Sentences with phrase «in skeptic blogs»

Seeing the endless discussion of the «ancient reconstructions» of Mann or Briffa in skeptic blogs is pointless, because since then we have so many hockeysticks, the Mac's have to work much harder to refute them.

I see no value in the skeptic blogs who smear climate science and scientists and raise unfounded or unwarranted doubt about both.

Not exact matches

In response to a post by a Twitter user which said Musk should provide «some very strong arguments in a well written blog piece to win over the (myself included) skeptics,» the Tesla and SpaceX CEO wrote: «Movie on the subject coming soon...» Now, why hasn't anyone thought of that beforIn response to a post by a Twitter user which said Musk should provide «some very strong arguments in a well written blog piece to win over the (myself included) skeptics,» the Tesla and SpaceX CEO wrote: «Movie on the subject coming soon...» Now, why hasn't anyone thought of that beforin a well written blog piece to win over the (myself included) skeptics,» the Tesla and SpaceX CEO wrote: «Movie on the subject coming soon...» Now, why hasn't anyone thought of that before?

I'll have to read this blog but if she uses faith in any context than she was hardly a skeptic because the basil definition of faith is belief without evidence.

I thought about the variety of faith backgrounds represented on this blog — Catholics, Lutherans, Baptists, Presbyterians, conservative evangelicals, agnostics, Mennonites, Methodists, Pentecostals, doubters, skeptics, fundamentalists, disenfranchised fundamentalists, religious scholars, and religious misfits — and all I could think to say was, «My blog attracts people who are in transition... or who have recently transitioned... from one way of approaching their faith to another.»

While being publicized in the mainstream media certainly makes researchers a target, being picked up in the skeptic blogosphere, which includes widely read blogs such asWatts Up With That, Climate Audit and Morano's Climate Depot, can also lead to scientists receiving email barrages, even when, as in Norgaard's case, the research has not received mainstream media attention.

According to Ross McKitrick, an economist at the University of Guelph in Ontario, who was among those sending FOI demands to East Anglia on behalf of Climate Audit, a skeptics blog.

The university's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) has been at the center of the so - called «climategate» controversy since thousands of internal e-mails and files were posted to greenhouse skeptic blogs in November.

But one of the difficulties I found in examining the views of climate skeptics is that they are scattered widely in blogs, talks, and pamphlets.

Richard Betts, the head of the climate impacts section of Britain's Met Office, recently left a comment on the «skeptic» * blog Bishop Hill stating that thresholds for climate danger, such as the much ballyhooed 2 - degree limit enshrined in recent climate pledges, were not determined by science:

Ah, yes but on skeptic blogs you'll find these seemingly reasonable people who think it's legitimate to debate whether or not it's cold enough in Antarctica ot make CO2 snow out of the air.

Blogs of those variously called climate realists / skeptics / deniers are hammering on the chilly conditions, presumably in hopes of fending off a new push to close out the climate bill in the Senate.

But that is a far cry from the claim (and yes, that claim has been made, repeatedly, on skeptics blogs and public statements (e.g. Singer, Christy)-RRB- that Antarctic has been cooling in the long term.

Some of the things that I've tried in my quest to understand skeptics and more effectively counter misinformation include posting at skeptical blogs, such as climateaudit, and inviting prominent skeptics to give seminars at Georgia Tech.

What I am interested in is comparing discussion of the Cowtan paper, which to my newbie eye seems important, on this blog and on WUWT, where I imagine a skeptic discussion will crop up.

The weakness in looking at short time scales was revealed nicely in a simple and revealing animated graph, created for the Skeptical Science blog, showing how self - described climate skeptics were «going down the up escalator.»

Climate change is one of the primary topics on the blog and, although Eric himself is very balanced in his approach, there are a lot of skeptics posting there.

In my previous blog post, I showed how one anonymous op - ed writer tried to casually drop the «reposition global warming as theory rather than fact» phrase into his piece to insinuate skeptic climate scientists received illicit industry money in exchange for the promise to lie to the publiIn my previous blog post, I showed how one anonymous op - ed writer tried to casually drop the «reposition global warming as theory rather than fact» phrase into his piece to insinuate skeptic climate scientists received illicit industry money in exchange for the promise to lie to the publiin exchange for the promise to lie to the public.

It is somehow unsurprising that your sources for «climategate» are a series of cherry - picked, out of context quotes from one of the British tabloids that hyped the faux scandal in the first place, and a «skeptic» blog.

However, I do use the phrase «conveniently picked» which is a little softer than arbitrarly picked; skeptics (more skilled than I) who have examined the models maintain that aerosol input values have dubious legitimacy, and nothing that I have read in pro-AGW blogs have convinced me otherwise.

Even though this series of blog posts concerns a prominent complaint filed in 2007 against the UK Channel Four Television Corporation video «The Great Global Warming Swindle,» my objective is to show how a thorough analysis of any given accusation about skeptic climate scientists being «paid industry money to lie» shatters the accusation to bits no matter where the hammer strikes.

This is actually pretty common in all of the blogosphere, and moreso in those science blogs which aren't focused (nor do they care too much) on climate science, but whenever some controversy hits the cables they have to put their uninformed hands into it, preferably to state for the nth time why the skeptics and deniers are such fools and shills for the oils and the rethuglicans.

Based on the number of comments that day and the average readership of the skeptic blogs, they had an army poring over the files in a race to find the next «juicy» comment from the climate scientists.

On other blogs, one way to identify the climate skeptics is that they're the ones who talk in that dismissively pseudoscientific way.

These are like the blog «skeptics» that haven't done any of the hard science themselves, but throw things in for discussion from the sidelines even purporting to be qualified.

