Sentences with phrase «make skeptics like»

But, this concealer will even make skeptics like me believers that crease - free makeup does exist.

Not exact matches

His self - titled debut pulled from the likes of Paul McCartney and Mick Jagger — boy - band graduates who knew how to make believers out of even the thorniest skeptics.

But like any number of health trends, bone broth is sometimes touted as the type of cure - all that should make any true skeptic squirm.

Although carbon capture and storage has attracted a growing number of advocates, including environmental groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council, it has also attracted its fair share of detractors, such as Greenpeace, and skeptics including the U.S. Geological Survey's Yousif Kharaka (pdf), who has shown that leaking CO2 can make surrounding water acidic, mix with brine and leach metals, and pose potential health risks to people and wildlife.

If it ultimately bows to convention — leaving Saldana, like Gillan, to make the most of a shallow female role (Gamora, at one point, is inexplicably called a whore)-- that streak of smart silliness makes Guardians of the Galaxy just different enough to be fun for comic book fans and skeptics alike.

You'll never think of James, the Camino, or the making of the stories you believe in the same way.AUTHOR INTERVIEW: Q: Who is this is juicy, erudite entertainment meant for?A: History nerds, religious seekers, rational skeptics, thinking people, and anyone who likes Monty Python or thinks they might want to take a long walk on the Camino de Santiago.Q: Can we learn from any other historical source why Jesus really called James a «Son of Thunder»?

Passarella warns skeptics and those unsure of what exactly it is they're seeing to observe the site at their own risk, but based on his professional assessment, it looks like VGChartz data isn't as bad as some would make it out to be.

I think the skeptics, at least over the past five years or so, were proven right with regard to the artists who are making abstract paintings that are perfect for the way they are consumed: They make a lot of them, there's a green one and a blue one and a pink one, and you can collect them all like toys in a Cracker Jack box, which is what they're all about.

Now I'm fixated on finding out what the US spends on climate modeling (the skeptics make it sound like quite a gravy train.)

Not too bad for skeptics, although it doesn't make it look like it's a good correction.

(Aside, for the record, I like most of the contributions of the skeptics on this site and in some cases they make very good points.

I would not like to see the capable scientists on this site making themselves vulnerable to the same characterization currently reserved for AGW skeptics.

Disputing that there is an effect called the greenhouse effect from the physical properties of gasses like CO2 only leaves you in a position where anything you say is hevily discounted and you make other skeptics look bad.

This attitude is EXACTLY what causes unfortunate actions like the making of the 10:10 video — it is only a small step from believing, as Romm says he does, that skeptics are «trying to destroy a liveable climate» to making a movie that jokes about killing them all (or, to be frank, to feeling justified in acts of eco-terrorism).

Thus, Gore's talk presents enough detail to make him into a credible spokesperson in the minds of his audience — a status that none of the skeptic senators or other such officials (like the President) have achieved.

So anyone who does not agree with Man - made carbon driving weather is referred to as a «Climate Skeptic» however a great name for someone who does believe in this new religion you could call a «Climate Synoptic» just like a bad weather chart (Synoptic) they get it wrong so many times.

Considering that at least 43 % of the letter's signatories have received money from the fossil fuel industry, being given large sums of money just for being climate «skeptics» and publishing error - riddled nonsense like this op - ed, the sheer nerve it must have taken to make this «follow the money» argument is astounding.

Unlike mainstream scientists, she said, skeptics like Soon are «available to make whatever arguments his sponsors think need to be made.»

And then, like many «skeptics,» she turns around and hides behind the «skeptics» aren't monolithic argument, or «skeptics» aren't subject to groupthink arguments, even as she downplays the % of «skeptics» who flat out reject that there's any GHG effect or who make arguments that aren't logically consistent with the protestation that «we don't doubt that the climate is warming or that ACO2 contributes to that warming, we only question the magnitude of the contribution.»

And then lied about it when pressed on the issue and backdated your response to make it look like you revealed the information before skeptics figured it out?

I like how all the skeptics close ranks around their tribal members while MiniMax creates all these peaks and valleys in the data to make the correlation look bad.

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 much as I disagree with you w / r / t some aspects of the climate wars, David — I do appreciate that you do sometimes make comments like this one that challenge «skeptics» to apply due skeptical scrutiny to their logic.

