Sentences with phrase «giving sceptics»

Calling the risk to coral «acidification» is giving sceptics an easy target to attack.

Amid the strongest evidence yet that humans have changed the climate, media reporting is giving sceptics too much of a free rein

After his arrival he was dubbed a panic buy, and his pace was often targeted and gave the sceptics a lot to talk about.

The prime minister has given sceptics a bridge back to Europe.

I am a little chagrined that some here desperately want to take only the worst case (like some sceptics want only the «best» case) and make that gospel or even worse, to the point of «over reaction» to be on the «safe» side as two or three here have implied, and to the point of not disclosing the true stuff which only give sceptics fodder, as Hudson (12) and Dave (21) imply.

It also gives the sceptics something dubious to attack.

There are no TV stations that give sceptics (always called «Deniers» by the TV) a chance of even saying what the problems are with the warmists beliefs, so people in Australia are pretty much screwed.

To his discredit, he gives sceptics» arguments zero consideration while pronouncing on them nonetheless, but his blog (now retired) offers many, very well - argued and in fact sober criticisms of green energy policies and incautious renewable energy evangelism.

Our major national radio system, for example, rarely provides an airing for any sceptic (I have been an exception), and argues that the weight of scientific authority against scepticism is so great that it would be simply wrong to give sceptics any more time.

Not exact matches

«I need for us, together, not to give way on anything, neither to nationalists nor to the sceptics.»

Sceptics won't have to search long for a reason not to bother with this book: pride of place on the back cover is given to an endorsement from alternative medicine and integrative health guru Dr. Andrew Weil.

In an ironic twist of fate, those early sceptics give us plenty of good reasons today to be confident in the Gospel accounts of Jesus.

Psychologists, sceptics, historians and mediums take turns at the lectern, giving their opinions.

The crust is just so delicious it's crazy, it's so full of flavour and the texture is just perfect — even the sceptics I've given it to loved it!

Great, scrape the UCL place, Stan gives Wenger new contract for another 3 years of mediocrity whilst he gets to build bother ranch or two and the fans have to put up with this sceptic tank and his leaching ways.

Given the ongoing conflict between the bleeding hearts and the fatigued sceptics, it is not yet clear what the overall impact of social media on substantive issues will be.

Moreover, each of these elections have given a mandate to an ever larger group of Euro - sceptic politicians.

A participant may be accused of promoting «false balance» or «giving credence to sceptics» if they move from the «controlled» to the «negotiated» public space.

Via a series of foundations, Koch and his brother, David, have also given millions of dollars to global warming sceptics, according to Greenpeace.

The fear and horror these diseases cause is a fading memory, and despite the fact that vaccines work, the sceptics are gaining ground, their claims given credence by a handful of Hollywood stars and now by US president Donald Trump.

So he is giving heart to the sceptics, not defeating them.

And given that it's Burns Night tonight, and our PM's a Scotsman (that's the one who called climate sceptics «flat earthers»), this line from the poet might be appropriate for him, Pachauri, Gore and many, many others:

John, I also have only a finite amount of time to allocate (in all probability a good deal less than you have, given our respective ages), and I'm not interested in devoting any more time to explaining my views to someone whose predetermined position is that «sceptics / denialists» keep on finding new arguments to support a predetermined position.

But I tried to see the positive in it, and give an example of a way you could use it to validate the theory in a way sceptics would find hard to argue with.

Once you give examples a meaningful discussion can take place, however unfortunately for the AGW sceptics once this happens and you cut through the smokescreens, inaccuracies etc. there isn't a great deal left.

Or do I just pop into my local Total service station and say to the pump jockey «I'm a sceptic, give me all the cash from the till?»

But they do know that explaining what the consensus is, and what sceptics» arguments are, would be to give a hostage to fortune.

The «mainstream» side were happy to give presentations, but not if anyone from the «sceptic» side participated.

Or do you think the BBC should give more air time to climate change critics / sceptics?

As far as I can tell it was given to climate sceptic websites, The Australian and no one else.