Today I offer this post as a «Summary for Policymakers» regarding my series of seven prior blog posts about a smear effort which took place back in 2007 that is a case study for examining other prior and current industry corruption accusations against skeptic climate scientists.

I've already detailed critical problems with Gelbspan's narratives about his «discovery of skeptic corruption odyssey» in my January 22, 2014 and May 9, 2014 blog posts, regarding the way he supposedly found out that skeptic climate scientists were «paid industry money to lie», and regarding the questionably short time frame in which this took place.

In December 2006 Morano launched a blog on the committee's website that largely promotes the views of climate change skeptics.

In my August 20, 2013 blog piece, I briefly mentioned the role Minnesota assistant Attorney General Barbara Freese had in the May 1995 Minnesota Public Utilities Commission hearings where skeptic climate scientists were called to testify, and I detailed her subsequent association problems with Ross GelbspaIn my August 20, 2013 blog piece, I briefly mentioned the role Minnesota assistant Attorney General Barbara Freese had in the May 1995 Minnesota Public Utilities Commission hearings where skeptic climate scientists were called to testify, and I detailed her subsequent association problems with Ross Gelbspain the May 1995 Minnesota Public Utilities Commission hearings where skeptic climate scientists were called to testify, and I detailed her subsequent association problems with Ross Gelbspan.

Up until finding what I detail in this blog piece, I thought someone resentful of skeptic scientists might have done so while also alerting Gelbspan that one of the hearings» top questioners was going to grill the skeptics.

Daily Beast described Climate Depot as «a bustling, one - stop - shop for climate skeptics» and noted that Climate Depot is «bringing in more visitors than RedState.com, one of the most popular conservative blogs on the web.»

I don't see that Steve B was employed by the Sierra Club, just that he was in charge of ExComm, which I assume is External Communications, i.e. issuing press releases and bugging skeptics on various blogs.

I'm not going to re post the whole thing here, but ask instead that you read it at http://www.buckyworld.me If you really are interested in engaging all readers, might this is the kind of thing you would use as a guest post ================================== Pat, you show such poor judgement to put this link on a skeptic blog.

According to Roger Pielke Jr., the New York Times writer Andy Revkin was threatened with the «Big Cutoff» from the climate science community by Michael Schlesinger, a climate scientist from the University of Illinois, for the sin of «gutter reportage» and for providing space in his Times blog for skeptics.

Your ethics also pretty much failed the test in our conversation about my Skeptic article at your personal blog site.

The alleged «Mike's Nature trick» to «hide the decline», which is nothing more than a talking point, unproven assertions that are disseminated in fake skeptic opinion blogs and similar.

* In a blog post for Climate Audit, a prominent climate skeptic blog, he used Stevens» study to suggest that as CO2 levels double in the atmosphere, global temperatures would rise by only 1.2 to 1.8 degrees CelsiuIn a blog post for Climate Audit, a prominent climate skeptic blog, he used Stevens» study to suggest that as CO2 levels double in the atmosphere, global temperatures would rise by only 1.2 to 1.8 degrees Celsiuin the atmosphere, global temperatures would rise by only 1.2 to 1.8 degrees Celsius.

The skeptical blog Jammie Wearing Fools wrote, «Fifteen years, no warming, yet we've endured nonstop hysteria in that time, with skeptics derisively called deniers, among other pejoratives.

Then, despite obliquely referencing skeptic blogs (he calls them «denialist»), he defines skeptics («denialists») in a way that might apply to a couple of dozen individuals (and essentially no scientists) who have written on the subject.

As I detailed in my August 16 blog piece, Gelbspan said a major factor prompting him to become familiar with the climate assessments of skeptic scientists was a backlash of letters from readers of an article he co-authored with Harvard's Paul Epstein concerning climate change and the spread of diseases.

For me, as with countless other skeptics, my engagement in the climate discussion started with me reading a blog written by a Canadian statistician with the temerity to challenge the orthodoxy and state, «YOU»RE DOING IT WRONG!!!

A point often missed on these blogs and in skeptic op - eds, so read around.

Back in the early spring of 2007, believers of catastrophic man - caused global warming were no doubt quite happy with Al Gore's «An Inconvenient Truth» movie, Ross Gelbspan's books, prominent pro-global warming blogs, mainstream media outlets, and others who gave essentially no fair play to the presentation of detailed climate assessments from skeptic climate scientists.

Headlines like «2014: The Most Dishonest Year on Record» have been posted on climate skeptic blogs, such as Watts Up With That, and a commentator for the popular British newspaper The Daily Mail all but accused NASA of lying to the press and the public about global temperatures, despite the open discussion of uncertainties both in NASA's press materials and during a press conference with audio that is publicly accessible.

We have seen many examples of these lists, for example in The Wall Street Journal and Fox News, but the most frequently - cited list of «skeptics» which was also referenced by Fred Singer in Climate of Doubt (we'll have much more on Fred Singer in an upcoming blog post) is the Oregon Petition.

In all the topics comments on this blog, I've not noticed any CC advocate who will address this directly aside from complaining about the skeptics, the media or the public.

Amusingly the blog denizens who are in the habit of contradicting climate skeptics get just as dismissive when ocean oscillations are pointed out to them as the skeptics do when the big rise in CO2 and temperature over the past half century is pointed out to them.

Despite the oft» made assertion, not only do I have no interest in «diverting» you or anyone else, it is abundantly clear that nothing that I could write in blog comments could «divert» you or any other «skeptic» from focusing on whatever the frick you want to focus on anyway.

You can see the general idea of BEST laid out in a blog comment made by me (at Lucias) to a question asked by Judith; What do skeptics want to see.

I want to commend Micheal Seward for so bravely and articulately weighing in here on a blog with not a few ranking AGW skeptics.