Sentences with phrase «from skeptical science»

In this third in a series of six videos TreeHugger has done in collaboration with the good folks (and sometimes guest writers here) from Skeptical Science, John Cook explains how climate change deniers and the polluting industries that they are often linked to use the same sort of tactics the tobacco industry employed in trying to convince people that smoking isn't bad for your health.Stay tuned for the rest of this video series rolling out over the next couple of days

If you want a good overview of the situation, sit squarely in the space between those two reactions, definitely check out this primer from Skeptical Science (a TreeHugger guest author).

So, this one will not have a lot of words and will let the collages put together from the marches where members from our Skeptical Science team participated in speak for themselves.

Ever keen to translate interesting material from Skeptical Science, Bärbel Winkler has translated the solutions infographic into German (PDF).

The good news is, Kevin C. from Skeptical Science has created a nice, short video showing just why this claim is such a whopper.

The website borrows much content from Skeptical Science's rebuttals and acknowledge so on their About page (in fact, our content is creative commons licensed so all communicators are very welcome to use our rebuttals).

An even better high level overview is available from Skeptical Science.

The impacts of natural drivers on climate disruption have been investigated repeatedly and in detail, as the two figures (from the Skeptical Science website) below show.

Whitehouse makes several points that seem to originate from Skeptical Science, like The Escalator steps.

Are you trying to assert that «Dana N, from the Skeptical Science website» is not an imbecile who rides a scooter?

We're overdue for a few paragraphs on chaotic climate from Ellison and mebbe time for BBD to spin the dial and pick out another talking point from Skeptical Science to cut & paste or is Science of Doom's turn?

To pay the open access fee, in keeping with the citizen science approach, we asked for donations from Skeptical Science readers.

I just want to see how many responses came from Skeptical Science, there appears to be no blog post, and no forum link either from SkS As far as I know Cook just tweeted it.

Lewandowsky's claim to have linked from Skeptical Science is untrue.

UPDATE2: 2:55: PM PST In an email received today from Skeptical Science contributor Dana Nuccitelli, he has flat out refused to distance himself or the SkS website publicly from the Parncutt essay.

(And, as an aside, here's why I tend to dismiss most of the material coming from the Skeptical Science site that sTeve recommends.

Rob Honeycutt from Skeptical Science was also there commenting.

Also taking side bets that these are trolls from Skeptical Science, especially given that they sent a couple of their newbs out to hand out pamphlets at the wonderful Watts presentation last night.

The research for the paper was done by a team of unpaid non-specialist volunteers of students and industrial and academic scientists, along with other enthusiasts and the funding for its publication was raised by donations from Skeptical Science readers.

I has prepared slides from Skeptical Science but these are, in my opinion, more suitable for my application.

The second began by more or less restating what I'd already quoted from another Skeptical Science piece, and the rest was also nothing new.

And as we learn from the Skeptical Science article I linked to earlier, there is going to be a delay of «decades» between the effects of the CO2 emissions in question (i.e., the heating of the atmosphere due to the greenhouse effect) and a corresponding warming of the oceans.

literature, as summarized very neatly in the following bit, from the Skeptical Science blog (http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climate-Change-The-40-Year-Delay-Between-Cause-and-Effect.html):

As far as the time delay issue is concerned, I'll once again quote from the Skeptical Science post: «The reason the planet takes several decades to respond to increased CO2 is the thermal inertia of the oceans.»

I am now banned from Skeptical Science.

Not exact matches

As well as being highly skeptical of the science behind General Fusion's designs, Vogt is critical of the way the company received financing from SDTC, claiming it ducked the normal process of receiving government funding.

That liberals are just as guilty of antiscience bias comports more with accounts of humans chomping canines, and yet those on the left are just as skeptical of well - established science when findings clash with their political ideologies, such as with GMOs, nuclear power, genetic engineering and evolutionary psychology — skepticism of the last I call «cognitive creationism» for its endorsement of a blank - slate model of the mind in which natural selection operated on humans only from the neck down.

Now, it is apparent from reading even the first few pages of The Skeptical Environmentalist that Lomborg proposes to make the case that not just environmentalists, but a considerable part of the heretofore respectable environmental - science community, have been misunderstanding the relevant concepts, misrepresenting the relevant facts, understating the uncertainties, selecting data, and failing to acknowledge errors after these have been pointed out in other words, that the scientist contributors to what he calls «the environmental litany» (namely, that environmental problems are serious and becoming, in many instances more so) have been guilty of massively violating the scientists code of conduct.

