Sentences with phrase «even warmists»

Use a lot of made up sciencey words, that not even Warmists can really explain.

Satellite measurements might be «close enough for many applications», but even warmists scientists admit they can't actually measure the alleged imbalance because the instruments aren't precise and accurate enough.

You would think even warmists would know by now that BP has been spending megabucks for years to give itself the image of big green oil.

The atmosphere acts as an insulator, as even warmists like Chris Colose now realise.

Even the warmists seem steadfastly intent on talking about anywhere but the Arctic this year.

But that must be insignificant in the scale of things, because not even warmists are suggesting it.

Additionally, Brownian motion needs to be taken into account in an atmosphere, even a Warmist one.

I'd like to express Theo's idea in a way that even a Warmist can understand.

Not exact matches

Leading Warmist know that is no» global warming» so they encompassed» climatic changes» to confuse and con the ignorant — so that when is some extreme weather for few days on some corner of the planet, to use it as proof of their phony global warming and ignore that the weather is good simultaneously on the other 97 % of the planet, even though is same amount of co2.

I learned a long time ago that when you challenge a warmist or a denier (or even mention those words; — RRB - the fur starts flying and EITHER side will accuse you of being one of those guys on the other side.

Speaking as one of what the Journal apparently derides as global warmists, I want absolutely no part of an effort to push Rupert Murdoch to impose ANY viewpoint on editorial boards, even those as wrong - headed as the Journal's.

Even the normally pretty warmist Independent newspaper in UK has woken up to the latest IPCC allegation and has actually mentioned Climate Audit:

The point is that if a station starts out as CRN1 and over the years moves up the scale to a CRN5 and the warmists don't even know what the changes have been WRT new cement or asphalt installations, buildings being built around them, air conditioner vents pointed toward them, etc.; how can you claim that a station that has undergone those types of changes will measure the same trend as a station with the same lifetime but with a CRN1 rating over its lifespan?

Even as climate scientists, and the science underpinning global warming, have been vindicated (for the umpteenth time) the GOP has completed its descent into science - bashing and anti- «warmist» rhetoric.

Any time the warmists apply adjustments, one has to be wary since some have applied questionable statistical techniques in even more questionable ways.

I love the total absence of logic when warmists fear they are losing even the smallest part of any debate.

Some of the protesters in Egypt are even loonier than our foaming at the keyboard warmists here.

A noted «warmist» on Monday said scientists that believe the theory of global warming will «endorse Al Gore even though they know what he's saying is exaggerated and misleading.»

The mistakes you and your fellow warmist trolls make, and never admit or even bother to correct, far exceed any Kenneth has.

Vaughn, instead of an EXTREME Warmist; you are starting to sound as a Fake Skeptic (as inbedded Warmist in the Skeptic's camp) What did they do to you; did they promise you more rip - off money — or are you starting to run with one leg on each side of a barbed wire fence... will get even more painful!!!

All you need is to have one good friend who is a warmist - even your gullible, aged Ma in a nursing home - to understand that the Heartland ads were insulting.

It takes 17 years to get the warmists to even talk about a «pause».

What warmists hate about Dr. Soon is the fact that his «irreducibly simple model» works, and even worse, cost taxpayers nothing, while the 70 + «The C02 Did - It» computer are laughably inaccurate and shockingly expensive.

Only a warmist would say something like this without even knowing the facts.

Warmist alarmists are even more gullible and there's more of them so the entertainment opportunities are greater from the skeptical viewpoint.

In the past I've even self - labeled myself at various times as «warmist» or «lukewarmer», when it seemed that some sort of label was necessary for the dialogue.

There are no TV stations that give sceptics (always called «Deniers» by the TV) a chance of even saying what the problems are with the warmists beliefs, so people in Australia are pretty much screwed.

More recently, Hansen has predicted that sea levels will rise five metres (16 feet) over the next century due to carbon - caused warming, a view that is extreme even by warmist standards, and Hansen has even urged sabotage of coal plants.

I doubt that even the most ardent warmist would ever have claimed that all other climatic forces would completely disappear..

And another thing, when we look at the past 100 + years of temperature change, even when we have to try to peer through grossly mis - adjusted warmist data and a growing urban heat island effect, we see little discernible changes in the rate of early 20th century (low CO2) and later 20th century (higher CO2) change.

