Sentences with phrase «from skeptical»

In a market where another agent is a text message away from a skeptical millennial, don't lose the trust of a potential buyer by trying to sell a lemon.

I've got to say, I've gone from skeptical to intrigued; it's nice to see a phone that's so radically different from the crowd, even if it does command such a price tag.

Their answers below range across the board from skeptical to optimistic.

This topic is exhilarating to me and, believe me, I have found you a rare breed in that you can discuss the science as science from a skeptical viewpoint and this can remain predominantly civil... the blogosphere is not nearly as representative.

Gates is about as far from skeptical as one can get.

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).

The claim that GW has a religious character is best demonstrated from the skeptical side where linquistic legerdemain is crafted to present an illusion that GW is an artifact of hungry scientists desperate for research funding fed by tree - hugging wackos.

From my skeptical viewpoint, your best move is to immediately distance yourself from PG, and state you are utterly shocked to see this happen.

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.

If you go to Roger Pielke Sr.'s blog, you can see that Roger (a prominent skeptic and a big advocate of measuring global warming through OHC) relied on Josh Willis for the latest information on the subject and even has forwarded comments from skeptical blogs about ARGO data.

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.

Courtesy of Tom Nelson comes a pointer to this incredible link - rich page of climate articles, mostly from a skeptical perspective.

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

The «attacks» on the consensus from the skeptical community are generally assaults on the ethics, objectivity and competency of scientists, not science.

Steve McIntyre continues to examine specific claims from a skeptical perspective, but I'm not sure that makes him a «skeptic of AGW», whatever that means.

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.

This story has been mis - characterized as an official Sweedish rebuttal letter but it came from a skeptical group called the «Stockholm Initiative».

I don't doubt the intent is to try and cut off funding from skeptical scientists and organizations.

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.

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

Apart from the Skeptical Environmentalist and Cool It, Lomborg was also the editor of a 2010 book titled Smart Solutions to Climate Change: Comparing Costs and Benefits.

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.

«Skeptical» claims that that discrepancy can only arise from a difference in climate sensitivity are shown, therefore, to be far from skeptical, and to merely read into data the conclusions they wish to find rather than analyze the data on its merits.

The crux of the conflict from my skeptical viewpoint is that confidence in CAGW is misplaced given the scope of uncertainty and that that uncertainty is being summarily dismissed or glossed over by CAGW proponents and the IPCC.

I would be interesting to compare Hansen's projections from back then to some from the skeptical side (Gray, Lindzen, Spenser...?)

On the one hand, here in Australia and recently in the U.S., there's been elections that have at least moved the government from a skeptical viewpoint to initiating action on climate change.

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

Check here, if you'd like — tao.atmos.washington.edu/pdo/ — it's a site RealClimate linked to several months back, so you don't have to worry about any bias from the skeptical crowd.

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.

If it hadn't been for their gifted work and valuable support, we would not have been able to keep our dedicated space back in the late 90s from a skeptical benefactor yet eager developer, David Walentas... Harmony nor Joan were young painters but I'm sure great mentors, nonetheless, of the young painters that are trying to help support our what used to be a shoe string non-profit stay alive in hard times....

I went from skeptical to overwhelmed with coaching, mentoring and service from the moment we started our relationship with Score.

It's fun watching the reactions from skeptical technology sites.

The first sucker is Eddie Dunford (Andrew Garfield), a cocky young journalist who earns the nickname «Scoop» from his skeptical colleagues as he starts working the Yorkshire crime beat.

Roy Spencer, a climate scientist at the University of Alabama who argued from the skeptical side, agrees that human contributed carbon dioxide lessens the planet's ability to shed heat, meaning that warming is likely.