Sentences with phrase «from global warming skeptics»

The topic accounted for 2.5 % of the newshole, with attention focused on the UN Climate Summit and emails from the research center that some contended pointed to possible manipulation of climate data and generated an outcry from global warming skeptics.

«General Motors» departure from the global warming skeptics is a step towards achieving this maturity.»

Not exact matches

Global warming skeptics often cite contradictory reports from a generation ago warning of global coGlobal warming skeptics often cite contradictory reports from a generation ago warning of global coglobal cooling.

Since levels of greenhouse gases have continued to rise throughout the period, some skeptics have argued that the recent pattern undercuts the theory that global warming in the industrial era has been caused largely by human - made emissions from the burning of fossil fuels.

His studies of past climates have drawn fire from global - warming skeptics, who deny that human activity is changing Earth's climate.

This is an attitude that some sincere climate change «skeptics» (as opposed to ExxonMobil - funded deliberate frauds) exhibit: their so - called «skepticism» arises from an a priori sense that human activities can not possibly affect the Earth system in the way that the theory of anthropogenic global warming describes.

A common skeptic characterisation of the IPCC is that they exagerate warming projections and the dangers from global warming.

This is an attitude that some sincere climate change «skeptics» (as opposed to ExxonMobil - funded deliberate frauds) exhibit: their so - called «skepticism» arises from an a priori sense that human activities can not possibly affect the Earth system in the way that the theory of anthropogenic global warming describes.

In 2010, Cuccinelli (R), a global warming skeptic, issued a civil investigative demand, essentially a subpoena, for documents from the state's flagship university.

Seems to me that if that number were made public, and talked about, it would disspell a lot confusing talk from the skeptic side about «how cold it was in Nebraska last winter, and how that proves that man made global warming is a hoax».

It seems clear that the UHI effect is a real physical effect and the complaint from AGW skeptics and denialists is that the strong (and real) warming in urban areas is contaminating regional and global temperature averages.

Some decades ago a «climate skeptic» could make reasoned arguments against the reality of global warming from fossil fuel burning.

The New York Times Magazine is running a long profile of Freeman Dyson, the independent - minded physicist and polymath from Princeton, N.J., who has come into the public eye of late because of his anti-consensual views of global warming — which are also different from the views of many people in the variegated assemblage of climate skeptic / denier / realists (depending on who is describing them) fighting efforts to curb greenhouse gases.

Hundreds of private e-mails and documents hacked from a computer server at a British university are causing a stir among global warming skeptics, who say they show that climate scientists conspired to overstate the case for a human influence on climate change.

In fact, I was by default not doubting the global warming classic interpretation till I started reading multiple sources on the net, and as my self - confession as a recent skeptic shows, the argument from the denialist camp are not only convincing to petrol gulping rednecks, but also to a very scientifically minded, atheist european (although, I must admit, I like motor sports; — RRB --RRB-.

The associations I point to among the man - caused global warming promoters is really just a secondary problem, with the relevance being simply to amplify the core problem: nobody corroborates the corruption accusation against skeptic scientists, and it has been devoid of evidence to prove it true from its inception.

A bombshell report from the German publication «ScienceBlogs» reveals that renowned geophysicist and former socialist party leader Dr Claude Allegre --- France's most outspoken global warming skeptic — may be considered as the next French Environment Minister in President Nicolas Sarkozy's administration.

Harris cites the work of PhD - level climate scientists and atmospheric physicists who've studied global warming for decades, and none of these skeptics deny climate science in any general sense of the word — that's another unsupportable talking point from believers of catastrophic man - caused global warming.

So the real bombshell here from my perspective is that the promotion of Nic Lewis's work by skeptics represents a shift in skeptics attitudes towards that of accepting CO2 and man are the prime control knob for recent and ongoing global warming.

Until then, count me among the skeptics who consider this a political rather than scientific issue, especially in light of the fact that it is believed that the Antarctic and arctic shelves are breaking from stress (from «overgrowth»), not due to heat, since they are larger than they have been during recorded history, and that when the alarmists are proven conclusively to be wrong, they change the terminology («global cooling» to «global warming» to «global climate change» - face it, the global climate always has been and always will be very dynamic).

Former Virginia state climatologist and global warming skeptic Pat Michaels («Hurricane Pat,» as we once fondly dubbed him) pops up in an email as someone that a scientist from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California would like to attack --- and not just in the latest issue of a peer - reviewed journal.