How exactly are you proving your point when you admit (emphasis mine)... «yes, the temperature moved FIRST» and you make hidden conciliatory statements like... «for the MAJORITY of that time» and then you freely admit... «CO2 did not trigger the warmings» and then you rely on the lamest of hollow arguments... «according to climate THEORY and model EXPERIMENTS» and then you stumble back to close with complete opinion and conjecture... «we may well» and «The likely candidates» Anyone with a brain will read your post and laugh - it's pathetic and you've actually done nothing but strengthen the skeptics argument.

Don't waste your time calling for RICO investigations of the IPCC or the consensus scientists — it just makes skeptics look bad (like the other side).

Its stories like that, that make my opinion of «skeptics» fall even lower.

As for Judith's agenda, I think she's making the mistake that «uncertainty» is synonymous with «ignorant» (i.e., that we don't know everything means we know nothing) and that giving «skeptics» like McIntyre the same weight as genuine climate scientists, * a priori *, is wrong.

Skeptics don't realize what the actual temperature trend data makes them look like.

Hence skeptics are extremely adamant there was a very cold and global little ice age, but from the other side of their mouth they will rubbish all lines of evidence like tree ring reconstructions and the instrumental record that are needed to make such an adamant claim about the little ice age.

The only part of the strategy memo that comes even close to scandalous (unless you make the question - begging assumption — Gleick apparently does — that climate skeptics are a scandalous bunch) is the statement that «it is important to keep» scientists like Gleick «out» of Forbes magazine.

So, let's see, when we (those defending the AGW theory) note that, of the small minority of scientists on the skeptic side making discredited arguments, many if not most seem to have quite direct connections to right - wing or libertarian organizations like the Cato Institute or the George C. Marshall Fund or with the fossil fuel (especially coal) industry, we are derided as engaging in «ad hominem» attacks and so forth.

This kind of nonsense can't help but make every sincere skeptic look like a demented fool in the eyes of the rest of the scientific community.

I guess I'm wishing there was a more prominent token liberal like Fox News will give time to that will expose me the information that did not make it through Anthony's filter, who is, like me, a skeptic on AGW.

Anyone who made this check would have to come to the conclusion that there are not enough skeptical analyses coming into print, rather than the opposite point of view from folks like James Hansen and Al Gore that skeptics are harming the process and need to shut up.

Steven Goddard has amassed massive amounts of graphs and data evidence of fraud with GISS, NOAA, BOM ect., No one actually cares or is even looking at this study, Hopefully it is because no one cares about global warming anymore except a few warmist fanatics and skeptics etc... Only serious legal action funded by a wealthy skeptic or the like will actually make anyone notice that is the sad fact I'm afraid.

This makes it sound like he's claiming BEST has rebutted every scientific issue skeptics have raised.

More than anything, its incredible to me that a magazine with «science» in the title could dismiss the actual scientific arguments made by skeptics in something like two dozen words, while spending thousands of words on yet another exposition on how much money the Koch Brothers sends to the Heartland institute.

But the skeptics and lukewarmers do themselves no favors by making it harder for them to ever do so by attaching emotionally - loaded words like «dishonest» in describing them.

And while I appreciate the effort made by «free market» think tanks / institutes (such as Heartland) to give skeptics a platform, I also think it's very sad that it is left to these types of organisations (which I don't really rate at all, but really enjoy watching credible scientists like Lindzen give talks.....)..

For some reason that I don't totally fathom, some people on the skeptic side (like martin mason above or Smokey in other threads) seem to like to group together this prediction of feedbacks amplifying things and producing an actual «runaway» instability, perhaps because it makes a better «strawman» argument to attack.

I can't keep up with the rate he adds new names, but his list appears to include virtually every signer of the skeptic declarations I've already tabulated, plus many obscure names from outside of climate science, plus some share of «false positives» where Morano has simply cherry - picked some quotation to make the person sound like a climate skeptic.

It is the blithe certitude with which claims like this are made that allows skeptics to cast a shadow of doubt on the AGW hypothesis and the state of today's climate science.

And when the Smart Electric Drive made an appearance, even an electric car - skeptic like Lloyd was tempted to get in on the action.

yet another peice of data that makes it look more and more like a false flag operation (prentending to be skeptics as a plan to ally with, neutralise, and finally, destroy them).

My guess is that they wanted to make a point that skeptics were no such thing — that skeptics would bite like a hungry bass at such a lure as long as it supported their position.