Sentences with phrase «made by climate skeptics»

This new objectively - based climate science undercuts the climate alarmist «consensus,» but also a few points often made by some climate skeptics.

Not exact matches

Many of the arguments made by Zycher are commonly forwarded by climate skeptics, so they are worth a close look.

Despite Nye's assertions that skeptics have «cognitive dissonance», many scientists are «underwhelmed» by the evidence for man - made climate change.

The company's support for a small, but influential, group of climate skeptics has damaged the United States» reputation by making our government appear to ignore conclusive data on climate change and the disastrous effects climate change could have.»

Ross Gelbspan, as a self - described reporter who was angered by the discovery of skeptic climate scientists being «paid sort of under the table by the coal industry» to spread «false information,» has had entire second career promoting the idea that we could be making better headway in stopping man - caused global warming it it weren't for the industry funded coordinated misinformation campaign.

Gore calls on his climate faithful to treat global warming skeptics like racists and homophobes By Ben Geman Former vice president Al Gore on Monday called for making climate change «denial» a taboo in society.

As we stated in the first entry, climate skepticism should be encouraged rather than vilified provided that skeptics play by the rules of science including publishing in the peer - reviewed literature, not making claims unsupported by scientific evidence, and not engaging in tactics discussed in this series.

But Muller's study made waves in the media because he had been a prominent climate - change skeptic, partly funded by a foundation linked to global - warming deniers, and his research focused on skeptics» objections to previous studies of warming.

The e-mails, dating back to 1996, were published on Web sites run by climate change skeptics who claim efforts had been made to manipulate data to exaggerate the threat of global warming.

Originally denoted «climate change skeptics» or «anthropogenic (human - induced) global warming skeptics», the term referred to those who are as yet unconvinced by evidence that emissions of man - made CO2 significantly enhance the natural atmospheric greenhouse effect.

Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist at Texas A&M University, has released a scientific paper (Dessler 2011) that looks at the claims made by two of a small group of «skeptic» climate scientists who regular SkS readers will be familiar with: Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen.

The claim is often made that climate realists (a.k.a. skeptics) can not point to peer - reviewed papers to support their position that there is no evidence of «dangerous global warming:» caused by human emissions of so - called «greenhouse» gases, including carbon dioxide.

Since to me (and many scientists, although some wanted a lot more corroborative evidence, which they've also gotten) it makes absolutely no sense to presume that the earth would just go about its merry way and keep the climate nice and relatively stable for us (though this rare actual climate scientist pseudo skeptic seems to think it would, based upon some non scientific belief — see second half of this piece), when the earth changes climate easily as it is, climate is ultimately an expression of energy, it is stabilized (right now) by the oceans and ice sheets, and increasing the number of long term thermal radiation / heat energy absorbing and re radiating molecules to levels not seen on earth in several million years would add an enormous influx of energy to the lower atmosphere earth system, which would mildly warm the air and increasingly transfer energy to the earth over time, which in turn would start to alter those stabilizing systems (and which, with increasing ocean energy retention and accelerating polar ice sheet melting at both ends of the globe, is exactly what we've been seeing) and start to reinforce the same process until a new stases would be reached well after the atmospheric levels of ghg has stabilized.

Answer: The TAR SRES scenarios of 2000, with all their combined computer simulation power, of joint efforts from 40 famous climate institutes, made their Millenium forecasts 2000 - 2100 to triumph over the ignorant skeptics to AGW and push them out of the way by applying their combined wisdom......... Such enormous knowledge of TAR (40 Institutes) must have produced at least 1 smallish paper, showing the present temp.plateau 2001 - 2011...... Show me just one please of the 40 which forecasted correctly 2001 - 2011....

As the former Editor of DeSmogBlog, most of the climate deniers and self - proclaimed skeptics I have encountered over the years have been paid by Exxon, the Koch brothers or other such industry interests, making a good living as fake experts for hire.

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.

The two make a range of often - repeated claims by climate change skeptics, including that there have been «no increase in frequency or intensity of storms, floods or droughts,» that sea ice isn't melting considerably, and that there is supposedly no scientific consensus regarding global warming.

Of course, it is interesting that many of those same «skeptics» also make contradictory arguments that suggest that they have great certainty about the magnitude of the effect (that it definitely isn't as large as the range estimated by the IPCC), and / or argue that none of the ways that climate scientists have measured the effect are valid.

This website makes climate science accessible to the layman by using easy to read, jargon - free language to debunk climate myths spread by climate science doubters or «skeptics.»

Will Roger Pielke show up to dismiss Lucia's work, and by implication all climate «skeptics» because they are trying to make something out of meaningless short term noise, or does he think that Munich Re's 30 years isn't enough, but Lucia's 12 years is just fine?

There seem to be several mutually contradictory statements made by climate research skeptics who focus on hurricane activity.

As such, climate skeptics must petition to Congress to ban all IPCC scientists from making testimonies and reject IPCC reports unless corroborated by scientific studies outside the purview of IPCC.

In addition, e-mail messages stolen from the University of East Anglia in Britain showed that scientists besieged by an onslaught of hostile, make - work demands from climate skeptics may not have adequately followed the requirements of the British freedom of information law.

Climate «skeptic» and WattsUpWithThat (WUWT) contributor Maurizio Morabito incorrectly predicted that the BEST results would show less warming than the records compiled by NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU, but he did make one nearly correct prediction on the subject:

Oreskes» «Merchants of Doubt» Chapter 1 is titled «Doubt is Our Product», where she goes to great length within it to make a guilt - by - association accusation that skeptic climate scientists are employing the same «Tobacco Strategy» tactic, citing the «Doubt is Our Product» memo directly on page 34 as a wrap - up for the chapter.

This skeptic — as in little old moi — makes no such assertion instead asserting that if the outcome of government policy is even nearly as damaging as the predicted damage caused by really scary climate change then doing nothing is probably best.

Quite an effort has been made by many people (including Dr Richard Muller) to portray the BEST pre-pre-pre-papers as some kind of death blow against climate skepticism, as if the whole debate had been a sports match with everybody pigeonholed in two opposite camps: here, the noble scientists finding out the world is warming; there, the ignoble skeptics pretending the world is not warming.

Heartland contends that skeptics lack a «platform from which they can be heard,» as «Their voices have been drowned out by publicity built upon the United Nations» Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an entity with an agenda to build support for the theory of man - made catastrophic global warming.»