Sentences with phrase «funding global warming skeptics»

The idea is that funding global warming skeptics has enabled oil companies to influence congressional action, which is something only Big Green is allowed to do.

James M. Taylor — Heartland.org — January 19, 2014 Global warming activists claim vast amounts of untraceable special - interest money fund global warming skeptics and give skeptics an unfair advantage in the global warming debate.

Not exact matches

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.

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.

Wordy as the letter is, it could be boiled down much like Al Gore's 2006 movie or the collective lot of the entire catastrophic man - caused global warming into a 3 - part talking point: «the science is settled» / skeptics are industry - funded & orchestrated liars» / «reporters may ignore skeptics because of the prior two reasons.»

[iii] Gene J. Koprowski, Global Warming Skeptics Lambaste Plan to Increase Funding for Climate Change Research, 14 Feb. 2010, online at http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/11/obama-spending-increase-global-warming-research/; viewed 1/21/2011.

Never mind that neither Gore nor anyone else who quotes the «reposition global warming» phrase and other memo phrases ever shows them in their full context or mentions any in - depth details about the leak, and none of them have ever proven a quid pro quo arrangement exists between skeptics and industry funders.

But there is a consistent theme to all of them: Davies is cited just for the accusation that illicit funding has gone to skeptic climate scientists and organizations skeptical of catastrophic human - induced global warming; when will he finally provide actual evidence proving the funding was done under arrangements where all parties agreed on what, when, where, and how the lies would be spread??

[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.»

Ross Gelbspan, as a self - described reporter who was angered by the discovery of skeptic climate scientists being «paid sort of under the table by the coal industry» to spread «false information,» has had entire second career promoting the idea that we could be making better headway in stopping man - caused global warming it it weren't for the industry funded coordinated misinformation campaign.

The investigative blogger Deep Climate has been working to set the record straight on how an orchestrated campaign by members of Congress, industry - funded global warming denialist groups and PR operatives, and professional «skeptics» has spread misleading information about the paleoclimate... Continue reading →

But Muller's study made waves in the media because he had been a prominent climate - change skeptic, partly funded by a foundation linked to global - warming deniers, and his research focused on skeptics» objections to previous studies of warming.

After promoting the eco-group World Wildlife Fund's new climate study, the Washington Post's Eilperin also dug up a scientist with a woeful reputation, Robert Corell, and chooses not to identify his employment with the partisan Heinz Foundation, vice-chaired by Teresa Heinz Kerry, wife of Senator John Kerry (who recently claimed: Global Warming Is The Next 9/11) Eilperin felt compelled to state that Fred Singer was a «skeptic» but the reporter felt no obligation to label any other scientists she cited in the article.

He has criticized both industry - funded skeptics and environmental groups on their biased treatment of the Global Warming issue.

Newsweek's Global Warming Blunder http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/8/6/100434.shtml?s=us «Newsweek reporter Eve Conant was given the documentation showing that proponents of man - made global warming have been funded to the tune of $ 50 billion in the last decade or so, while skeptics have received a paltry $ 19 million by comparison.&Global Warming Blunder http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/8/6/100434.shtml?s=us «Newsweek reporter Eve Conant was given the documentation showing that proponents of man - made global warming have been funded to the tune of $ 50 billion in the last decade or so, while skeptics have received a paltry $ 19 million by comparison.Warming Blunder http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/8/6/100434.shtml?s=us «Newsweek reporter Eve Conant was given the documentation showing that proponents of man - made global warming have been funded to the tune of $ 50 billion in the last decade or so, while skeptics have received a paltry $ 19 million by comparison.&global warming have been funded to the tune of $ 50 billion in the last decade or so, while skeptics have received a paltry $ 19 million by comparison.warming have been funded to the tune of $ 50 billion in the last decade or so, while skeptics have received a paltry $ 19 million by comparison.»

In the global warming issue, when it comes to the idea of skeptics being «corrupted by industry funding», basically any variant of that notion inadvertently points to the core promoter of that accusation, Ross Gelbspan.

The earliest media reports mentioning the phrase in 1991 didn't focus on skeptics» funding or really imply that they were anything more than logical experts to consult who were already aware of the problems in the idea of man - caused global warming.

UCS report finds that the oil company spent nearly $ 16 million to fund skeptic groups and create confusion around the certainty of global warming.

He did this last year, and when I sent an FYI email comment about it to one of my pals at the Heartland Institute, it was expanded into this piece, «Ross Gelbspan: Up to His Old Tricks, Spreading Myths About Global Warming Skeptics» In a nutshell, it is not a wise move to say a place is «Koch - funded» when the place is not funded that way to any significant extent, nor was it wise to say Fred Singer was funded by Exxon in a major way when the bulk of the money figure Gelbspan spoke of was in the form of 2nd - hand free office space usage.

Back in 2007, a giant 176 page official complaint was lodged at Ofcom, (the UK's communications regulator of broadcasts) about skeptic climate scientists seen in the British video «The Great Global Warming Swindle», and the complaint went so far as to include its criticism of Dr Soon's non-speaking contribution to the film, while noting his «big oil» funding.

Steven Goddard has amassed massive amounts of graphs and data evidence of fraud with GISS, NOAA, BOM ect., No one actually cares or is even looking at this study, Hopefully it is because no one cares about global warming anymore except a few warmist fanatics and skeptics etc... Only serious legal action funded by a wealthy skeptic or the like will actually make anyone notice that is the sad fact I'm afraid.

The U.S. government has enlisted an outspoken skeptic of global warming in a legal fight with environmental groups over U.S. funding for overseas energy projects.

How is it that the conclusions of climate scientists can be called into question as a result of supposedly dubious statistical techniques, but the long history of nonsense from the skeptics, (such as the Robinson et al paper that accompanied the politically motivated Oregon Petition, the corporate funded propaganda campaigns of the Global Climate Coalition, and the recent urban myth that Martian «global warming» disproves a human influence on earthly climate) tells us nothing about the integrity of the skeptic theory of clGlobal Climate Coalition, and the recent urban myth that Martian «global warming» disproves a human influence on earthly climate) tells us nothing about the integrity of the skeptic theory of clglobal warming» disproves a human influence on earthly climate) tells us nothing about the integrity of the skeptic theory of climate?

The global warming community spends a lot of time with ad hominem attacks on skeptics, usually accusing them of being in the pay of oil and power companies, but they all know that their own funding in turn would dry up rapidly if they were to show any bit of skepticism in their own work.