Sentences with phrase «if warmist»

They all have two things in common: 1) almost all show wide temperature variations in sync with solar activity (note here I write «activity» and not «irradiance», and it sure would be nice if warmist scientists some day learned the difference) and 2) they all disagree with the IPCC CO2 - centric computer simulations.

If the Warmist theory is that rising CO2 levels result in increasing surface temperatures, then the observation that rising CO2 levels are not accompanied by a concurrent rise in surface temperatures would tend to indicate that the theory is flawed.

No problem, if Warmist physics is employed.

If the warmists decide to turn out expect some fun.

As JP implies above, if the warmists shout: «Look at these floods..!

If the warmists are correct, we have Venus, and if the skeptics are right we have slightly more food than we have now and more pleasant worldwide weather.

Even if the warmists are right, I'll take my chances with a warmer world.

Now if the warmists would use this map projection (Bonne, I think) we'd be a lot less scared of global warming as those big red blobs become tiny red blobs.

Not exact matches

In other words, they used the trick as: -» if you want to sell that the sun is orbiting around the earth - > you encompass the moon — present proofs that the moon is orbiting around the earth and occasionally insert that: the sun and moon rise from same place and set to the west, proof that the» sun is orbiting around the earth» AND the trick works, because the Flat - Earthers called» climate skeptics» are fanatically supporting 90 % of the Warmist lies.

The only way, the last decade could not have been the «warmist ever», is if a cooling trend had set in over the whole decade, that was equal or greater than the previous warming decades trends.

If I understand this, he's asking Murdoch to end the silencing of the «global warmist» argument on WSJ's editorial page.

If the Global Warmists can't deal with criticsm, maybe their argument is not as airtight as they would like to portray.

If they speak more moderately, or not at all, and never in terms that blame the faults of warmists on their politics, then it would be easy to underestimate their percentage on contrarian blogs.

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?

If actual science begins to be applied to the issue, the Warmist house of cards collapses immediately.

If so, they'd be less often provoked by alleged misdeeds of warmists, and more inclined to judged their sins charitably.

Anyway, since I'm feeling a little ranty today about the warmist scientists, I was pleased to notice a nice little exchange on Australian breakfast telly — via Daily Bayonet if you're interested — between a warmist Mark Diesendorf, and a sceptic Stewart Franks: -

Or you could believe the Warmists, and surround yourself with CO2, which should magically warm you up by 33C if you stand in direct sunlight, somewhat less if the surrounding air temperature is say, -85 C.

When the warmist - alarmists started trying to sell the CAGW story some time ago, did they say (in whatever year that was) that the world would have to wait for 30 years to see if the story was going to pan out, and to not worry about it in the meantime?

Conversely if the convective were to be 4 % like warmists that don't understand heat transfer would have people believe, then the Rayleigh number would be 3.2 E4.

I wonder if the mania of the warmists here, and elsewhere, is a response to fear that the public is experiencing climate fatigue?

What's especially silly about the «we can't think of anything else» argument is that the warmists can't explain what (if anything) caused the Little Ice Age or the Medieval Warm Period.

Mosher, if I understand him, keeps saying: the orthodox (I don't know if he would say «warmists») have an up - and - running theory, complete with models from super-computers, academic credentials, etc., and by the way: political decision - makers — the real powers that be — asked for all this, funded it, and got what they asked for.

You will not do much to close the gap between «warmists» and «skeptics» if you can't address that.

Used to be described as: running with one leg on each side of a barbwire fence experts... Or; only half of his brains is on the front end... They are experts on» ifs and maybes» same as the Warmist..

Secondly, it may be that warmists will use anything that happens to help them — if they can find something scientific - looking, they'll use it, but they don't believe it (I think it's hard to come to any other conclusion)

charles nelson says: August 14, 2011 at 1:18 am Absolutely excellent... an in - depth «exploded diagram» of an argument I have used to hush Warmists for many years now; I ask them if they've ever flown long haul and if they have ever looked at the in - flight display... the one that has a route map, arrival times etc... sometimes these have a temperature read out.

# 2: by 99 those same manipulators realized that CO2 will keep increasing; if they keep increasing the temp accordingly — secular» Skeptics & Warmist» people on the street will notice that: the real temp is still the same — so, the prudent Swindlers lowered the temp.

As if, another dead end discussion, as this one is, it is a common tactic among warmist to engage in endless futile debate that resolves nothing, it's in the brochure from 2002... I am well aware of the geologic past.

If you do, you are not a Warmist» Fig Leaf == BUT, you are, if you don't acknowledge that: they are cooling the planet, not CO2!If you do, you are not a Warmist» Fig Leaf == BUT, you are, if you don't acknowledge that: they are cooling the planet, not CO2!if you don't acknowledge that: they are cooling the planet, not CO2!!!

If you are merely trying to be gratuitously offensive, (a particularly Warmist characteristic, generally employed in the absence of relevant fact), then you are being spectacularly inept.

In fact, their ability to ridicule the warmist cause is so rotund that I've often wonder if these trolls might not the fabled «deniers» pretending to be the most maniacal wamists in order to ridicule them all.

Jim Cripwell September 22, 2013 at 8:05 am Reply What will the warmists say if the current trend of falling temperatures persists for another 5 to10 years?

What will the warmists say if the current trend of falling temperatures persists for another 5 to10 years?

Averages, so beloved of foolish Warmists, are of little solace if you're freezing, boiling, drowning or dying of thirst.

I wouldn't be surprised if you perform the Warmist Wiggle, and say that Warmists aren't really trying to stop the climate from changing.

Earth's All Time Record High Temp Set in 1913 — Earth's All Time Record Low Set in 2010 & 2nd All Time Record Low Set in 2013 — «What would warmists say if the dates were reversed?»

5) If such interrogations go ahead, do you agree that they should include interrogations / cross examination of climate scientists from both the «skeptical» (e.g., Christy, Spencer, Lindzen) and the «warmist» sides?

If I were a betting man, I would give anyone odds that warmists like tempterrain will not join in this sort of discussion.

Let us see if I am right, and whether any warmist, tempterrain, Steven Mosher, lolwot, oneuniverse, our hostess etc, will join in this discussion.

Meanwhile, if these statements really reflect opposite ends of some kind of eco-economic axis, we would expect people who are «pro-science» (i.e. «warmists») to dissent more strongly from the statement «Free and unregulated markets pose important threats to sustainable development».

If my understanding of your argument is correct, it is not the «warmists» who are getting away with something, it is the «skeptics».

Scott, Anyone who doesn't find himself appalled at what's going on among scientists today is, if not a hopelessly closed minded warmist, someone who had to have been a profoundly cynical individual to begin with.

Starting with «climategate», through a progression of «gates» with much else in between — including the apparent collapse at Copenhagen — it seemed as if we had the warmists on the run.Certainly, -LSB-...]

For instance, if we divide the respondents into «sceptics» and «warmists» on the basis of their assent to / dissent from the statement, «I believe that burning fossil fuels increases atmospheric temperature to some measurable degree», and then compare those groups» assent to / dissent from popular conspiracy theories, we get the following result:

The warmist community will certainly buy into the Trenberth narrative that a «bad» and «dangerous» paper was somehow «mistakenly» published, if iI'm understanding it correctly.

So far, the warmists have done a good job in convincing us (the 80 %) that all hell will happen if we don't go back to the dark ages and live in waddle and dab huts.

You have to get read of the pagan beliefs, if you want Warmist to take you seriously.

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

I would prefer to see you exercise your excellent logic auditing skills more on the warmist dogma such as that put out by John and others, because if you don't, I would have to conclude that your bias is showing.