Pretty much twice the speed of anyone else I've interviewed so far... citing lines from obscure scientific papers is an obvious strategy that every global warming skeptic uses, but Mr. Morano does it better than anyone I've ever listened to.»

Dig deep enough in the «crooked skeptics» accusation, and you ultimately discover that in regard to the notion about skeptics being in a pay - for - performance arrangement with anybody in the fossil fuel industry, there's only one usable weapon in the enviro - activists» arsenal to indict those skeptics as industry - paid shills: the supposedly leaked industry memo set from a public relations campaign called the «Information Council for the Environment» (ICE) supposedly containing the «reposition global warming» strategy goal, which targeted «older, less - educated males» and «younger, lower - income women.»

Although the emails don't show a response from Gehri, an industry executive with a long track record of working behind the scenes to downplay the significance of global warming, they do show Soon sharing a collegial familiarity with industry executives, media skeptics and organizations dedicated to undermining prevailing climate science.

A chemist by training, Robinson started gaining attention for his global warming views when he was asked to write an editorial for The Wall Street Journal on the subject 12 years ago, and he has since made the transition from skeptic to denier of man - made global warming.

[12] Morano offered no documentation to support the «$ 50 BILLION» claim, and cited only one figure to support the «$ 19 MILLION» claim — a statement that «skeptics have reportedly received a paltry $ 19 MILLION from ExxonMobil over the last two decades,» falsely suggesting that ExxonMobil was the only source of funding for global warming «skeptics.»

Also, using the same cherry picking approach as used by «skeptics» for the recent time period, based on which they claim a «global warming stop» or «pause» because of lacking statistical significance of a warming trend, I even could claim a «pause» in global warming from 1979 to at least the end of 1997.

«Perhaps the most interesting finding in this poll, aside from the precipitous drop in the number of Independents who believe global warming is a problem, is that the more Americans learn about cap - and - trade, the more they oppose cap - and - trade,» says Sen. James Inhofe (R., Okla.), a longtime skeptic of climate - change warnings.

I thought global warming skeptics were «prevented» from publishing their research?

Meanwhile, the vast majority of climate scientists still agree the data on global warming is solid, despite the setback of «Climategate» — a set of highly controversial, private e-mails among climate researchers that were hacked from a university server that point to possible cases of misconduct and that climate skeptics have touted as the «smoking gun» against climate change, though no scientific fraud was revealed.

Also, the above chart of the 12 - month means clearly shows a climate that moves from cooling to warming phases, and then back - a natural oscillation that «catastrophic global warming» skeptics have long discussed, while being dismissed by the IPCC and its cohorts.

In a curiosity venture to see if the Union of Concerned Scientists regurgitation of the «reposition global warming» accusation narrative was getting any media traction, I instead stumbled across an unexpected example of outright either deliberate misinformation, or one of otherwise incompetent reporting from someone who is supposed to be an authority on the topic of «industry - corrupted skeptic climate scientists».

If your position is that global warming skeptic scientists operate under guidance from industries opposing CO2 regulation, are you prepared to provide specific proof of improper payments to those scientists, and specific proof of faults in the scientists» resulting reports that are obvious indications of industry - guided science errors?

Back in the early spring of 2007, believers of catastrophic man - caused global warming were no doubt quite happy with Al Gore's «An Inconvenient Truth» movie, Ross Gelbspan's books, prominent pro-global warming blogs, mainstream media outlets, and others who gave essentially no fair play to the presentation of detailed climate assessments from skeptic climate scientists.

So if Gelbspan's raison d'être was no more than to uphold the tenets of sound democracy and dispassionate investigative journalism by exposing dishonest information from skeptic scientist industry shills and debunking misguided notions about global warming having a hidden agenda of wealth redistribution and global governance.......

Two, in response to arguments from some climate change skeptics, many scientific organizations with expertise relevant to climate change have endorsed the consensus position that «most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities» including the following: • American Association for the Advancement of Science • American Astronomical Society • American Chemical Society • American Geophysical Union • American Institute of Physics • American Meteorological Society • American Physical Society • Australian Coral Reef Society • Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society • Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO • British Antarctic Survey • Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences • Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society • Environmental Protection Agency • European Federation of Geologists • European Geosciences Union • European Physical Society • Federation of American Scientists • Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies • Geological Society of America • Geological Society of Australia • International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA) • International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics • National Center for Atmospheric Research • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration • Royal Meteorological Society • Royal Society of the UK

Prominent global warming skeptic Dr. Judith Curry is retiring from academia, citing the «craziness» of the politically - charged field of climate science.

