Sentences with phrase «many warmists»

Also planet is cooling and green / warmist drag on moving ahead will have been exposed as a big fib by then.

As Paterson goes up, Obama goes down in the polls - that is a clear correlation - what does that tell you all you global warmists out there???

They're longstanding warmists, implacable foes of climate skeptics, and they're also actually the people responsible for producing the IPCC's carbon budget.

This is a look into a climate science debate conference between skeptics and warmists that took place last month in Potsdam, Germany.

The absurd disdain for calculating the real effects of UHI by the Ipcc, Real Climate et al - a very measurable effect known about since Ancient Rome - do nothing to help the case of the warmists.

I posted a request for comment at RealClimate, a weblog maintained by members of the «warmist» community: (endquote)

Leading Warmist know that is no» global warming» so they encompassed» climatic changes» to confuse and con the ignorant — so that when is some extreme weather for few days on some corner of the planet, to use it as proof of their phony global warming and ignore that the weather is good simultaneously on the other 97 % of the planet, even though is same amount of co2.

«It means we can get on with enjoying our lives and our freedom untroubled by the apocalyptic naggings of warmists, freezists and all other party - pooping hysterics,» Perigo concludes.»

And not only is it an historical essay, it's one strongly characterized by unsubstantiated assertion — the central one, that «warmists» haven't bothered to examine the evidence, being easily falsified by, among other things, the existence and popularity of this very blog.

So you think Skeptics don't get threatened?Didn't Santer want to beat the crap out of Pat Michaels?And why shouldn't skeptics be allowed free speech instead of the warmists trying to silence them?

«Warmists» appeal to emotions and exploit ignorance (pretty easy marks).

«warmists» have a formidable PR machine.

Wegman is very unpopular with the warmists because his 2006 NRC report was very critical of the statistics used by mann et al. in the creation of the hockey stick.

Craig asks about polar bear reporting in the Telegraph: Polar bear expert barred by global warmists

It just gives denialists the political ammo to paint legitimate climate researchers with the alarmists / warmists brush.

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.

«What else can the warmists get wrong?»

Andy likes to write, often, in the space between what deniers call «warmists» and what warmists call «deniers.»

In the tropics is wet and dry - / - in subtropics and temperate climates changes four time a year, WITH EVERY season = migratory birds can tell you that; because they know much more about climate than all the Warmist foot - solders and all climate skeptics combined — on the polar caps climates change twice a year.

Just for fun, I'll make a similar baseless accusation: You and most all other warmists just want to preserve existing arrangements of economic advantage of developed nations by keeping people of developing nations poor and without access to low cost energy.

That hoary old one, which should probably be called «Old Shep» about «warmists» wanting «to preserve existing arrangements of economic advantage of developed nations by keeping people of developing nations poor and without access to low cost energy» has been repeatedly euthanased by those of your side who insist that mitigation is a plot driven by guilt - ridden first - world liberals who want to transfer industry and thus wealth from the first world to the third and who accordingly want to give China, India and Brazil a free pass on emissions targets.

However, warmists are strongly in denial.

The only way, the last decade could not have been the «warmist ever», is if a cooling trend had set in over the whole decade, that was equal or greater than the previous warming decades trends.

Yes, Andy, you are right about one point: Journalists should point out that there are some climate issues in which there is general agreement between warmists and skeptics.

Global warmists determine that the carbon dioxide caused from man as the amount we have today over what existed before the Industrial Revolution.

The warmist models might be half - right.

If I understand this, he's asking Murdoch to end the silencing of the «global warmist» argument on WSJ's editorial page.

Killian's concept doesn't do that, and luke - warmist equivocation doesn't either.

This concept wouldn't exculpate CO2 terribly well for those who'd like to otherwise, but that might explain the discrepancies that are inciting we skeptics and puzzling the warmists.

For another view of the appointments and these criticisms, read Thomas Lifson at the American Thinker: «Warmists apoplectic as Brazil president names climate skeptic as science minister.»

UV, # 594) that one problem with «putting across» the warmist perspective is unwittingly complicated by the absence of a canonical analysis interval.

The «warmists» are not making an assumption.

«That is what we call a landmark change of course — by one of climatology's most renowned warmist scientists,» declared a blogger named Pierre L. Gosselin.

If the Global Warmists can't deal with criticsm, maybe their argument is not as airtight as they would like to portray.

I learned a long time ago that when you challenge a warmist or a denier (or even mention those words; — RRB - the fur starts flying and EITHER side will accuse you of being one of those guys on the other side.

Could that mean the warmists «natural variations» from Los Ninos are actually reflecting the system's ability to shed the excess heat they can't find right now?

To label my work as «global warmist» belittles my and my colleagues» efforts over the last 20 years, and it is an ignorant and reductive viewpoint.

Speaking as one of what the Journal apparently derides as global warmists, I want absolutely no part of an effort to push Rupert Murdoch to impose ANY viewpoint on editorial boards, even those as wrong - headed as the Journal's.

This component of the debate is what fuels right wing opposition to the «warmists», not any dispute with the science.

The «no pressure» line actually means that no pressure on the Warmists is permitted!

al can not prove concusively that the earth is warming as a direct result of human actions... and it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt the data used for al gore's hockey stick chart, most of the «record temperaures», and much of the other basis for the warmist culture has been manupilated and / or cherry picked....

Using the word» pause» makes you a Warmist role of toilet paper — you are doing the Warmist dirty job... Spooking the public that: the non-existent global warming is only having a» pause» until the Paris conference - > makes you a» Warmist gelding» — because they can not have any legitimate proof of something that doesn't exist — they are only exploiting Skeptic's ignorance — obsessed to be trendy; because contemporary the phony warming is fashionable...

We all know that the truth will always come to the surface and the Warmists will be shown to be «the sky is falling» people.

It seems the Warmists bet the farm on a correlation between rising atmospheric CO2 and rising temperatures in the period 1976 to 1998, and are at a loss to explain the lack of correlation since then.

Or are we just falling into the trap of efforting to counter every warmist factoid when the settled fundamentals of their «science» rob their claims of all validity?

In Australia, during a drought, we had the warmists saying the drought was caused by increased surface temperatures.

Joe - dallas: so why would possitive feedbacks react differently than before which is what the warmists are predicting.

My point was that you asked for reinforcements from a noted skeptic site yet I don't see where you did this on a warmist site.

Because when CAGW warmists talk about climate: science,» what they are really talking about is economics / politics.

Merely pointing out, for example, that CO2 can be heated by providing an energy source invisible to the human eye, is obviously meaningless in relation to the Warmist cause, unless you are extremely gullible, and fervently desire to believe the unbelievable.