Sentences with phrase «lying skeptic climate»

In my work here, I follow the citations for «evidence» which supposedly supports the accusation about «corrupt industry - paid lying skeptic climate scientists.»

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.

post # 11 said: So the «skeptic» position is that climate scientists are lying or incompetent until one can prove that they aren't

After following the global warming saga — science and policy — for nearly a quarter century, I've seen the biases at the journals and N.S.F. (including their press releases sometimes), in the I.P.C.C. summary process (the deep reports are mainly sloppy in some cases; the summary writing — read the climate - extinction section of this post — is where the spin lies), and sometimes in the statements and work of individual researchers (both skeptics and «believers»).

These climate models are NOT the same as weather models, I might add, which is one of the lies spun by many climate skeptics to try to inject uncertainty into the debate.

Upset that you had to eat your words about lies spun by many climate skeptics?

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.

My focus is on the accusation that skeptic climate scientists are paid fossil fuel industry money to lie about the issue to the public.

Accusations of corrupt fossil fuel industry influence over skeptic climate scientists are irrelevant material — worthless — in the absence of any physical evidence (full context document scans, undercover video / audio transcripts, leaked emails, money - transfer receipts) proving such skeptics were paid and orchestrated to lie about the certainty of catastrophic man - caused global warming.

At GelbspanFiles.com, my main focus is to amass a collection of information which shows myriad problems with the accusation that skeptic climate scientists are paid industry money to lie and spread misinformation, and myriad problems with the people surrounding that accusation, including one of the main promulgators of alleged «core evidence» proving it, global alarmist book author Ross Gelbspan.

This simple analysis lends itself perfectly to the accusation about skeptic climate scientists being paid industry money to lie and misinform.

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.

It's a major problem that the «industry - corrupted skeptic climate scientists are paid to lie» accusation has no evidence to support it, but now it appears the person widely credited with «discovering / exposing» that corruption is seen with significantly conflicting dates of when he actually started examining skeptic scientists.

2) The few skeptic climate scientists out there are paid to lie about that by «big coal & oil» interests.»

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.

Some big name climate skeptics have been busted big time manipulating temperature data and lying about it.

But there is a consistent theme to all of them: Davies is cited just for the accusation that illicit funding has gone to skeptic climate scientists and organizations skeptical of catastrophic human - induced global warming; when will he finally provide actual evidence proving the funding was done under arrangements where all parties agreed on what, when, where, and how the lies would be spread??

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.

Forget the #ExxonKnew effort to re-invigorate the otherwise 25 year - old accusation that skeptic climate scientists are paid corrupting money by fossil fuel companies to lie to the public about the certainty of catastrophic man - caused global warming.

Declarations that skeptic climate scientists knowingly lie about the certainty of man - caused global warming as paid shills of the fossil fuel industry appear devastating...... but dig deep into the details, and all those claims look more like a «Keystone Kops - style» farce.

So, if none of those deliver (pardon the pun) evidence clearly showing how skeptic climate scientists agreed to accept illicit money in exchange for spreading lies that meet the approval of fossil fuel industry executives, what do we have left?

Yes, and that's where this thing ends up with a weirder problem courtesy of the same Ozone Action place where Gelbspan and their people simultaneously somehow «obtained» the documents which have long been used to accuse skeptic climate scientists of accepting fossil fuel industry bribes in exchange for lying to the public about the certainty of catastrophic man - caused global warming.

However, this is also a can't - miss opportunity to put that entire enviro - activist notion to the ultimate test, with an outright challenge to billionaire Tom Steyer to consider a far more chancy gamble than the $ 100 million he's pledged toward Senate and gubernatorial races that «attack climate - change deniers» — a gamble that either makes or totally busts the two decade - old accusation that skeptics are paid to lie and spread misinformation.

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.

So, what we have here from Bud Ward is little more than half the story, with the basic idea of trusting Gelbspan as some kind of highly regarded investigative journalist who found smoking gun proof that skeptic climate scientists are shills paid by the fossil fuel industry to lie to the public.

