Sentences with phrase «denialists at»

I cite it to denialists at least 3 times a week!

The denialists at the «Courier - Mail» seem to have missed this.

Briffa's being kind, actually, as he's drawing a line between McI and the frothing mass of denialists at CA and WUWT.

The measurements are not in doubt — even by denialists at BEST.

Another thing, I ran into an complete - denialist at an Xmas party — he (a medical doctor) was absolutely certain GW was definitely not happening.

Not exact matches

Martin McKee, an epidemiologist at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine who also studies denial, has identified six tactics that all denialist movements use.

A chilling effect on even scientists» usual disagreements that lead to better and better science, because they're always having to look over their shoulders at the blood - dripping fangs of the denialists close on their heels, looking for some climate scientist to break from the pack so they can attack.

I worry they could win, not just in Australia but across the world because the science and policy communities generally do not engage with belief related matters head on in mass media and denialists handle the media very well (look at the ex journalist Lord Nigel Lawson).

He has served as an adviser to various denialist think tanks and has spoken at denialist conferences.

[Response: Perhaps this is because you are looking at denialist websites?

The denialist speaker at the utility conference:

At least it has reminded me why denialist websites ain't worth an single atom of Carbon and why I rarely if ever bother.

As I'm sure you do understand the sensitivity reasoning though... so many times, and so many things, said out of context by so many denialists... I certainly can be «touchy» about such things at times.

For the particular denialist studied at Open Mind, how the research — or those presenting it — made them feel was more important than its truth or predictive / explanatory power.

Hi at the heart of all denialist argument is that increased atmospheric co2 concentrations will not change the climate.

InsideClimate News reported Sept 9 that a climate denialist was the speaker at the only session on climate change at the Northeast Public Power Association's annual conference:

It seems he really has not looked at the wealth of evidence and there is a good possibility, based on the manner and substance of his writing on the subject, that he has been getting most of his info form denialist sites rather than directly from the science itself.

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.

At least you do not cite «HIV denialist» in your updated post as one the criticisms leveled at you herAt least you do not cite «HIV denialist» in your updated post as one the criticisms leveled at you herat you here.

Indeed, I expect this is at the root of a lot of denialism: the denialists have established a set of habits, and reject any information that suggests a need to change them.

Unfortunately some denialists or those trying to confuse the public intentionally tend to try to disprove climate change by looking at today's temperature and tomorrow's weather forecast!

Sounds like your tarring them as being denialists, or lashing out at Dan for asking an honest question about a statement they make in their section 2.6, is a bit unkind, at best.

When I Google that expression I get an awful lot of denialist sites come up; nobody on the first page of hits looks like a climate scientist — unless for example you're counting Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, whose scientific qualifications end at O - level (if he even got an O - level); or perhaps Joanne Nova, who has more scientific qualification, but isn't a climate scientist unless a bachelor's degree in microbiology qualifies her as such?

You said, «Many on this blog are astonished at the persistence of the denialists.

So now I answer the «ice - age» denialist argument (denialists usually trot out ALL their inconsistent & contradictory arguments) this way: I draw a sine - wave in the air with my hand, saying, yes, that the normal fluctuation over a long geological timeframe is to alternate between cold ice ages and warm interglacial periods, and that now we are right here in a warm interglacial period (my hand raised at the top of the wave), and if there were no human GHGs, then we would expect that over a long time frame we'd be sliding down into an ice age.

Should keep the denialist crowd busy for a few years at least.

Many on this blog are astonished at the persistence of the denialists.

# 165 Ray Ladbury My concern is that there are plenty of unscrupulous (and often highly paid) elements in the denialist camp who will stop at nothing to delay action on climate.

There are a lot of comments today whereby people seem quite taken aback at the strenght of the denialist movement.

My concern is that there are plenty of unscrupulous (and often highly paid) elements in the denialist camp who will stop at nothing to delay action on climate.

Also, if you could weigh in on whether you think these things are collapsed pingos (which seems to be the WUWT position — reason enough to doubt it, imho) and why, it could be useful in my (mostly fruitless) efforts at beating back denialists on other blogs.

Spencer B. (# 7) wrote: «Many on this blog are astonished at the persistence of the denialists.

And regarding AGW I am not a denialist, I look at all the available data, but NASA's and the NOAA data is very clear.

Ultimately, I believe that the biggest problems denialists face stem from a failure of nerve — they can not face the threat of climate change unless they think there is some solution, and we can not at present lay all of that out.

In essence Tung & Zhou are dining at the denialist's last - chance saloon by invoking a 60 - year natural cycle (their cycle of choice being AMO) resulting in a reduced anthropogenic influence on climate, although they make sure to not directly challenge climate sensitivity by asserting that their findings will impact on assessment of net anthropogenic forcing and leave climate sensitivity estimates unchallenged.

Another thing denialists could jump at.

Then again, perhaps with at least eight denialist talking points with nothing to support them, is why you didn't.

The «research» turned out by Exxon shills is either not peer - reviewed at all or pushed through a corrupted peer review process (most of the editorial board of one journal resigned over one of the cases, and now the stuff has to appear in the denialist house journal E&E).

@ LUIS «What matters now, for AR5 and future work, is to improve the process so that the outgoing «signal» is increasingly at the service of the common good rather than responsive to the «noise» of either denialists or alarmists with vested interests.»

Presumably, that is not aimed at Martin Durkin, producer of The Great Global Warming Swindle, and the man falsely accused by Bob May, former president of the Royal Society, of being an HIV - AIDS denialist.

What matters now, for AR5 and future work, is to improve the process so that the outgoing «signal» is increasingly at the service of the common good rather than responsive to the «noise» of either denialists or alarmists with vested interests.

What he said about the science is very informative, but I have a problem with only pointing the finger at Western denialists, Americans and Heartland, as the interviewer did at the beginning.

«Here in the US, the incoming President Trump promptly appointed a cadre of avowed climate denialists and quickly started reversing existing climate measures,» said Sivan Kartha, a senior scientist at the Stockholm Environmental Institute.

And let's not forget serial denialist Roger Pielke Sr. has been insisting, in the literature at least since 2003 that the ocean is the «primary diagnostic of climate system heat changes».

And yet denialist, sap, climate clown, idiot, moron, insane, etc, etc from you is perfectly reasonable and not bizarre behaviour at all?

But just like many of the arguments from professional climate science denialists, what at first might appear a cinematic coup d'état turns out to be little more than fakery and stage management.

They misrepresent the state of climate science, reciting talking points that can be found on any of a number of denialist websites, or heard at conferences sponsored by fossil - fuel funded groups such as the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).

red - no climate science publications, member of at least one climate denialist group - GWPF (advisory board), George C. Marshall Institute (board of directors or roundtable speakers), Australian Climate Science Coalition (advisory panel), Heartland Institute (board of directors), and / or ExxonMobil

Would not they say look, here is a field of eminent political importance where the denialist approach was well justified from the beginning, even against overwhelming opposition at times, so please consider the possibility of our cause also being a just one.

If not, at least your posts have provided Climate Etc readers with a paradigmatic example of the sustainment of denialist cognition!