In a much - anticipated report from the National Academy of Sciences, 11 leading atmospheric scientists, including previous skeptics about global warming, reaffirmed the mainstream scientific view that the earth's atmosphere was getting warmer and that human activity was largely responsible.

This is beyond well understood and only Edim, Latimer, and many of their colleague skeptics can't figure out that the ripple does not extend to the overall upward trend apart from a second - order effect due to the gradual global warming signal.

If the public saw scientists from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) engaged in heated debate with skeptic climate scientists, it would be deadly to the notion of catastrophic man - caused global warming.

Instead of the accusation from Schneiderman et al. being that Exxon engaged in racketeering in order to misinform its shareholders about the certainty of man - caused global warming, the question should be asked if a particular clique of enviro - activists (Gore, Oreskes, Gelbspan and those at «Greenpeace USA née Ozone Action» http://gelbspanfiles.com/?p=4482) instead engaged in racketeering when it comes to hoodwinking environmentalist donors about the certainty that skeptic climate scientists are «industry - paid crooks.»

Other citations within Hackney's essay do nothing to lessen the problem about any given prominent accusation against «industry - corrupted skeptics» being separated by no more than three degrees from Ross Gelbspan and those worthless non - «ICE» «reposition global warming as theory, not fact» / «older, less - educated males» / «younger, lower - income women» memo strategy / targeting phrases.

Not long after the release of Ross Gelbspan's 1997 «The Heat is On» book, words in its book jacket sleeve about him being a «Pulitzer - winning journalist exposing industry efforts to confuse the public about global warming» drew a response from skeptic climate scientist Dr S. Fred Singer, who categorically denied any quid pro quo arrangement with «big coal & oil», while also directly saying Gelbspan was not a Pulitzer winner.

This abysmal failure to show us all absolute evidence of illicit money exchanged for fabricated, demonstratively false science papers / assessments is the proverbial «mathematical certainty «that dooms the accusation, and places the whole idea of man - caused global warming in peril of sinking if its promoters can not defend their position against science - based criticism from skeptic scientists.

An elemental question begs to be corroborated in more than one way for sheer fairness: When the main pushers of the idea that the «reposition global warming» phrase insinuate it is proof of an industry - led disinformation effort employing crooked skeptic climate scientists — Naomi Oreskes saying it indicates a plot to supply «alternative facts,» Gelbspan saying it is a crime against humanity, and Al Gore implying it is a cynical oil company effort — are they truly oblivious to the necessity of corroborating whether or not that phrase and the memo subset it came from actually had widespread corrupting influence, or did they push this «evidence» with malice knowing it was worthless?

All this pride, despite the presence of skeptic climate scientist Dr John Christy (Ph.D., Atmospheric Sciences) in the first McCain hearing (not listed in Ozone Action's list from that same hearing), and the presence skeptic climate scientist Dr S. Fred Singer (Ph.D., physics) in the second hearing, a person previously held in massive dislike by Ozone Action regarding his congressional hearing appearance on topic of ozone depletion, and held in massive dislike by Ozone Action on the topic of global warming — in a press release attack of Dr Singer, (screencapture here), having Kalee Kreider — future spokesperson for Al Gore — as one of the contacts.

One more in the series of occasional guest posts written by skeptics of catastrophic man - caused global warming people who encountered character assassination efforts from critics rather than reasonable science - based debate.

First, the setup for Ron's article: Back late 2009, in my efforts to figure out where the infamous «reposition global warming as theory rather than fact» phrase came from — the line spelled out in Al Gore's movie and in Ross Gelbspan's book «The Heat is On», which they portray as a sinister top - down industry directive that skeptic climate scientists are paid to follow — I ran across Naomi Oreskes» widely repeated Powerpoint presentation from 2008 where she said the leaked memo set containing that phrase was in the archives of the American Meteorological Society (AMS).

What we should take away from the whole sorry episode is that this zeal for challenging the character of climate - change skeptics — while excusing both the political / financial connections, and sloppy science, of true believers because their cause is supposedly noble — represents the final degeneration of the global warming movement into pure politics.

I will suggest it comes from the same person who gave the «reposition global warming as theory rather than fact» phrase its first major media traction as a «smoking gun» indictment of skeptic climate scientists, Ross Gelbspan.