Sentences with phrase «fuel for skeptics»

Musk seemed frustrated, but his behavior comes across as fuel for skeptics and bears, Albertine said.

Not exact matches

The beachhead groups were part of a larger constellation of advisers, including Oklahoma oil and gas mogul Harold Hamm (once considered for energy secretary), billionaire investor Carl Icahn (last seen shadily pushing for policy that would benefit his oil refineries), GOP energy lobbyist Mike McKenna (in charge of the DOE transition team), longtime climate skeptic (and hopeless dope) Myron Ebell, North Dakota Rep. Kevin Cramer (the oil devotee who supposedly wrote Trump's big energy speech last May), and Thomas J. Pyle, the director of the Institute for Energy Research (IER), a pro-fossil fuel «think tank» which, as we shall see, has provided several Trump staffers.

For years, skeptics have filled comments with dismissive views of climate science to sow doubts about the consensus that fossil fuels are responsible for global warming — dominating that space, according to the groFor years, skeptics have filled comments with dismissive views of climate science to sow doubts about the consensus that fossil fuels are responsible for global warming — dominating that space, according to the grofor global warming — dominating that space, according to the group.

And his ’97 book cited the original Western Fuels ICE memos, which no skeptic accuser has bothered to show to the public in any reasonably complete fashion for over 22 years — with one very recent and possibly not - thought - out exception.

You do take funds from fossil fuel companies for your skeptic «research» in order to distract, obfuscate, and confuse voters into thinking climate change is not happening or that it isn't the fault of us humans.

For promoters of man - caused global warming, they've put all their faith into assuming skeptics» associations with the fossil fuel industry — however tenuous — renders the skeptics untrustworthy.

With the release of a major climate science report by the United Nations coming this week, the self - proclaimed climate «skeptics,» better referred to as the climate deniers or flat - earthers, are kicking it into high gear for their fossil fuel clients and right wing ringleaders.

But let's get one thing straight, Oreskes is little more than yet another «cog in the wheel» when it comes to accusing skeptic climate scientists of being paid shills of the fossil fuel industry, enslaved just like all the other cogs to the same single source for the accusation, Ross Gelbspan.

The skeptics won't have much fuel for much longer.

While the ensuing fame increased demand for Solomon as a speaker and «expert» panelist within the fossil - fuel funded skeptic community, two things jump out as particularly strange about the book.

If you go with «disciplinary matrix» instead of «paradigm», there is no need for skeptics to overturn anything: all the information is right there, but the promoters of rapid divestiture from fossil fuels ignore most of it.

On the other hand, a man who puts fossil fuel lobbyists and climate skeptics in charge of energy policy is hardly likely to ask Congress for a carbon tax.

Under fire for accepting research grants from fossil fuel interests and failing to disclose all of them, climate skeptic Willie Soon challenged journalists last week to examine conflict - of - interest disclosures for mainstream climate scientists.

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.

Skeptics that are doing analysis and publishing their research (in journals or the blogosphere) deserve to be called skeptics, even if their analyses and research provides fuel for the Skeptics that are doing analysis and publishing their research (in journals or the blogosphere) deserve to be called skeptics, even if their analyses and research provides fuel for the skeptics, even if their analyses and research provides fuel for the deniers.

Their latest nominations for Federal department heads in natural resource and environmental areas are uniformly climate skeptics and strong supporters of fossil fuel development.

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.»

Says Mr. Suzuki: «The skeptics are a small group known for their support of corporations like the fossil fuel industry.

In 1991, the large coal operation called Western Fuels was very candid in its annual report, and it said it was going to attack mainstream science, it hired three so called greenhouse skeptics, scientists who didn't believe that this was happening, and they mounted a number of public relations campaigns, one in particular is quite interesting, this was a program that called for interviews by these three scientists, radio, newspaper, and TV interviews, in a campaign, and the strategy papers for the campaign said it was designed to quote «reposition global warming as theory rather than fact»....

... along with myriad other problems surrounding Naomi's efforts to portray skeptic climate scientists as «paid shills working for the fossil fuel industry.»

If the public loses all faith in the notion that the fossil fuel industry pays skeptic scientists to participate in a giant denial machine, then there is no reason for anyone to ignore the detailed science - based climate assessments from those skeptics.

Skeptics are accused of being ideologues, or in the pay of the fossil fuel industry, or simply selfish monsters who care nothing for future generations.

An error in a recent IPCC report has fueled the fire further for global warming skeptics.

So, if none of those deliver (pardon the pun) evidence clearly showing how skeptic climate scientists agreed to accept illicit money in exchange for spreading lies that meet the approval of fossil fuel industry executives, what do we have left?

Yes, and that's where this thing ends up with a weirder problem courtesy of the same Ozone Action place where Gelbspan and their people simultaneously somehow «obtained» the documents which have long been used to accuse skeptic climate scientists of accepting fossil fuel industry bribes in exchange for lying to the public about the certainty of catastrophic man - caused global warming.

I have a history with Andy Revkin's DotEarth, which is prone to provide fuel for sloppy thinking about weather and climate, as well as a hangout for the worst kind of clever - looking phony skeptic arguments.

Interview abstract: Zehner is neither a global warming skeptic nor a spokesman for the fossil fuel industry.

If he had not, how would anyone be able to determine when the larger public was genuinely swayed by skeptic scientists, and a necessity no longer existed for PR departments of the fossil fuel industry lobby to stage fake bouts of «citizen concern»?

