Myself, I've been trying valiantly to point out how we don't have fossil fuel companies & skeptics planting unneeded doubt about AGW, but instead how have the opposite: enviro - activists working non-stop to plant
doubt about the motives of skeptics.
Not exact matches
I'm not
doubting their data here is incorrect, nor am I implying anything sinister
about Breindel's
motives.
In a statement he said: «There can be no
doubt what was used and there remains no alternative explanation
about who was responsible — only Russia has the means,
motive and record.»
While I'm not inclined to ascribe
motive in this case and prefer to give Ham the benefit of the
doubt that he holds his position because his conscience demands it, I think these folks bring up a good point
about how we can become so heavily invested in a certain ideology that change comes at enormous cost.
As he has sole decisions over such matters (despite the claims of the AKB's) I really wonder
about his
motives and why I sometimes
doubt his claims to love Arsenal.
No matter how badly you want the adoption to work, don't say or do anything that would cause the expecting mother to question your
motives or that would raise
doubts about your honesty and integrity.
Doubts about George Galloway's
motives for other high profile actions can lead us to confuse whether he should be there, but that's a quite separate issue.
That lack of
doubt about the man's
motives and actions is certain to rub some people the wrong the way.
You're never in
doubt about what's happening in the Ampera's
motive systems, or how efficiently you're using the energy.
Whatever you think of this particular effort, it has become ever clearer that climate information not only «wants» to be free, but will be — whether through pressure for further transparency and objectivity on the part of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or the liberation / hacking / theft / disclosure of climate documents produced with government money, whether they raise questions
about the
motives of some scientists or reveal attempts by political operatives to raise public
doubt about climate findings.
Leo Hickman of the Guardian has I think a very good initial article
about Climategate 2.0, put together very quickly no
doubt, and I think very balanced for the Guardian (far better than the BBC's Richard Black initial reaction, who makes no mention of content), ie he picks out one of the key issues regading FOI, and mentions perhaps a non («evil»
motive).
After reading Linzden's article I found nothing that throws any real
doubt on climate Science — It's all
about discrediting the
motives of those doing work that has been accepted and endorsed by the top scientific institutions of the world.
The focus is on the defendant or offender, whatever
doubts there may be
about the quality of the prosecution case or the abilities or
motives of the complainant or prosecution witnesses.
As you can no
doubt tell, I have strong opinions
about the
motives (mine included) of people when it comes to how those without the benefit of industry specific knowledge are treated by those who do have same and who thereby generate sales commissions as the result.