Sentences with phrase «for warmist»

Not only is the number of pro-warming articles falling through the floor, but there just aren't enough people willing to speak up for the warmist view to go around.

Watts» paper is a get - out - of - jail - free card for every warmist.

Saying the release of the dossier was timed to coincide with Copenhagen allows warmers to imply that Copenhagen was more than what it actually was, i.e. a junket for warmist illuminati that accomplished nothing.

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

This advisory forum is nothing more and nothing less than the creation of yet another platform for warmist scientists to spread their propaganda.

The Royal Society is also the alma - mater (sort of: if ex-press officers count) of rabid pit bull Bob Ward, now spokesman for the warmist Grantham Institute, who can often be heard on the wireless getting very cross with people who don't believe in ManBearPig.

For Bob, el Ninos are natural while for warmist revisionists, they are man made.

I like your use of «linearist» for warmist, however, it seems the Lukewarmers & # 0153 (& # 0169 S. Mosher, 2006) are fixated on straight lines as well.

Standstill, for a warmist, is a euphemism for «I really don't understand what is going on but I can't admit to that»

Unfortunately for the warmist Cult, people only need to look out their windows now to see that the CAGW scam was just that.

In the case of the climate system, though, and unfortunately for the Warmist hyperventilaters, the new state can only mean cooling, since we've already had warming.

Suspend federal funds for warmist sanctuary universities until Michael Mann reveals ALL of his data and at least one of the computer models shows some relevance to reality.

For the Warmist: captain James Cook was commissioned to map the north - west passage — BECAUSE THEN WAS N'T MUCH ICE (same as today).

al can not prove concusively that the earth is warming as a direct result of human actions... and it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt the data used for al gore's hockey stick chart, most of the «record temperaures», and much of the other basis for the warmist culture has been manupilated and / or cherry picked....

That the sea level was not rising is a real problem for warmists everywhere.

One in the eye for the Warmists.

Doesn't fit the AGW message pounded into pliable brains... most the MSM are cheerleaders for the warmists and a troubling percentage of them are forgetting the message change to well, climate change vs the old too narrow warming schtick... of course we know that the sun's solar minimum is caused by big oil.

As for the warmists» «stats», I read the Hansen & Lebedeff1987, it was so unbelievable, what they had done with the «stats».

Obviously not simple enough for Warmists.

It could be devastating for the warmists.

That is an admission that models need a large «fudge factor» in order for warmists to say, «I told you so».

Oh, and of course, the use of 17 - year smoothing will nicely (partially) remove the embarrassing (for the warmists) lack of increase after 1998.

This line of attack on skeptics has been very successful for the warmists in the past, which is why they constantly recur to it.

And time is running out for the warmists, as predictions they have made fail to materialise.

So is the story of the hockey stick — just as quickly as it was used as a rallying call for warmists, it also inadvertently gave birth to a camp of skeptics.

I agree, and it's extremely convenient for the warmists.

For the warmists, it was not a new discovery that led to their downfall of their house of cards... but the persistent investigation of its foundations — which were found to be wanting.

Not that it isn't poppycock for the warmists to make such a claim, but from where comes the idea that human - emitted CO2 is just one of many factors that account for the recent warming trend and (presumably) it's longer than usual run?

The weak equatorial cold pulse is actually bad news for you warmists.

For the warmists here, I agree that the remarkable co-incidence of a reversal of the natural warming trend might possibly have occurred at the same time that anthropogenic CO2 levels accelerated, thereby masking a high climate sensitivity.

The science is settled and the debate is over for the Warmists.

The dire fact for warmists is that one can't have it both ways.

Ouch thats got ta hurt perhaps instead of spend a large amount of your time on the internet gatekeeping or trolling for the Warmists, you should concentrate on your job.

Nothing more depressing for the warmists than the physics in which guys like WHT piously cloak themselves, actually undermining their case.

Too bad for the warmists they couldn't enjoy the good times while they lasted.

Not exact matches

They're longstanding warmists, implacable foes of climate skeptics, and they're also actually the people responsible for producing the IPCC's carbon budget.

The absurd disdain for calculating the real effects of UHI by the Ipcc, Real Climate et al - a very measurable effect known about since Ancient Rome - do nothing to help the case of the warmists.

I posted a request for comment at RealClimate, a weblog maintained by members of the «warmist» community: (endquote)

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.

Just for fun, I'll make a similar baseless accusation: You and most all other warmists just want to preserve existing arrangements of economic advantage of developed nations by keeping people of developing nations poor and without access to low cost energy.

This concept wouldn't exculpate CO2 terribly well for those who'd like to otherwise, but that might explain the discrepancies that are inciting we skeptics and puzzling the warmists.

For another view of the appointments and these criticisms, read Thomas Lifson at the American Thinker: «Warmists apoplectic as Brazil president names climate skeptic as science minister.»

My point was that you asked for reinforcements from a noted skeptic site yet I don't see where you did this on a warmist site.

Merely pointing out, for example, that CO2 can be heated by providing an energy source invisible to the human eye, is obviously meaningless in relation to the Warmist cause, unless you are extremely gullible, and fervently desire to believe the unbelievable.

Often deniers portray themselves as reasoned, cautious, and conservative scientists, while the real scientists working in the field are described with emotionally charged adjectives like «alarmists,» «warmists,» and the like to weaken the public's respect for their work and to fool journalists about who's who.

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.

Dr. Curry: Thanks for the clarification regarding the out - of - date quote from the peak of your «warmist» phase, to which I was replying.

About 26 years ago, I started taking an interest in potential CAGW as a matter of concern, and suggested a role for economic analysis in assessing potential costs and benefits (not welcomed by then warmists).

Sadly for them, in the past ten years they've crowded with their warmist badges into a Hall of Shame, like bankers before the crash.»

I am aware of Woods» experiment showing the «greenhouse effect» is negligible, but so are warmist sites like Wikipedia — they also acknowledge this experiment and accept it — for greenhouses!