Military leaders are scientists and scholars: General H.R. McMaster's PhD thesis Dereliction of Duty: Lyndon Johnson, Robert McNamara, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies that Led to Vietnam is a sterling example of historical scholarship, and in the scientific sphere, US Navy researchers publish copiously on climate - change (the US Navy Chief Oceanographer David Titley's lecture I Was Formerly a Climate Skeptic is a particularly accessible presentclimate - change (the US Navy Chief Oceanographer David Titley's lecture I Was Formerly a Climate Skeptic is a particularly accessible presentClimate Skeptic is a particularly accessible presentation).

2) from the late 1990s or earlier to now, no evidence has been produced to prove skeptic climate scientists are paid to lie.

But the difference is that those who are trying to preserve a livable climate and hence the health and well - being of our children and billions of people this century quickly denounce the few offensive over-reaches of those who claim to share our goals — but those trying to destroy a livable climate [ie skeptics], well, for them lies and hate speech are the modus operandi, so such behavior is not only tolerated, but encouraged.

a suggestion for anyone following this site who happens to be directly or tangentially involved in efforts to say skeptic climate scientists are paid to operate under an industry directive to lie about the issue:» Fess up about not having any evidence over the last 23 + years to back that up.

The science of catastrophic man - caused global warming is settled, no need to pay attention to what skeptic climate scientists say about the science or its political angles, such as the «97 % consensus» because they are paid illicit industry money to lie....

Make no mistake about it, the mantra repeated by enviro - activists everywhere is that there is no doubt about the certainty of catastrophic man - caused global warming, and nobody should bother to listen to skeptic climate scientists because what few skeptics there are were paid industry money to lie, just the same way «shill experts» lied on behalf of «big tobacco» years ago.

For all practical purposes, the collective Greenpeace organization committed outright political suicide two weeks ago, essentially telegraphing to the entire world that they never had the evidence they claimed they had, proving skeptic climate scientists lie to the public under a pay - for - performance arrangement with fossil fuel industry people just like the way shill experts lied for the tobacco industry.

Tie this all together, and what we have is Gelbspan's central bit of «evidence» not proving a sinister industry directive exists where skeptic climate scientists are paid to lie, and the collective narratives about what led him to investigate skeptics has too short of a timeline to be feasible, with details so inconsistent that it looks more like a fabrication hiding the true details of the entire situation.

This begs for three final elemental questions: What climate science expertise do enviro - activists have to prove that skeptic climate scientists» assessments are lies?

For all the length of this student's paper, it could just have easily been distilled to a single sentence: «The science of man - caused global warming is settled, skeptic climate scientists are paid industry money to lie about it being not settled, and everybody may ignore those skeptics because of those first two points.»

In fact, many skeptics believe that the continued positive reception of catastrophic global warming theory is a function of the general scientific illiteracy of Americans and points to a need for more and better science education (see here for an overview of the climate debate that does not once use the ad hominem words «myth», «scam» or «lie»).

Yes, it's true — skeptical, legitimate climate scientists like the ones who run this site have been very frustrated by the deliberately deceitful pseudoscience, outright lies — and most recently vicious personal attacks against them — that have been cranked out for the last couple of decades by fossil fuel industry - funded frauds and cranks and given unwarranted legitimacy by the mass media, and regurgitated ad nauseum on blogs everywhere by Ditto - Heads who unquestioningly believe whatever drivel is spoon - fed to them by the phony «conservative» media, and call themselves «skeptics» for doing so.

Now, climate - skeptic bloggers are striking back with a new conspiracy theory: that the researchers deliberately failed to contact «real skeptics» for the study and then lied about it.

If you are an enviro - activist with no intellectual curiosity about the matter, and one of your prominent leaders tells you a leaked industry document's strategy statement to «reposition global warming as theory rather than fact» proves skeptic climate scientists were paid industry money to lie and misinform, then that's all you need to know on the topic.

Not to diminish the work of those advocating truth in science observations and exposing any kind of industry distortion / misinformation about cigarette smoking, but the elemental goal in attempts to create any sort of parallel here is that it must be established that skeptic climate scientists knowingly lie about the issue as a direct result of being paid to do so.

What I obviously point out time and again is that there is no evidence proving skeptic climate scientists knew catastrophic man - caused global warming was settled science but were corrupted by giant wads of illicit cash which caused them to spew industry - created / directed lies.