Citing the number of great successes medical research has brought us — lifesaving drugs from penicillin to insulin, along with invaluable treatments and medical devices — he adds, «It's one more reason why we have to be appropriately skeptical, unafraid to speak out about misleading claims, and insistent upon holding clinical research to the standards of science.»

In this wide - ranging, humorous talk, Seth Shostak takes a look at Star Wars and other science fiction films from the point of view of a skeptical scientist, tells stories about the movies he has been asked to advise, and muses about aliens from space and how we might make contact with them.

Fortunately, a couple of gadflies in the ointment emerge in a skeptical science teacher (Hal Holbrook) and an outside agitator (John Krasinski) who urge everybody not to be blinded by dollar signs, but to do a little research into the potential fallout from fracking.

Last up is «Push: The Science Behind the Fiction» (9:17), a featurette that surveys the film's psychic groups and adds an conspiratorial layer with thoughts from the film's technical advisor, a former US Army colonel who believes people and the science community are too skeptical of human superScience Behind the Fiction» (9:17), a featurette that surveys the film's psychic groups and adds an conspiratorial layer with thoughts from the film's technical advisor, a former US Army colonel who believes people and the science community are too skeptical of human superscience community are too skeptical of human superpowers.

Is their position and no matter how much you point them at skeptical science or peer reviewed data, they only read the denial bunk and never read the quality data coming from such studies as these.

Surprisingly in this magnificent country many high school teachers I interviewed are skeptical about global warming, even when presented with fact laden articles from publications such as Science.

If you really believe «this idea that it takes 21 years for «warmth to transfer from atmosphere to ocean» is just too deliciously goofy to resist,» I suggest you share your «evidence» with the folks at the Skeptical Science blog (http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climate-Change-The-40-Year-Delay-Between-Cause-and-Effect.html).

The Skeptical Science site refers to a paper by Flanner in 2009, a summary of which can be found here http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/tss/ahf/, that shows the direct heat from burning fossil fuels is just 1 % of the effect of the CO2 produced by this burning on the absorption of heat by the atmosphere from the sun, i.e. global warming.

# 110 (Hank Roberts), as you can see from the previous comments on this topic, the reference to Lockwood 2001 was provided by Skeptical Science, and not by people that one might refer to as skeptics.

James @ 152: Skeptical Science had a series on the carbon balance in the Arctic going forward, with special emphasis on permafrost; iirc, the out gassing from melting tundra overwhelms the potential new carbon sequestration.

Image credit: Skeptical Science - data from Doran (2009) «Science is not a democracy!»

A little from column A, a little from column B. My long - term (loosely defined) plan with Skeptical Science was to follow the direction that climate discussion takes.

There's more on the carbon cycle from the Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory, NASA's Earth Observatory and a Skeptical Science post by Doug Mackie addressing claims that «CO2 has a short residence time.»

Researchers from the University of California at Santa Cruz and American University tracked stories that portrayed science as being deadlocked over human - caused warming, being skeptical of it, or agreeing it was occurring.

Tung & Zhou 2013 (also Zhou & Tung 2013) were featured in a trio of posts at Skeptical Science (one, two, and three), the first of these prompting the second & third as a response from the paper's co-author KK Tung who also got stuck in down the comments» threads.

Morano's entire job is to aggregate every misleading factoid, every attack on climate science or scientists, every crank skeptical statement from anyone in the world and send it all out periodically in email blasts that get echoed throughout the right - wing blog world and eventually find their way into places like Fox News and the Weekly Standard.

A few individuals and groups have queried Skeptical Science about a misleading and myth - filled climate page from PreventDisease.com.

His skeptical farmer constituents know they need science's help to protect their cattle from climate change.

In 2007, he founded Skeptical Science, a website which won the 2011 Australian Museum Eureka Prize for the Advancement of Climate Change Knowledge and 2016 Friend of the Planet Award from the National Center for Science Education.

In the wake of accusations that skeptical climate scientists are peddling misleading research, a top scientist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has this to say: the government has spent billions funding climate science promoting an alarmist political agenda.

Skeptical Science was hacked and personal information from posters taken.

Delineating the various questions of climate science and being more aggressive and skeptical will help with the third lesson: the need to separate climate science from climate politics.