Sentences with phrase «global warming skeptic who»

Not exact matches

The headline included her email address and the phrase: «Meet Prof. Kari Norgaard, the woman who wants to «treat» global warming skeptics.»

U.S. geoscientists are accustomed to being used as a punching bag by climate change skeptics in Congress, who challenge the science of global warming.

The meeting coincides with a gathering of climate change skeptics in New York City, who are debating topics like «Global warming: Was it ever a crisis?»

The only real hoax here is that van der Linden is throwing global warming skeptics under the bus with conspiracy theorists who believe that nasa faked the moon landing, the government holds aliens hostage in Area 51, and the Boston Marathon bombings were an inside job.

His studies of past climates have drawn fire from global - warming skeptics, who deny that human activity is changing Earth's climate.

CLIMATE SKEPTIC: a person who has not yet been convinced anthropogenic global warming is happening, but is open to being convinced if presented with the evidence.

Dr. Hermann Ott, German global warming mobber who not long ago called for a science pogrom aimed at skeptics of dubious global warming science, brings our attention here to a planned conference at the Bundestag in Berlin on June 10, 2011.

To be entirely clear; group A contains any kind of activist while group B contains both «climate skeptics» (except, of course, those who fit in group A) and people supporting the general paradigm of «global warming / antropogenic climate change» (again not those in group A).

Anthony Lupo's work for the Heartland Institute even flipped a long - time climate skeptic columnist at the Daily Tribune, who publicly explained why the scandal convinced him that global warming is indeed occurring.

(Gore has also not addressed this: Another Moonwalker Defies Gore: NASA Astronaut Dr. Buzz Aldrin rejects global warming fears: «Climate has been changing for billions of years» — Moonwalkers Defy Gore's Claim That Climate Skeptics Are Akin To Those Who Believe Moon Landing was «Staged»)

First of all, people who know the facts of global warming realize that it is not an «ideological» issue, and don't care whether phony «skeptics» call themselves «conservative» or «liberal».

CLIMATE SKEPTIC: a person who has not yet been convinced anthropogenic global warming is happening, but is open to being convinced if presented with the evidence.

«The era of «equal time» for skeptics who argue that global warming is just a result of natural variation and not human intervention seems to be largely over — except on talk radio, cable, and local television,» she tells us.

The New York Times Magazine is running a long profile of Freeman Dyson, the independent - minded physicist and polymath from Princeton, N.J., who has come into the public eye of late because of his anti-consensual views of global warming — which are also different from the views of many people in the variegated assemblage of climate skeptic / denier / realists (depending on who is describing them) fighting efforts to curb greenhouse gases.

This is contributing to all of us going down the tubes together as a result of global warming skeptics and deniers who are playing around with the well known casino rule of «gambler's ruin» by always betting against the house.

Hundreds of private e-mails and documents hacked from a computer server at a British university are causing a stir among global warming skeptics, who say they show that climate scientists conspired to overstate the case for a human influence on climate change.

One is that, for some people, the skeptics» grasping at any story that might support their climate change denial strategies creates needless confusion for people who are unsettled, and even frightened by the threats posed by global warming.

There are right ways and wrong ways for scientists to fight back against the climate skeptics who are trying to confuse the public about global warming.

Environmentalists who desperately want to take action to control global warming have heard the things the skeptics are saying and these same environmentalists are making comments supporting what the skeptics are saying!

My interest in climate change began innocently enough --- some «vigorous discussions» with a few in - law family members who happened to be staunch global warming skeptics.

Obama's formulation in the State of the Union speech — the notion that even skeptics should support a climate bill because it was what the economy needed — had been developed by an unlikely source: Frank Luntz, one of the dark princes of Republican messaging, who a decade before had written a founding document of GOP global warming denial.

Yes, the notion that scientists tow the global warming line in exchange for fame and money seems to ignore the many benefits of being a published climate scientist who tows the «skeptic» line, or even seems to sympathize with some of their talking points — who are valuable, as market theory would predict, because they are very scarce.

A sledgehammer message if there ever was one: Nasty, greedy billionaire industrialists who hatched a plan to pay skeptic scientists associated with think tanks to lie to the public, and the hard evidence is that sinister - sounding «reposition global warming» phrase.

Harris cites the work of PhD - level climate scientists and atmospheric physicists who've studied global warming for decades, and none of these skeptics deny climate science in any general sense of the word — that's another unsupportable talking point from believers of catastrophic man - caused global warming.

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.

Neither Gelbspan nor anyone repeating his accusation ever proved the money trail led to an industry directive to lie about global warming science; none of them have proved skeptic climate scientists were instructed to mimic tobacco industry tactics; journalists have demonstrably not offered overall fair balance in to skeptic climate scientists; the «wedge» being driven is one arguably pounded by enviro - activists who push the «skeptics don't deserve fair media balance» talking point; and Gelbspan was not the first one to bring up this talking point.

