Sentences with phrase «denialists like»

Denialists like yourself are eager to «disprove» the «hockey stick» because if recent, and future, warming due to AGW is not unprecedented over human history then one can more plausibly argue that there's nothing to worry about.

3) One tactic of denialists like Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli and several Congressmen is to use witch hunts against climate scientists.

So, I have to say, I'm a little perplexed by denialists like you taking comfort in the «lack of precision» of the models.

In fact all the fudging of the truth is coming from denialists like you, yet you are so caught in your ideologically based crusade against imagined and absurd threats of socialism and the like, you cant see that you have allowed yourself to bend the truth, and just promote nonsense propoganda.

What's certain is that denialists like yourself are the ones who are full of unwarranted certainty...

Well, with denialists like Monckton going around preaching Hummer love, we'll probably be exceeding the IPCC's worst - case scenario.

re» I fail to see what you find out of Cox & Senior's presentation that would be of any help for denialists like Rose.»

Also, there are NOT «hundreds and hundreds of papers on both sides»; denialists like Anthony have only made - to - order «think tank» fiction to wave around while foaming at the mouth.

One more study, though, probably won't change the minds of climate denialists like Smith, Rosenberg said.

The denialists like to assume that the cause for the model / observation discrepancy is some kind of problem with the fundamental model physics, and they pooh - pooh any other sort of explanation.

One wonders, do denialists like Edim, Watts, Rose, Monckton, LaRouche, Eschenbach, Tisdale (et al.) retain any personal memory of past cherry - picked blunders?

Do denialists like Edim, Watts, Rose, Monckton, LaRouche, Eschenbach, Tisdale (et al.) retain any personal memory of past cherry - picked blunders?

Sen. Jim Inhofe, the Oklahoma Republican who believes that human influence on climate change must be a myth because the Bible says so, said in an interview with Family Research Council President Tony Perkins last night on «Washington Watch» that climate change denialists like himself have won the debate.

Of course, satellites are not relevant to everyday human life, as the temps that denialists like to point to are measured from 4 - 7 km above the surface of the earth, and humans don't live in dirigibles or airships.

And yet, even here, the result is sufficiently satisfactory that we — and this includes denialists like Dan DaSilva — are willing to entrust our very lives to them!

The denialists like to personalize things, attack a few people and their research over and over again.

Not exact matches

«Within the ranks of elites, climate change denialists are overwhelmingly conservative white males,» reads the report, pointing to figures like talk show host Rush Limbaugh and Marshall Institute CEO, William O'Keefe.

Like Trump, Pence and McMorris Rodgers are climate denialists.

This may sound like giving support to the denialist brou - haa - haa, but it actually drives home the Fact that the Full Impact of Human Climate Modification is actually staving off that very Ice Age — providing, of course, that we don't turn off the Atlantic Conveyor........

Someone needs to tell Cowtan and Way (and everyone else like them) to get the f *** off of Curry's blog site and every other denialist forum on the planet.

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.

Can we please keep loaded (and some would say mis - loaded) words like «enviro - fools» and «warmenistas» and «warmenazis» and «stupid denialists» and other terms off this blog's comment sections?

I like these attribution studies mention in this post, but the denialists seem forever stuck out on the long tail of «anything's possible in a non-ACC world, it's all within what's natural.»

One of the things I like about RealClimate is how easy the articles are to read and understand, compared to the slanted ramblings on the denialist - delayer blogs.

I say that you are misinformed because you blindly parrot denialist talking points like «Climate science is a young science,» and «The science is uncertain.»

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?

Sounds to me like a repackaged denialist talking point.

We'll see whether the denialists continue to like these data when the temps rebound.

Why do you continue to assert some 10 % of the people as «denialist fringe» of AGW, when even Andy states that firm skeptics are a number more like 20 % and that this information is taken from Al Gores «We» organization, which fails to count any of the undecided vast middle of their own non-committed 73 % as being skeptics?

In fact, I was by default not doubting the global warming classic interpretation till I started reading multiple sources on the net, and as my self - confession as a recent skeptic shows, the argument from the denialist camp are not only convincing to petrol gulping rednecks, but also to a very scientifically minded, atheist european (although, I must admit, I like motor sports; — RRB --RRB-.

That's why I said you are acting like the Denialists — you are the one engaging in rhetoric, not me.

I'm trying to think like a denialist: since GW is not happening, then all its supposed effects have to be shown to be bogus as well, or due to other factors.

Obviously the climate community thinks about alternative theories, but its just they are so obviously weak, they don't require endless investigation that goes on and on, like we get from the denialists.

I can assure you that what keeps this denialist going is exchanging thoughts with «denialists» like you.

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

The overwhelming majority are well - sited and in rural areas; denialists try to make it sound like urban sites are more common.

and as my self - confession as a recent skeptic shows, the argument from the denialist camp are not only convincing to petrol gulping rednecks, but also to a very scientifically minded, atheist european (although, I must admit, I like motor sports; — RRB --RRB-.

Using the same tricks as the denialists feels rather like a descent into their madness.

Various scholars have tried to identify the impact of denialist chatter and events like the climategate email scandal, and some seem to find some links.

I love Tjader's post because it's exactly what I'm talking about: us «denialists» use logic and reason to defend our positions while warmers like Ms. Tjader use their hearts to think, which to my knowledge are organs which completely lack neurons needed for thought.

WRT to the (alleged) correlation between CO2 and human longevity: correlation is not, as our denialist friends like to stress — on alternate days, anyhow — causation.

Terms like «Pre-Industrial» as per the Paris +2 C limit included are equally vague and / or confusing for the average wood duck aka Journo Pollie Denialist.

Some leading lights in environmental science have been pushing their colleagues, and institutions like the National Academies, to come out swinging against the ongoing barrage of assaults from organized opponents of restrictions on greenhouse gases and climate skeptics / contrarians / denialists / realists (pick your label depending on your worldview).

That's why the AGW denialists, like creationists, and denialists of other varieties, are forever pressing for verbal debates.

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.

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

Congress is the ultimate funding authority in the US system — and NASA has already suffered funding cuts because Congressional denialists don't like the fact that NASA data clearly shows that warming is a present reality.

I toyed with «denialist», but that comes too close to a violation of Godwin's Law for my liking.

This is a talking point I've been seeing quite a bit from denialists who like to pretend to be scientific.