Sentences with phrase «denialists pointing»

I'll just say that I've seen denialists pointing at some of this articles in The Guardian as a proof that climate science is under question (because EVEN The Guardian has now concerns) and I think people who don't pay much attention to it have actually been misled by the headlines and the comments from skeptics.

The desire to attribute water vapor to CO2 is easily understood from the denialist point of view.

From the denialist point of view, they wonder what has taken over the brains of the AGW proponents to make them so committed to their life destroying hypothesis.

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.

The point is that certain prominent denialists have the bad happen of searching for such caveats, then posting about them as though the amateur «auditor» were the first to think about these points, and as though the paper itself does NOT contain such caveats.

I'm sure I'll be shaking my head in horror upon the first post that challenges ALL these institutions from SCIENCE AND SPACE but Jesus, what more do non believer's, denialists need to get the point we need to act NOW?

Skeptical Science's list, with points assigned to individual AGW - denialist arguments, could be a place to start.

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.

Blathering away with denialist talking points is how you lose respect around here, not by studying science.

Exactly the credentials that will convince people that we're seeing a «long - term sinusoidal trend» (odd use of «trend», BTW, you're supposed to conclude that there's * no * trend, maybe you should try copy - pasting denialist talking points directly rather than paraphrasing them?)

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.»

It is rare, even among denialists, that a single post (# 3) can be so wrong on so many points.

We have those who say that this just gives more ammo to the denialists, who will (correctly) point out that our own science is telling us that we can't prevent the warming (of course, more warming is even worse, but that would be the NEXT conversation after this one); we have philosophers telling us that the planet has a fever and we are the infection which caused it; we have many, many more who continue to insist that maybe NOW we will finally undertake drastic emissions reductions.

Your comments are based on rote regurgitation of tiresome, many - times - debunked denialist talking points.

Sounds to me like a repackaged denialist talking point.

See, the rest of the planet is not debating denialist talking points, rather adapation and mitigation, and who gets a [killfile] to more easily filter the S: N.

There is no need for debate of denialist / delusionist fringe talking points (such as Globul Coolin», the Sun, CO2 ain't no ding - dang pollutant, Green Fascists, or other FUD phrases), as society has moved on and is debating adaptation and mitigation.

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.

Wheelsoc, besides Hanks (as always) excellent suggestion, a good go to for countering denialist nonsense is Skeptical Science where they have a list of the common talking points of the pseudo-skeptics and brief responses to each with references to the scientific literature.

Does everyone notice how the denialists (viz # 18) can't point to peer - reviewed empirical literature to make their point?

Further, we see daily how one paper is brought forward as proof, talking points are shown to have come from a denialist blog, how there is a documented countering effort that is funded for political purpose.

The root of this is, of course, the denialist fallacy where he / she makes the mistake of a) taking a single point of (proxy) measurement and then generalizing that to the whole globe as such, and b) not consider the fact that the y - axis is between -32 and -28 °C.

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

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.

I guess in your «denialist» point of view none of the public can have a well educated argument against AGW.

So from my point of view, I'm interested in what makes denialists cling to their battered and beaten cardboard cutout of a theory.

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

We don't need more divisiveness and finger - pointing as we face Republican denialists and «lukewarmers» in all three branches of federal government.

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.

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).

The New York Times has come up with a new defense against so - called climate denialists who happen to point out that most polar bear populations are steady or increasing amidst climate change: The ice hasn't disappeared as fast as we said it would.

Then he accuses those who point this out of being «denialists.»

Again David Springer, anything of any scientific value to add, or just the regurgitation of predigested denialist talking points?

Again, I want to point out that these aren't my assumptions, they're not made up out of whole cloth by some denialist, these are the assumptions which the very scientists who tell us about climate change themselves think are the driving forces and likely outcomes.

I would like to see more open discussion about the Hartwell paper analysis, and other nuanced analysis — but to repeat one last time: Categorizing any arguments for even strong carbon taxes as «Marxist» does not seem to me like a good starting point (as would categorizing the Hartwell paper as «denialist.»

Seeing their beliefs shaken and a possible victory of the denialists, their words, they started to smash the dirtiest vitriol against scientists that were trying to make their point.

As soon as you raise these basic empirical points, the denialists will go to phase 2 of their operation.

The Madhouse Effect also pinpoints where these denialist talking points often originate, detailing many of the fossil fuel front groups whose representatives frequently mislead about climate change in major print and TV media without disclosing their glaring conflicts of interest.

Please let me acknowledge that your point is entirely valid, TJA... foundation «(1)» now has been amended to focus upon the denialist obstruction to discourse that is associated to rhetorically limiting the questions - asked.

This is not something I found at some «denialist» source, it's in point of fact in a paper, referenced in the Central Park thread, that was issued by an NYC enviro mitigation group.

Everytime AGW is mentioned in an article that allows comments the first batch will always be the denialists repeating the same discredited talking points and heaping abuse on anyone who excepts the science.

My perception is that this rather tepid speculation is being exaggerated into a dire threat by denialists for use as a talking point.

Observa may have a point on the cynical political response to GW, but the denialist rhetoric is best ignored.

I love the fact that the denialists are using the fact that tamino refrained from pointing out that SMcI is the clueless liar that he is, as a reason to beat him with.

FORECASTS involving climate change are highly uncertain, denialists assert — a point that climate researchers themselves readily concede.

CAm, Jeff is making the point that none of denialist are offering proof of anything.

Perhaps a bunny with email contact with the CAS could drop them an email pointing out that the same man who wrote the Heartland Institute's grovelling apology is simultaneously posting on denialist blogs in support of conspiracy theories about left - wing press and communist authoritarianism.

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

With regard to the «grapes used to grow in England» bit, here is some fairly solid evidence that grapes are in fact growing there now, denialist talking points aside.

I've often pointed out the dishonest tactics of denialists.