Overall, the submissions reinforce the impressions of sceptics viz. * the IPCC process is politically driven * IPCC is still indulging in (uncritical) selection bias * IPCC is still giving unjustified credence to the output of computer models * IPCC's handling of statistics is very poor * IPCC's conclusions are not robust At least the submissions attest to the fraudulence of the IPCC's pretense of presenting itself as an objective and impartial assessor of the literature.

Given the extreme tightness of priors regarding energy issues, I expect our renewables sceptics to be even more diehard.

Yet if this really was the conspiracy to keep out dissenting voices which Laframboise hints at, then how does she explain the presence of well known climate science sceptics such as William Kininmonth, Ross McKitrick and Stephen McIntyre who were all given roles as «expert reviewers» in the last IPCC report?

Prior to this program being aired apparently both people at the BBC and Paul Nurse spoke to the Guardian with comments that gives every reason for me to think the program was intended all along to present sceptics in a bad light.

The report, published last week by the Renewable Energy Foundation (REF), a think tank that has campaigned against wind farms, will give ammunition to sceptics, especially within the Conservative Party, who believe the cost of subsidies to the wind industry is far too high and that the growing number of turbines are blighting the countryside.

3) Given that a true sceptic should concede some role for AGW (L1), given that climate variation is a cause for alarm as such, would you support a climate policy based on some cap and trade, assistance for adaptation, REDD, climate research funGiven that a true sceptic should concede some role for AGW (L1), given that climate variation is a cause for alarm as such, would you support a climate policy based on some cap and trade, assistance for adaptation, REDD, climate research fungiven that climate variation is a cause for alarm as such, would you support a climate policy based on some cap and trade, assistance for adaptation, REDD, climate research funding?

But if as Kevin Trenberth argues that for every «1 degree Celsius sea surface temperature anomalies gives 10 to 15 percent increase in rainfall», then the science is correct about AGW and the sceptics are just raving on.

Given the failure of the publisher to show any «error» other than the expectation that models be consistent with observations, I think that readers are entirely justified in concluding that the article was rejected not because it «contained errors», but for the reason stated in the reviewers» summary: because it was perceived to be «harmfulâ $ ¦ and worse from the climate sceptics» media side».

However, readers of my column will know that I give contrarians, or sceptics, or deniers (call them what you will) short shrift, and as a close follower of the scientific debate on this subject I can state without doubt that there is no dispute whatsoever within the expert community as to the reality or causes of manmade global warming.

From what I can tell their argument is circular: it is irresponsible to give air / blog time to sceptics because there's a strong scientific consensus that says they're wrong.

In that sense, more than a sceptic I am someone trying to understand things and still not very convinced about the scientific process that has given rise to all this (sometimes hysterical) propaganda.

It's about arguing with empty nouns and categories — sceptic, denier, party, ideology — rather than the perspectives that give rise to them.

GREENPEACE co-founder and prominent climate sceptic Patrick Moore PhD penned a must read treatise on the benefits of life - giving CO2, noting «This is probably the most important paper I will ever write.

«The world's most high - profile climate change sceptic is to declare that global warming is» undoubtedly one of the chief concerns facing the world today» and» a challenge humanity must confront», in an apparent U-turn that will give a huge boost to the embattled environmental lobby.»

The authors of the study warn that climate sceptics may be slightly over-represented, given the small pool of responses.

In his book Heat, George Monbiot gives the example of the TV presenter and botanist, David Bellamy, who is also a climate sceptic.

President Nicolas Sarkozy's desire to appoint an outspoken climate - change sceptic to a new French super-ministry of industry and innovation has drawn strong protests from party colleagues and environmentalists... Putting him in charge of scientific research would be tantamount to «giving the finger to scientists», said Nicolas Hulot, France's best - known environmental activist.

While accepting that the goof - up may have given a boost to climate sceptics, Pachauri said: «Climate sceptics are not looking for a handle.

a) they think it is a hoax b) they don't think it is a hoax, put tick it because they are luke warm, and a negative will give the sceintist a false opinion of their views c) they fully accept climate science, but such a blatant attempt to paint sceptics as nutter it is irritating.

Nonetheless, prominent environmental activists like Monbiot and Oreskes — who, given their academic positions, ought to know better — maintain the image of the evil tobacco lobby in order to «link» its modus operandi to climate sceptics.