Though it is comforting to see the confounding of the warmists with warming at a stop, it is also a little scarey, even should it only be something minor like the recent little ice age.

Even tougher will be showing there's a conspiracy (wait, I thought skeptics were the believers in conspiracies — seems warmists are too, doesn't it?)

So, they came up with the idea that even though conservatives were science savvy, they couldn't shake their political world - view and admit the warmist climate scientists were right.

Yes, even so called warmist.

And to make matters even worse the Dunning Kruger problem in the warmist population leads to conspiracy theories spun up by your tribal leaders.

Unfortunately the study needs to be taken with a hefty pinch of salt because it's based on «complex climate models» and emanates from Germany's fanatically warmist Potsdam Institute, which is ideologically committed to «proving» that CO2 is a significant driver of «climate change» even when most real - world evidence suggests it's not.

You are right — I am wrong --(cue sarcasm and uncontrollable sniggering — I know, unworthy of me, but even so...), and still Nature refuses to go along with the Warmist Manntra.

It can only be explained the alluring political siren call of the Marxist millenarian narrative, although it is doubtful most Warmists are even aware of the historical pedigree of their ideology.

And then, y ’ all generic warmists not only demand we accept The Greenhouse Effect doesn't break the 2nd Law, you don't even have a consistent internally coherent agreement of what The Greenhouse Effect is!

Even worse for the Warmist Faith, to achieve «dangerous» warming of, say, 2.4 c + will require CO2 levels at 1600 - 3200 ppm.

Even our regular warmist contributors seem to dislike grossly falsified data to promote their cause.

The three men largely to blame for this were its fanatically warmist presidents Lord Rees and Lord May, together with the even more dismal Sir John Houghton, who was partly responsible for perhaps the most embarrassing document in the institution's history: the one called Facts And Fictions About Climate Change.

He knows that he is safe, because if the Fake Skeptics say: Warmist don't have even 0,0000000000001 % of the data ESSENTIAL, for knowing what is the temp; would have exposed that:» their lies about past phony GLOBAL warmings have even less data».

«Climate science» as it is used by warmists implies adherence to a set of beliefs: (1) Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations will warm the Earth's surface and atmosphere; (2) Human production of CO2 is producing significant increases in CO2 concentration; (3) The rate of rise of temperature in the 20th and 21st centuries is unprecedented compared to the rates of change of temperature in the previous two millennia and this can only be due to rising greenhouse gas concentrations; (4) The climate of the 19th century was ideal and may be taken as a standard to compare against any current climate; (5) global climate models, while still not perfect, are good enough to indicate that continued use of fossil fuels at projected rates in the 21st century will cause the CO2 concentration to rise to a high level by 2100 (possibly 700 to 900 ppm); (6) The global average temperature under this condition will rise more than 3 °C from the late 19th century ideal; (7) The negative impact on humanity of such a rise will be enormous; (8) The only alternative to such a disaster is to immediately and sharply reduce CO2 emissions (reducing emissions in 2050 by 80 % compared to today's rate) and continue further reductions after 2050; (9) Even with such draconian CO2 reductions, the CO2 concentration is likely to reach at least 450 to 500 ppm by 2100 resulting in significant damage to humanity; (10) Such reductions in CO2 emissions are technically feasible and economically affordable while providing adequate energy to a growing world population that is increasingly industrializing.

Even if the warmists are right, I'll take my chances with a warmer world.

This vehement defensiveness has been accompanied by continual attacks on opponents and even colleagues who question any of his methods; such people, including prominent people who are actually warmists of a sort such as Judith Curry and Craig Loehle, have earned epithets like» #AntiScience» and of course the dread word «denier».

Steven Goddard has amassed massive amounts of graphs and data evidence of fraud with GISS, NOAA, BOM ect., No one actually cares or is even looking at this study, Hopefully it is because no one cares about global warming anymore except a few warmist fanatics and skeptics etc... Only serious legal action funded by a wealthy skeptic or the like will actually make anyone notice that is the sad fact I'm afraid.

Here's a demonstration of how desperate warmists are to believe their theory, even when they can't find the evidence for it:

Not even the underlying psychology of the warmists.

But wouldn't a warmist have to concede that even without humans on the planet that there must be dramatic pivot points in climatic timeline trends where warming would necessarily rapidly accelerate by default, measurable over multi decadal levels?