Sentences with phrase «for denialists»

So there is no advantage for the denialists to check facts, or acknowledge «inconvenient truths.»

And given your excellent sourcing of quotes from Richard Alley, I'm surprised you haven't hit upon where the troll is kidding you (& possibly kidding himself) The Alley 2000 GISP2 reconstruction is a bit of a favorite for denialists.

For all you denialists, skeptics and dubious curve fitters, here's the real reasons why climate change is NOT a good thing.

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

It's one thing for denialists to fabricate quality control criticisms and splash them about freely, but apparently poor sportsmanship for scientists to point out real data flaws.

I suppose jobs are scarce for denialists.

Perhaps that's as good as it gets for denialists these days?

We will be the guinea pigs for the denialists assurances.

Or on the other hand, perhaps ignorance * is * bliss... for denialists?

It is well for denialists * never * to risk reading scientific literature that includes passages like:

All McI wants to do is provide a figleaf for the denialists who dismiss the science in its entirety.

For denialists, accepting climate science would mean admitting that unrestrained capitalism is jeopardising our future, that comprehensive government intervention is needed, and that the environment movement was right all along.

Standard fare for denialists.

That's kind of disingenuous since RT has been a platform for denialists and RIA Novosti is famously cited by Heartland, Cuccinelli and many other denialists.

Time for the kim bot to say it is getting cooler, time for petro partisans to state climatologists want everyone to live in Medieval times, and time for denialists to state they traveled to England for a week and b - b - boy, was it c - c - cold!

Have fun looking for your denialists.

Regarding a different name for the denialists, I have suggested «dissonauts», but agnotologists is better, if you want to get technical.

As noted above, the recent warming «is seen in the oceans, the atmosphere, in Arctic sea ice retreat, in glacier recession, earlier springs, reduced snow cover etc.» Another «inconvenient truth» for denialists to avoid mentioning or acknowledging while overblowing the UHI issue.

But for denialists and their addled belief systems, one denialist paper is obviously equal to hundreds or thousands of papers reflecting scientific rigor.

Maybe we could come up with a 12 - step program for denialists.

That might be harder for the denialists to misconstrue, although they can be very talented sometimes.

What's next for the denialists?

It makes sensitivity all the more difficult to define because you have to say «When» and it introduces more opportunities for denialists.

This entire sequence of postings reminds me of the zombie movie, «Night of the Living Dead»: Scientists are falling asleep and waking up as apologists for denialist blogs.

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

Don't have a sads because I called the keyword for our Denialist Drinking Game.

The toolset of denialist restriction - by - authority is always the same: rudeness, abuse, anger amounting to rage, personal profiling, selective enforcement of arbitrary rules, legal threats, enemy lists, and outright censorship of threatening ideas — always with a view toward sustaining a «protected bubble» for denialist beliefs.

The questioner, the physicist about whom I'm writing today — let's call him Denier 3 — raised his hand at the end and asked if the speaker had considered the criticisms of climate models made by a scientist not present at this conference, a climate scientist famous for his denialist position (let's call him «Famous Denier»).

Andrew, conscientious and fair minded lad that he is, has been looking for a denialist that would come to his class and debate climate change.

• Denialist astroturfing operations care solely about bird - based propaganda... or any other kind of sob - story they can exploit for denialist purposes.

It's standard practice for denialist papers!

RC is not a forum for denialist stupidity and lies... that's what Watts» blog is for.

I should clarify, though — the $ 10 million from Exxon was not all in one year, it was a rough ballpark figure for its denialist «golden years,» up to 2006 or so.

The wobbles through the Little Ice Age are far far too small to provide support for denialist Ferrara.

Gulags for denialist climate criminals might be emotionally satisfying revenge, but you can't get useful amounts of slave labour from the Kochs, Tillersons, and Moncktons.

Not exact matches

For those of us who prefer to remain based in reality, the denialists represent a conundrum.

Most of those who harbour reservations about vaccination are not hard - core denialists, but parents who are simply confused about the best course of action for their own children.

Time is running out for Bruce Charlton, the medical journal editor who got into hot water for publishing a paper by AIDS «denialist» Peter Duesberg.

You know, the global warming denialists who for years have managed to say, «Well, the case is not proven.

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.

It's rather less constructive for climate scientists to spend their time engaging in endless rounds of nit - picking with denialists who are in the end unconvincable.

Somehow, the peaceful fields of farmers have become the stage for airing political agendas (see The country that has forgotten Borlaug, page 46) and stoking environmentalist rage (see The denialists» double standards, page 49).

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 remember the upsurge of confidence and boldness amongst the denialists after their conference in New York Last year organised by the Heartland Institute and as we know another one is coming up for March 2009 (perhaps it would useful for a number of us to attend).

It's a notion that should be used with a little care, given the denialists» propensity for twisting fact.

It always kind of amazes me when people object to the label «denialist» for people who are so deeply in denial.

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.

And using denialist code - words for mainstream climate scientists will do nothing to enhance your credibility» round here.

You forgot to include Marc Morano and the Idso family, both of which have been in the Ozone Hole and CO2 denialist business for a long, long time.

Allying with neither the do - nothing denialists, the geo - engineering technophiles, nor the orthodox environmentalists, King and Walker build a nuanced case for, above all, science - based judiciousness.