For most of the 1990s, Western Fuels, a $ 400 million coal industry propaganda outlet, funded the most visible of the greenhouse skeptics.

The accusation is that skeptic scientists were paid under the table, as anti-skeptic book author Ross Gelbspan is famous for saying, by fossil fuel industries to misrepresent the science.

Holdren does hardly more than repeat the Schneider - Gelbspan unsupportable talking point about fair media balance for skeptics, and Gelbspan's overall unsupportable accusation about fossil fuel money corrupting skeptics.

On May 29, 2015, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, attended a Big Green - funded League of Conservation Voters event where he called for using RICO against climate skeptics and fossil fuel companies (see the YouTube here), then in a Washington Post op - ed, «The fossil - fuel industry's campaign to mislead the American people,» prompting a backlash asserting that the charge was false, and defending the right to dissent.

They were mum when subsequent articles and books by Ross Gelbspan libelously labeled [skeptic] scientists as stooges of the fossil - fuel industry... [and] when [a European skeptic] was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism.»

On September 1, 2015, Jagadish Shukla, president of the tax - exempt Institute of Global Environment and Society (IGES), who is also a climate professor at George Mason University, led a group of 20 academics calling for RICO action against all climate skeptics, their organizations and fossil fuel companies.

What most skeptics, I believe ARE saying, is that I don't want to pay 4 times as much for electricity and fuel to fight a bogeyman.

For all practical purposes, the collective Greenpeace organization committed outright political suicide two weeks ago, essentially telegraphing to the entire world that they never had the evidence they claimed they had, proving skeptic climate scientists lie to the public under a pay - for - performance arrangement with fossil fuel industry people just like the way shill experts lied for the tobacco industFor all practical purposes, the collective Greenpeace organization committed outright political suicide two weeks ago, essentially telegraphing to the entire world that they never had the evidence they claimed they had, proving skeptic climate scientists lie to the public under a pay - for - performance arrangement with fossil fuel industry people just like the way shill experts lied for the tobacco industfor - performance arrangement with fossil fuel industry people just like the way shill experts lied for the tobacco industfor the tobacco industry.

Such rebuttal material was probably viewed as potentially fatal for enviro - activists, and from all I've found, it appears they took a practically unknown pilot project PR campaign from the Western Fuels Association and blew it out of all proportion in order to have some kind of plausible - sounding «evidence» for their claim that skeptic climate scientists were no different than the paid shill experts who claimed cigarette smoking was not especially harmful.

I've already detailed the way Desmog's founder James Hoggan essentially torpedoes his site's entire existence with the way he first admits he knows nothing about climate science, but is certain that skeptic climate scientists are liars, the latter of which he derives entirely from Ross Gelbspan, the «Pulitzer - winning investigator» who Al Gore says discovered the supposedly leaked Western Fuels Association «Information Council for the Environment» (ICE) PR campaign's sinister strategy to «reposition global warming as theory rather than fact.»

The show trial was a chance for the Kochtopus, fossil fuel interests, and global warming skeptics (including Senator James Inhofe (R - OK) who announced he is releasing a denialist book) to cry foul that industry is being victimized and that global warming is not a threat, and does not pose any risks to the health and well - being of Americans, and the planet.

No matter how often it is repeated, however, the memo collection crumbles as evidence of an industry - wide pay - for - performance conspiracy arrangement between skeptic climate scientists and fossil fuel company executives.

The Smithsonian has opened an investigation into the ethical conduct of Willie Soon, one of its part time scientists and a climate - change skeptic who is facing scrutiny for failing to properly disclose his work was funded by fossil fuel interests.

And I think you hit the nail on the head with: «5) Once we scientifically - oriented Skeptics accept the reality of the Atmospheric «greenhouse effect» we are, IMHO, better positioned to question the much larger issues which are: a) HOW MUCH does CO2 contribute to that effect, b) HOW MUCH does human burning of fossil fuels and land use changes that reduce albedo affect warming, and, perhaps most important, c) Does the resultant enhanced CO2 level and higher mean temperature actually have a net benefit for humankind?»

For skeptics, the so - called pause was proof that greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels have less of an influence on global temperatures than most studies have shown.

Yes, it's true — skeptical, legitimate climate scientists like the ones who run this site have been very frustrated by the deliberately deceitful pseudoscience, outright lies — and most recently vicious personal attacks against them — that have been cranked out for the last couple of decades by fossil fuel industry - funded frauds and cranks and given unwarranted legitimacy by the mass media, and regurgitated ad nauseum on blogs everywhere by Ditto - Heads who unquestioningly believe whatever drivel is spoon - fed to them by the phony «conservative» media, and call themselves «skeptics» for doing so.

But clean energy skeptics like Lomborg get away with ignoring fossil fuel externalities primarily for one simple reason: they've historically been ignored.

They imply my efforts of exposing the fatal faults in the smear of skeptic climate scientists are written by, directed by, approved by, and paid by people who supposedly shill for the fossil fuel industry.

It notable that Ned's contacts at the meeting are a list of the loudest think - tank ideologues whose job it is to deny the reality of the role of human causes behind the ubiquitous and unprecedented warming increasingly evident around the globe, plus a few of the key politicians, who rely on the skeptics media campaign for cover to avoid dealing with the problem, and justify taxpayer giveaways to the fossil fuel industry.

With those doubts neatly planted in the press, the public shrugs, politicians push the problem off to another day, and ExxonMobil parries new fossil - fuel regulations, earning more windfall profits in exchange for a pittance to the skeptics and their work.