Nevertheless,
global warming deniers like to refer to the satellite data as the gold standard.
Not exact matches
It's
like global warming — you will always find some
global warming deniers out there who can quote some little piece of research they have found somewhere, some science junk, but the consensus is there.»
As for pundits the Merson types are
like climate scientists who
deny global warming is anthropgenic, not because they really believe it but because it gets them exposure in the media which they wouldn't get if they simply went along with the crowd.
Points 2 and 3 might lead to their not believing in
global warming, but when faced by such an overwhelming majority of scientist who believe it, it seems (to me) almost
like a conspiracy theory to
deny it.
If you listen to
global warming deniers, or even much of the public, it seems
like there is some stack of scientific studies somewhere that refute anthropogenic — human - caused — climate change.
Climate - change -
denying politicians
like to point to the cold snaps as some sort of proof
global warming is not happening.
For those who seek to curtail travel in a feeble attempt to fight
global warming: Given the non-emergency that climate change has thus far proven to be and the real and dire crises that presently plague the planet, should we also
deny transportation (by aid organizations and concerned citizens) to regions,
like the Darfur or Sierra Leone, that require our immediate attention?
Different topic: we need some type of clearinghouse to announce when prominent or semi-prominent people
deny global warming, so people
like me will know to ask them if they'll put their money where their mouths are.
I'd
like to see some blogging and discussion on the
global warming denier networks.
Like those authors, the prominent
deniers must have no evidence that falsifies
global warming.
It sounds far more
like Smith is doing whatever he can to unearth anything
global warming deniers can use to sow more doubt.
With record temperatures the past seven months; with 2016 almost certainly going to be the hottest year globally on record (beating out 2015 and 2014); with the Great Barrier Reef sustaining massive (perhaps irreversible) damage due to
global warming induced coral bleaching; and with Donald Trump bloviating about droughts and picking a
global warming denier as his energy advisor, the sooner the
deniers like Smith are out of power, the better our planet — the better all of us, every human on Earth — will be.
In any case, as much as I would
like anthropogenic climate change /
global warming / climate destabilization (or however you want to brand it) to be the grand conspiracy that
deniers like to suggest it is, I have yet to read any credible, compelling evidence that stands up to a little investigation, including this blog post.
Their work seems, consistently, to be representative of their
Global Warming denier board member Don Blankenship rather than members
like Nike, who have issued strong statements about climate change.
Of course, in the highly charged arena of
global -
warming politics, a study
like this is catnip for climate - change
deniers.
Actually, it was Pulitzer - winner Ellen Goodman who famously wrote in 2007: «I would
like to say we're at a point where
global warming is impossible to
deny.
When the
global warming deniers and delayers at right wing think tanks
like the Hoover Institute agree with your analysis, you should start to ask yourself whether you really know what you're talking about.
What about the fact the work Klinger relies upon to claim there's this vast conspiracy to
deny global warming lists climate blogs
like Climate Audit in that conspiracy?
While there are obvious prominent owners of right - leaning media,
like Rupert Murdoch of Fox News and News Corporation who are climate change
deniers or «doubters», the media in general in the United States and other key countries has suppressed or downplayed the story of
global warming, delegating it to obscure web - only blogs or leaving it out entirely of their offerings.
The legislation's prominent defenders,
like CAP's Joseph Romm, labeled green critics of the bill «
global warming deniers» and told anyone who would listen that Waxman and Markey had pulled a fast one on the coal lobby.
Deniers just
like to jump on statements
like this to make the illogical conclusion that, since we can't observe the system perfectly,
global warming is no longer a problem.
The latter provides the Guardian with a handy alibi (see,
global warming deniers are free to express themselves) which allows Monbiot to ignore substantive criticism and concentrate on Savonarola -
like moralising.
Some of them
deny it is even
warming, others claim anthropogenic
global warming (AGW) is a hoax, others claim that there is some magical negative feedback that will result in virtually no
warming, others
like Lewis cherry pick literature to delude themselves into thinking that climate sensitivity is low, while others are convinced that an ice age is imminent;)
Climate science
deniers are very fond of showing extremely deceptive temperature graphs: They plot the data starting in 1998, when temperatures were higher than average, so it looks
like the world hasn't gotten much
warmer since then, and talk about the
global warming «pause.»
AGW skeptics are Holocaust
deniers, children will never know what snow is, rivers will run red and «oceans will begin to boil, Earth will be
like Venus,
global warming is not a Left vs. right issue and, unlike our ancestors, we will be led to survival by high priests in green robes with computer models chanting anti-energy and anti-food slogans....
Like the tobacco lobbyists who spent years
denying the links between smoking and cancer,
global warming denialists don't have to win the debate — they simply have to confuse the public indefinitely to successfully undermine any political action which might hit the interests of their backers in the fossil fuel industries
«It looks
like it is «open season» on anyone who deviates even slightly from the consensus,» Curry says of the
global warming jihad, noting that an explicit call to wage such a war against «
deniers» can be found, not coincidentally, at barackobama.com.
I am certainly seeing
global warming deniers and others taking this information and running with it (
like here, for example, or here, and on Benny Peiser's CCNet on March 7, 2007, though I don't have a link for that).
There is no reasonalbe explanation for why anyone would
deny Earth's climate is the result of the holistic process we call nature and certainly no non-political explanation other than superstition or ignorance why and federal climatist would believe that a monophysical element
like CO2 with properties as we observe on Earth could ever possible explain
global warming — especially when we know that the Sun is the only independent variable that nominally explains both
global warming and cooling.
But there was a time a few years ago when you couldn't open your news feed without being told
global warming had stopped by some conservative columnist, climate science
denier or one of those people who spend their waking hours writing comments on stories
like this.
This should dampen the enthusiasm of
deniers like Ted Cruz who have relied on satellite data from RSS to dispute
global warming.
Pindyck sounds
like a «
global warming denier.»
The person
denying this just looks dumber than a fifth grader and makes it impossible to move on to the bits of the
global warming story that aren't well established facts
like whether clouds have a net
warming effect due to them being an effective insulator at night or a net cooling effect due them shading the ground underneath during the day.
Clinton said that the single most important thing an American can do right now is to make it unacceptable to be a climate change
denier — and that the GOP's
global warming denial makes us «look
like a joke» in the international community.
There shouldn't be much doubt that
global warming skeptics and
deniers will latch onto the Pachauri story
like they did with the hacked emails from IPCC scientists.
In fact, all the Center's work to fight
global warming — from petitioning and litigating for
warming - threatened species to enforcing key laws
like the California Environmental Quality Act to opposing too - low national fuel economy standards — have played an enormous role in putting climate change on the political map, making it that much harder for those who would
deny it to suppress the truth.
As he points out, Mann has been cleared of all wrongdoing multiple times by multiple independent agencies (
like here, and here, and here, and here, and of course here), despite the efforts of the
global warming deniers to do whatever they can to take him down.
Global -
warming deniers like to complain that scientists base their predictions on faulty computer models.