Sentences with phrase «denialists on»

He often gives air time to denialists on his ABC Radio program Counterpoint.

Compare the number, and relative significance, of all the Denialists on the Planet with the number and significance of everyone else who must be convinced to reconfigure just the House of Cards we call Western Civilization.

Question Time has a record of allowing ignorant or ideological blinkered denialists on a panel where climate change is brought up as seen some while back where Melanie Phillips gives forth.

If I had a bunch of denialists on a crusade to pick apart my work in my area of expertise, I wouldn't like them very much either.

A lot of people do this; instead, let the record show that Heartland puts RIA Novosti propaganda right on their site and RT puts those denialists on their shows.

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.

Here's a section in which he asserts that many climate campaigners and climate scientists are overly concerned about the impact of denialists on public attitudes:

The denialists on blogs?

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):

I would add the Kubler - Ross category of denialist on the first step to acceptance via anger, bargaining and depression.

Not exact matches

Denialists are on the march, emboldened by the election of President Donald Trump.

From climate change to vaccines, evolution to flu, denialists are on the march.

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).

I think this is important, as denialists will seize on the lower mode to argue for inaction, while the consequences could be dire indeed if in fact the upper mode comes closer to the truth.

Now, forgetting entirely the more complex issue of «climate sensitivity» and focusing only on how tiny, minute concentrations of CO2 can make a difference to global temps — one of the oft - repeated and simplistic denialist memes — is there a simple desktop experiment to demonstrate how that can work?

It's painfully ironic, particularly for those of who are American citizens, given that right now the single most obstructive, denialist, dangerous government on the planet in regard to climate change is in fact ours.

As our stubborn AGW - denialists can see, their «right» to «speak out» on RC is unabridged under US law.

I found the notion that someone thinks it's profound that every two maxima are separated by a minimum to be pretty funny and on intellectual par with the vast majority of denialist arguments.

The book explains that consensus arises when there is a most convincing explanation for the conditions we see — this is often twisted and put on its head, and denialists think that the explanation follows the consensus, exposing ignorance about fundamental aspects of science.

Right down to one card you played yourself — «I've never been called a name on a denialist site», as though that has any pertinence whatsoever to climate science.

It's probably conservatives trying to seize the attack ground in view of a possible pending debate about climate change in Washington, but the chorus of denialist opinion is so coordinated and their «logic» so simple it is convincing many, even among educated people (science PhDs) who can not be bothered to look deep into things but try to form an opinion based on a few journalistic pieces.

I don't see anyone on this website really spamming, although a couple of climate denialists come close, and the population message can get repetitive.

Instead you have now labeled me as a suspected «yet another denialist» based on no information what so ever.

It is my hope that this reasonably addresses the platos cave problem whereas denialists are using «shadows generated by shadows that originated from shadow generators, that relied on shadows, not the light in the back of the cave».

Of course he does not believe what he is writing — he is one of those industry - paid denialists that show up on Dot Earth to confuse the uninitiate.

On the other hand, we have the denialists, who have contributed nothing to the understanding of climate.

On the other hand, the denialist model... Oh, yeah.

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.

if you really are on the fence or a denialist that isn't dangerous, whatever that means... I cant tell what you are trying to say.

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.

On the other hand, such baseless conspiracy theories are a standard part of the irrational discussions that are the stock in trade of the denialist disinformation site WUWT.

Between MAR and BPL we have 8 of 17 posts unnecessarily insulting, and an incredible 13/17 of dubious usefulness, depending on your view of bashing denialists.

On this issue, these denialists are even incapable of performing simple addition and subtraction.

Stop dumping on people and use it because it is all a matter of perspective: Your responses to denialists are massively negative in impact.

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

Publications, blog posts and media stories that try to pin all the blame on one factor should be viewed with some level of suspicion, whether they are written by climate scientists, journalists, or climate change denialists».

That's why people are so upset with her and insist on holding her to a higher standard than your typical science - illiterate denialist such as Montford, whose book she apparently believes to be a more reliable source of information on climate science than the work and statements of her peers...

I didn't want to bother anyone here when a denialist kept harping on «there's no evidence of SLR acceleration,» citing http://www.sealevel.info/papers.html — into which I didn't even investigate bec my original point was that there had been some 8 ″ SLR over the past 100 years, which was a factor in making the effects of Sandy worse (among other CC impacted effects), citing http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/11/climate-change-didnt-cause-hurricane-sandy-it-sure-made-it-worse.

On the Roberts i» view website he says this: «Not only do I agree with the view that denialists are irrational and largely can't be convinced.»

Thomas @ 141 on denialists, spin merchants, and the PR industry of psyhological brain washing and the arts of lying by omission and sophistry.

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.

sceptics and denialists assume that you are one of the few experts on their side.

The «science» produced by the denialists needs to be eviscerated in very public ways, not just on blogs.

When it comes to the Atmospheric «Greenhouse Effect», some of the commenters on that blog are «disbelievers» (the term I prefer to the non-PC «denialist»).

Anyway, I would ideally also love to see the general print media put a bit more attention on explaining how climate denialists use rhetorical trickery, as opposed to just purely writing science articles.

An unsupported assertion, much less probable, on the evidence, than the mirroring assertion that denialist argumentation is carefully selected to support a pre-conceived view.

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.»

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?