Sentences with phrase «insinuates skeptic»

So I'll mention it here, to point out once again how there typically is less than 3 degrees of separation between any prominent person who insinuates skeptic climate scientists are crooks, and Ross Gelbspan.

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 public.

Folks on the Al Gore side of the issue have been too quick from the inception of this whole mess to insinuate skeptics are paid to lie and spread misinformation.

Not exact matches

Perennial skeptics were probably shaken up by vague recent comments from BlackBerry's typically candid CEO, who essentially insinuated anything was possible for his struggling company on the hardware front, as long as security philosophies could be honored.

Perennial skeptics were probably shaken up by vague recent comments from BlackBerry's typically candid CEO, who essentially insinuated anything was possible for his struggling company on the hardware

But it certainly can not be used, as skeptics do, the insinuate that a theory is wrong.

At the end of my August 7th blog piece, I mentioned how any prominent person insinuating that industry money corrupts skeptic climate scientists seems to be separated from Ross Gelbspan by three degrees or less.

An elemental question begs to be corroborated in more than one way for sheer fairness: When the main pushers of the idea that the «reposition global warming» phrase insinuate it is proof of an industry - led disinformation effort employing crooked skeptic climate scientists — Naomi Oreskes saying it indicates a plot to supply «alternative facts,» Gelbspan saying it is a crime against humanity, and Al Gore implying it is a cynical oil company effort — are they truly oblivious to the necessity of corroborating whether or not that phrase and the memo subset it came from actually had widespread corrupting influence, or did they push this «evidence» with malice knowing it was worthless?

And to argue this skeptics are, to use your own phrase «Insinuating some vague error» in the new graphic over the old.

All you are doing is insinuating some vague error by skeptics but you can not articulate exactly what it is.

Without that ICE phrase, her book does no better than insinuate illicit money buys skeptic climate scientists» viewpoints, while not even making any effort to back this up with hard evidence of a quid pro quo arrangement between skeptics and industry.