know how to recognise and counter denialist baloney.

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).

As far as I know, there are no credible, viable, denialist climate models out there; this is hardly a coincidence.

The happy band of denialists (presumably the gang of nine who advise Judge Alsup with their nonsense) have been «quietly but very busily investigating how much global warming we may cause, known as the «equilibrium - sensitivity» question.»

You know, I wonder if the denialists on this thread such as Matt, Dodo or Steve Reynolds would care to comment on the following topic (which actually relate to the original topic of the post):

The denialist cut - paste attempts to — via logical fallacy, hand - waving and dissembling — make it appear that... that... well, who knows but it isn't germane nor does it refute eroding coastlines due to less ice, nor does the denialist cut - paste refute the facts of melting permafrost, CH4 release, warmer Arctic temps, birds moving north into the Arctic, increased freshwater flow into the northern seas, and numerous other indicators.

The troll's first citation is to good old Wikkithing which presently contains an unchallenged quote from Scarfetta & Wilson (2014) who are well known as being denialist sources that would warm the cockles of any cold - blooded troll.

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.

The GCR theories have been around for a long time now, as any seasoned denialist should know, so there's nothing sensational about its mention as a fringe theory that can be discounted.

[I'm using what's soon to be known as Dot Earth Defender, a comment filter (requires Firefox and Greasemonkey add - on) to ignore denialist disinformation in DotEarth comments.]

I would say that the threat that actions will be taken, because the issue is becoming more known, have spurred the denialists and their funders to step up their campaign.

I have no idea what you are referring to, except perhaps that the rote regurgitation of long - since and many - times - over debunked denialist nonsense is mercifully (and no doubt laboriously) deleted by the RC moderators — unlike every other open blog on the Internet where any attempt to discuss the science of anthropogenic global warming is quickly drowned out by a torrent of pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, blatant falsehoods, and hate speech against climate scientists.

I don't know if publishers would go for something like this, but certainly the feedback and the community of posters here that is slowly gathering might make an interesting book, about all the pros and cons of the issues, and the contrarians and the believers and the denialists... If I was a literary agent, I'd sign the book up right now.

it's nice to see how utterly desperate they are getting, and that (as with the CRU email flop last year) the media are no longer invariably regurgitating the denialist line.

Ms Curry allows her blog to be filled with unchallenged denialist nonsense which she knows herself to be wrong.

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

It seems that Muller is trying to score some cheap points from the denialists again: «No, the Climate-gate was a scandal, it's terrible what they did, it's shameful the way they hid the data.

But again — here we are — showing that denialists will do ANYTHING — go to any level — no matter how low to defeat an ETS or Cap n» Trade by attacking the climate science.

It appears that you have not read the paper and have only pinched stuff from a well known denialist website.

«We know who the active denialists are — not the people who buy the lies, mind you, but the people who create the lies.

Yet, to answer but another question, if we look at ye old 1988 Hansen graph, you know, the one that got the 1998 El Nino right, we see between 1973 and 1984 a flat eleven year period in Scenario B So what more do the denialists want, good predictions of El Nino, flat decades and more out of a twenty year old model that you can run on a PC.

When Mann has to defend his actions he'll have the opportunity to explain the frustration of the denialist BS and a few of those spotlights will settle on you know who and those behind him.

And in an unwitting exposé of the essential denialist fallacy, when Kevin says «the vast majority of climate scientists have no doubt...», Diane cuts him off with «the vast majority of people on earth believe in God, and they're all wrong».

It may have been worth attempting to win you over 12 - 24 months ago when the denialist view still had some support in government, business and the general public, but that is no longer the case.

You know, the comments by «anonymous» above are classic denialist memes.

Chris MCV wrote: ``... then it devolves into AGW promoters and Denialists debates... People will look at the debate and decide nobody knows whats going on...»

In his home country he is just commonly known among the peoples as «the climate change denialist from around here».

You know, the game they learned at the N3xus6 School of Denial in Lesson Two, (excerpt to the right), where you get a bunch of denialists in at a conference sponsored by the Heartland Institute and they start makin» it up and then in Lesson Three, they start passin» it on.

Some of the climate denialists are proposing climate sensitivities that are simply physically implausible, couldn't be the case in reality at all, contradicting everything we know about the climate system.

But then I suppose, a bit like Phil Jones redefining peer review, the moment the person posted to RealClimate they were no longer an insider, they had become an agent of the hated anarcho - denialists, Mossad, the Russia secret service or equivalent.

What about those of us who are sceptical but don't read «anti-science ideologues», don't listen to «pseudo-scientists and non-scientists» and wouldn't know denialist info - tainment if we fell over it?

[DC: Your last comment was off - topic and a recycled denialist talking point, with a link to a website known to propagate misinformation.

The simple minded imaging that they have a profound insight into climate based on a set of simplistic notions — and anyone who disagrees no matter how distinguished in the field is simply a denialist scumbag.

Understanding this fact is key to comprehending the denialist mentality and to knowing how to respond to denialist arguments.

The usual telltales are links to the other well - known extremist blogs, and for me, e.g. the words «Rebuttal», «Denier», «Denialist» usually tell enough to exit the page.

Attacked constantly, exonerated repeatedly, he knows the climate change denialist methods probably better than anyone.

Rugged denialist free - marketers like Anthony and Eric spend their nights worrying about the poors, don't you know?