Sentences with phrase «how warmists»

The fake Heartland document, like the Climategate emails, is evidence of how warmists wage their campaign.

This is how the warmists undermined their position: by making claims they couldn't substantiate.

(That's how warmists operate.)

I'm waiting to see how my warmist friends mange to spin / ignore these new emails.

Not exact matches

The point is that if a station starts out as CRN1 and over the years moves up the scale to a CRN5 and the warmists don't even know what the changes have been WRT new cement or asphalt installations, buildings being built around them, air conditioner vents pointed toward them, etc.; how can you claim that a station that has undergone those types of changes will measure the same trend as a station with the same lifetime but with a CRN1 rating over its lifespan?

Pointing out, as this blog does so well, how badly the Warmists miss their predictions is a good thing.

people like Robert are always useful... they show how dangerous it would be to leave the world in the hands of warmists.

The fact that people try to minimize or excuse the smear just shows how low the standards are in the warmist community.

Funny, ain't it, how amongst the warmists contrary data is rejected but data from the same source that is not contrary is accepted without question.

Unless you want to claim, as the analogy given by a warmist in Clouds and Magic, that carbon dioxide is a thick down blanket 100 % of the atmosphere, you don't have a hope of a snowball's chance in hell of showing how it can trap heat.

Because AGW proponents (Lukes and warmists) can not explain how or why the surface temperature is related to radiation reaching that surface (in other words, it has nothing to do with radiative balance) they can not assume that altering radiative balance will affect surface temperature.

Funny how all the warmists keep «forgetting» that Marcott later admitted that the present day blade of that hockey stick is not supported by the actual paper.

Warmists seem to be incapable of clearly stating what they stand for, let alone how they intend to achieve it.

That aside Hunter, how do you explain JC's critical input of agw extremes on the one hand and her appeasment of warmists on the other?

Until they are told how to react the warmists are probably all confused and demoralised and stuff and we shouldn't pile into their intellectual misery just for our own satisfaction.

But I do not know how we can make contact with «warmists» on this subject.

Yeah, well if I were a warmist, I'd keep quiet about how much this shadowy Anonymous Donor (it's — gasp!

The skeptics in general do not dispute that greenhouse gases affect climate, and in fact are better at explaining how this happens than are the warmists in general.

With these people on your side how can the warmist be losing the climate adjustment battle and the hearts of minds of the fuel poverty peons.

ds >> Speaking of impossible things how does the warmist explain ocean getting warmer due to CO2 without warming the air containing the CO2?

This is bog - standard, traditional well known tried and tested and used in industries everyday knowledge physics, that's how weather systems work — you «warmists» who say that carbon dioxide warms the Earth are spouting junk physics, you're describing an imaginary world, not this one.

She differs from the warmists only in her opinion of how much temperatures will rise, and what effect this will have.

Speaking of impossible things how does the warmist explain ocean getting warmer due to CO2 without warming the air containing the CO2?

Right, and how often have you seen the so called failure of James Hansen's 1988 (26 year old) projections used as a supposed final nail in the warmist coffin?

How can the Warmists be so sure the 0.7 C warming of the 20th century was caused by increases in man - made CO2?

Plimer's 2011 book — How to Get Expelled From School (launched by John Howard and mailed by the IPA to hundreds of schools)-- listed 101 questions for sceptical students to ask their «warmist» teachers, i.e. those who respect science.

The remarkable and telling fact is how eagerly the whole warmist team and the IPCC (same thing) have embraced this piece of rubbish and made it the emblem and poster of climate «science».

One of them was a jocular suggestion by a warmist called Tom Wigley as to how best to smear Soon and his co-author Sallie Baliunas.

«If the lifetime doesn't matter, why do the warmists constantly go about telling us how the CO2 we put in the atmosphere is going to be there for thousands of years?

Waiting for just one Climate Etc. warmist to concede how cynically off the mark this is... Is there one of you with the integrity?

Can someone please explain to me how this will turn into an actionable item, changing warmists» minds?

From there warmists can then show why the pause is apparent but not real, and we can show how the warming was likewise only apparent, and not 100 % «real» warming.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/09/new-study-politics-makes-you-innumerate This explains the warmist mindset very well: when a political ideology is at stake, how one does math and science changes....

You don't want to give the warmists «issues» with which to attack you with, no matter how small or irrelevant.

How about «aka blind and deaf warmist zealot.»

Here's a demonstration of how desperate warmists are to believe their theory, even when they can't find the evidence for it:

How many of their warmist rivals are NOT funded by governments committed to their ideology?

And it's hard to say how much of the confusion is wilful when some folks, in one breath tell you that it's crazy for «warmists» to think that only humans affect global climate, and in the next claim that an alleged «pause» in warming means that steadily - increasing CO2 levels «can't» be responsible — a claim that could only make sensse if CO2 * were * the only thing affecting the temps.

When the earth doesn't warm as expected, the warmists can then claim how well the trillions of everything ($, yen, euro, dracmas) spent have been put to good use.

I try hard to be openminded on this (not easy, as a skeptic I come with my bagage, as you come with yours as a warmist), but really, I can turn it on any angle you wish, I can not see how removing the DP can be defended as the correct way to expose the data as objectively as possible.