Sentences with phrase «from skeptics like»

Steve Milloy at JunkScience holds the media and EPA scientists up to the same standards they expect from skeptics like Willie Soon.

Not exact matches

For those like Gibson and Montgomery, who planted their stakes along Central Avenue before Vitori Kimener, her return from the big city sent a powerful message not only to skeptics in the community, but to other aspiring entrepreneurs.

I've never been a skeptic, never been disillusioned with the Church or Christianity like I am now, and I've never struggled with cynicism about the Christian culture, so it all feels new and foreign and terrifying, like I don't know where this is coming from or who I am becoming in the process.

His self - titled debut pulled from the likes of Paul McCartney and Mick Jagger — boy - band graduates who knew how to make believers out of even the thorniest skeptics.

Like skeptics, you know, [Skeptics] in the Pub in Saint Louis, we've started a new group last summer; over 100 people, some [months] show up at the pub, conveniently across the street from the high - rise where we live and the bartender, she is kind of skeptics, you know, [Skeptics] in the Pub in Saint Louis, we've started a new group last summer; over 100 people, some [months] show up at the pub, conveniently across the street from the high - rise where we live and the bartender, she is kind of Skeptics] in the Pub in Saint Louis, we've started a new group last summer; over 100 people, some [months] show up at the pub, conveniently across the street from the high - rise where we live and the bartender, she is kind of new age.

Attracted to fringe scientists like the small and vocal group of climate skeptics, Republicans appear to be alienated from a mainstream scientific community that by and large doesn't share their political beliefs.

As a result, Pepperberg's work has won accolades for its persuasiveness from the likes of Oxford animal behaviorist Marian Stamp Dawkins, an authority on animal consciousness and a skeptic about many studies in the field.

Gary Plyler, it sounds like you're trying to ask «tough» if not «trick» questions but they come from one of the «skeptic» blog sites, not from your own reading.

But for the skeptic, it seems like a bit of a dubious concept... The research was divided into three stages: an online survey, a laboratory study, and three dating... See Also: Twats On Tinder Tumblr: An (Unfair) Compilation Of Men From The Online Dating App But when I put these (presumed revelations) to Read More...

Like other skeptics, Carter seized on a 2010 report from Stanford University's Center for Research on Education Outcomes that portrayed many charter schools as doing no better, and indeed sometimes worse, than traditional schools nationwide.

You'll never think of James, the Camino, or the making of the stories you believe in the same way.AUTHOR INTERVIEW: Q: Who is this is juicy, erudite entertainment meant for?A: History nerds, religious seekers, rational skeptics, thinking people, and anyone who likes Monty Python or thinks they might want to take a long walk on the Camino de Santiago.Q: Can we learn from any other historical source why Jesus really called James a «Son of Thunder»?

Some of the reason that «the people» are not as persuaded about this as you'd like is the steady, and gradually louder, drumbeat from the skeptics.

Why do you continue to assert some 10 % of the people as «denialist fringe» of AGW, when even Andy states that firm skeptics are a number more like 20 % and that this information is taken from Al Gores «We» organization, which fails to count any of the undecided vast middle of their own non-committed 73 % as being skeptics?

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-.

I have received significant heat from some colleagues for doing this (I've been told that I am legitimizing the skeptics and misleading my students), but I think we need to try things like this if we are to develop effective strategies for dealing with skeptics and if we are to teach students to think critically.

OK - this is off topic and I know comments like this invoke just the hysteria I don't want to incite from skeptics, but are the weather patterns we are seeing in Iowa (intense precipitation) consistent with what one would expect from warming predictions?

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-.

Some leading lights in environmental science have been pushing their colleagues, and institutions like the National Academies, to come out swinging against the ongoing barrage of assaults from organized opponents of restrictions on greenhouse gases and climate skeptics / contrarians / denialists / realists (pick your label depending on your worldview).

We don't accept this sort of thing when it is done by self - professed climate skeptics like Pat Michaels or the Heartland Institute crowd, and we shouldn't accept it from green - ish Cornell professors either.

In reality there is a huge diversity of opinion within the skeptic side, like: it's cooling; it's warming (but not as much as GISSTemp says); whatever the temperature is doing, it's caused by cosmic rays, or PDO, or sunspots, or recovery from the LIA...; CO2 is a greenhouse gas (but the feedbacks are negative); CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.....

Disputing that there is an effect called the greenhouse effect from the physical properties of gasses like CO2 only leaves you in a position where anything you say is hevily discounted and you make other skeptics look bad.

I don't see skeptics at war with the military over considering this risk (I would like to hear from the skeptics on this one); rather I see some skeptics at war over the CO2 stabilization policies.

And in addition, think about all the wasted energy the «climate community» spent mitigating the impact of «deniers,» when «skeptics» could have helped out by listening more carefully to the «climate community,» and trying to understand «the climate community's» arguments, and adding to progress on increasing our understanding of the causes of climate variability and change — rather than apologizing or ignoring the input from scientists like Fred Singer — who deliberately lifts a conditional clause from a larger sentence, divorces it completely from context, and creates a fraudulent quotation in order to deliberately deceive, or Ross McKitrick who slanders other scientists on purely speculative conclusions about their motivations, or guest - posters at WUWT who call BEST «media whores,» or the long line of denizens at Climate Etc. who falsely claim that the «climate community» ignores all uncertainties towards the goal of serving a socialist, eco-Nazi agenda to destroy capitalism.