And that reality has been demonstrated over and over again, most recently in the work of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, led by Dr. Richard Muller, who began his comprehensive assessment as an avowed climate skeptic and ended it convinced by the clear evidence that global warming is happening and is caused by human activity.This conclusion is emphatically shared by the best and brightest of the global scientific community, including our own National Academy of Sciences.

A professor who is accusing global warming skeptics of engaging in tabloid - style character assassination of scientists, called an American climate skeptic â $ œan assh * leâ $ on the December 4, 2009 live broadcast of BBC's Newsnight program. â $ œWhat an assh * le!â $ declared Professor Watson at the end of the contentious debate with Climate Depot's executive editor Marc Morano.

Instead, ExxonMobil diverts corporate resources to support the work of some of the nation's leading skeptics on climate change, who claim that fears of global warming are overblown.

A pause would, at least in part, discredit arguments for global warming and lend credence to skeptics who argue the climate goes through a natural cycle of changes.

Clinton says her reasoning behind calling for the probe is because she believes «there's a lot of evidence» ExxonMobil «misled» the public on climate change and that the organization promoted «skeptics» who challenge global warming assertions.

His comment was singled out by skeptics, who claimed scientists were covering up the truth about global warming.

The scientists, not environmental activists, include Ivar Giaever, Nobel Laureate in physics, who said, «I am a skeptic... Global warming has become a new religion.»

I'm always debating with my friend who is a skeptic about global warming.

In an essay «Why the Global Warming Skeptics are Wrong» in the New York Review of Books of Feb. 22, 2012, Yale professor William D. Nordhaus attempts to counter the arguments of a group of 16 prominent scientists who published an essay, «No Need to Panic about Global Warming,» in the Wall Street Journal on Jan. 27, 2012.

Until then, count me among the skeptics who consider this a political rather than scientific issue, especially in light of the fact that it is believed that the Antarctic and arctic shelves are breaking from stress (from «overgrowth»), not due to heat, since they are larger than they have been during recorded history, and that when the alarmists are proven conclusively to be wrong, they change the terminology («global cooling» to «global warming» to «global climate change» - face it, the global climate always has been and always will be very dynamic).

Others discussed how to deal with skeptics, some displaying a hostility to contrarians that seemed surprising to people who haven't followed the growing nastiness of the fight against global - warming science, which has come to resemble the fights over abortion and evolution.

The scientific community also included some skeptics who believed that global warming was not likely at all.

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.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2008/02/12/science/space/12jastrow.html?referer= Dr. Jastrow also became a prominent skeptic on climate change issues, arguing that scientists who warned of a global warming crisis were misattributing nature's effects on climate to the effects of mankind.

They refer to the «scientific consensus» of the 2,000 or so scientists connected to the IPCC — even though probably no more than 100 of those are true climate specialists; many are actually social scientists and government functionaries; and the list includes some skeptics of global warming who have expressed doubts about the IPCC's conclusions.

«We've been told this report is the gold standard,» said Canadian global - warming skeptic Donna Laframboise, who runs the NoConsensus.org site and who organized the online effort to examine the U.N.'s references in the report, commonly known as the AR4.

So again — seems to me that debates about the magnitude of sensitivity are consistent with skepticism (as opposed to «skepticism»), and debates about the physics of AGW are consistent with skepticism (as opposed to «skepticism» — and despite the attempts of some to throw those who doubt basic AGW physics under a bus)-- but to say that you don't doubt the basic physics yet assert that global warming has stopped is either illogical or the view of a «skeptic» (as opposed to a skeptic).

President Trump is, after all, an avowed climate skeptic who has already taken several important steps towards tackling the Green Blob, most recently by promising to eliminate «nearly $ 1.6 billion in international programs aimed at promoting green energy and fighting global warming.»

«Perhaps the most interesting finding in this poll, aside from the precipitous drop in the number of Independents who believe global warming is a problem, is that the more Americans learn about cap - and - trade, the more they oppose cap - and - trade,» says Sen. James Inhofe (R., Okla.), a longtime skeptic of climate - change warnings.

Such is the insipid brainwashing that has taken place via television, newspapers and exalted talking heads - global warming skeptics are forced to wear the metaphoric yellow star and only discuss their doubts in hushed tones and conciliatory frameworks, or be cat - called, harangued and jeered by an army of do - gooders who righteously believe they are rescuing mother earth by recycling a wine bottle or putting their paper in a separate trash can.

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»....

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.

The e-mails, dating back to 1996, were published on Web sites run by climate change skeptics who claim efforts had been made to manipulate data to exaggerate the threat of global warming.

However, claims based on «eyeballing» and similar offered here in the thread by Mr. Coal - Magazine Editor, who is probably going to write his PhD thesis soon where he refutes global warming using «eyeballing», and by other «skeptics» are not a scientifically valid approach to provide evidence for the assertion of the «stopped» global warming.