So, from the point of view of a full blow skeptic, this can look like it was «conveniently picked», because of the timing.

This attitude is EXACTLY what causes unfortunate actions like the making of the 10:10 video — it is only a small step from believing, as Romm says he does, that skeptics are «trying to destroy a liveable climate» to making a movie that jokes about killing them all (or, to be frank, to feeling justified in acts of eco-terrorism).

The abnormal temperature graph was «a problem and a potential distraction / detraction from the reasonably consensus viewpoint we'd like to show,» paleo - climatologist Michael Mann wrote in an e-mail, adding that he didn't want to be the one to offer «the skeptics... a field day.»

Gareth sounds like the he had the same kind of «road to Damascus» conversion from skeptic to warmist as Richard Muller of Berkley Earth.

Climate skeptics focused on scientific illiterates like Al Gore and a recent graduate named Michael Mann, allowing real leaders of the climate movement, like NAS President — Climatologist Ralph Cicerone — to continue directing federal research funds to support an unannounced 1945 social geo - engineering experiment to save themselves and the world from possible nuclear annihilation.

Considering that at least 43 % of the letter's signatories have received money from the fossil fuel industry, being given large sums of money just for being climate «skeptics» and publishing error - riddled nonsense like this op - ed, the sheer nerve it must have taken to make this «follow the money» argument is astounding.

To date, those with mindsets like Gleick tried to ignore all the skeptics — WWUT and Climate Audit are still absent from CAGW sites like RealClimate and avoid engaging with competent skeptics or even competent luke warmers.

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.

The alarmists would like nothing better than to pull one over on skeptics, since that keeps them from arguing substance and, say, revealing their data, codes and methods.

These are like the blog «skeptics» that haven't done any of the hard science themselves, but throw things in for discussion from the sidelines even purporting to be qualified.

Given that there is nothing really stopping «skeptics» who would like to be included from trying to become involved, what are you actually suggesting?

This was the email in which Mann noted «everyone in the room at IPCC was in agreement that this [the Briffa reconstruction] was a problem and a potential distraction / detraction from the reasonably concensus viewpoint we'd like to show w / the Jones et al and Mann et al series», later adding that he didn't want to give «fodder» to the skeptics.

No, StevenI think the reason skeptics dislike Jones, and alarmists liked him, was because he hid the tax - funded data from skeptics and gave it to alarmists, in an attempt to suffocate science with politics.

«dissuading teachers from teaching science» doesn't sound like something a skeptic would say.

At the very least, the defense of «hide the decline» and the stridency of AGW proponents have converted a lot of folks like me from tacit but completely uninformed believers to somewhat more informed skeptics.

It seems like he may think he is the only competent scientist on the planet... because he places the blog rantings of «skeptics» above peer - reviewed research from the scientific community.

[DB] Rather than promulgating fake - skeptic graphs from dubious blogs, use rather the scientific sites, like this one from NASA:

Secular Warmist / Skeptics believers on the street, which are 80 % of the people; would like to know the truth — unfortunately the media get their informations from the Fundamentalist in both camps.

Certainly AGW skeptics were «encouraged» by the solar minimum, and there was much talk of a «rapid global cooling» and the like, but from a GCMperspective with AGW factored in, there is no way this was going to happen, and the warmth of 2010 is is not so remarkable at all.

Hence skeptics are extremely adamant there was a very cold and global little ice age, but from the other side of their mouth they will rubbish all lines of evidence like tree ring reconstructions and the instrumental record that are needed to make such an adamant claim about the little ice age.

I'm not going to hand - wring and pearl - clutch and moan from my fainting couch (I just got a new one, btw) about McKtrick — but I will point out that until folks like Judith and other «skeptics» (and «realists) are less selective in their «outrage,» nothing will change.

For all the concern about the paper, and the rhetoric of the authors (some of which I think is ligit, btw), and the reaction of the authors to the criticism — for all the hand - wringing, pearl clutching, and moaning from fainting couches, what we get in the end from «skeptics» is something like this — a comment I'm borrowing from Climateaudit:

I'm a skeptic, but fail to see how a report like this from The Heartland Institute advances the cause.

I see conspiratorial ideation expressed quite often by my much beloved «skeptics» here at Climate Etc. — so I don't really feel like I need Lewandowsky's evidence to support such a conclusion, but: (1) I think that while it is often expressed, it is likely that such expressions of conspiratorial ideation are often only skin deep — and that if you probed more deeply, you'd find that it was mostly back - slapping, yuk - it - up rhetorical hyperbole of the sort we saw from NW in this thread.

Anyone who made this check would have to come to the conclusion that there are not enough skeptical analyses coming into print, rather than the opposite point of view from folks like James Hansen and Al Gore that skeptics are harming the process and need to shut up.

In other words, they smoothly think themselves from a premise that is true (but oversimplified and without context — like most skeptic arguments themselves), to what they want to keep believing.

Attracted to fringe scientists like the small and vocal group of climate skeptics, Republicans appear to be alienated from a mainstream scientific community that by and large doesn't share their political beliefs.