Sentences with phrase «meaning skeptic climate»

Not exact matches

The book concludes with speculation about the underhanded meaning of the emails stolen from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) in the U.K.. It's really just the same quote - mining and misinterpretation we've heard from many quarters of the so - called «skeptics.»

But the skeptic community seems determined to rely on this rather than describe, in an intellectually honest way, what this means for the hypothesized influence of anthropogenic CO2 on climate.

Climate change skeptics often highlight certain scientific results as a means of confusing this issue, and that appears to be the case with Mr. Gunter's description of our recent results based on data from Argo buoys.

Meteorologists may be more skeptical than climate scientists, but it doesn't mean the majority of meteorologists are skeptics.

From the context and the linked article, I take this to mean that your «job» was to inform the public that the only respectable discussions on climate change were going on between the «reasonable» AGW believers (you, in this case), and the extreme AGW believers — cutting out the skeptics completely.

If half of past warming, or about.4 C is due to man, that means climate sensitivity is around 1C, exactly the no - feedback number that climate skeptics have thought it was near for years.

I have never taken the term «climate skeptic» to mean only that handful of real climate scientists.

Among the warmers it is common to just say «dangerous global warming» or just «global warming» or even «climate change» and mean what skeptics call CAGW.

«These papers should lay to rest once and for all the claims by John Christy and other global warming skeptics that a disagreement between tropospheric and surface temperature trends means that there are problems with surface temperature records or with climate models,» said Alan Robock, a meteorologist at Rutgers University.

«Both the Chief Scientist and the creator of the image told us it was meant to bring some levity to the constant criticism that they and their fellow climate scientists were facing at the time from climate skeptics.»

I can not speak for «the bulk of climate skeptics» (I presume you do not really mean «climate skeptics», but rather «CAGW skeptics»), but I have always concluded that the IPCC model - derived predictions for ECS were exaggerated by a factor of 2 - 3, and this position now seems validated.

As Jackman further reports, Mann said his shared interest, with UVa, in his e-mails means that the e-mails can be released to him, but not to climate skeptics.

If true it means both the skeptics and the climate scientists are right.

«Denial» is a venomous term applied to those skeptical about the role of humans in global climate change, meant to equate climate change skeptics with Holocaust deniers.

This means there are now 3 levels of rebuttals addressing the skeptic argument «humans aren't causing global warming»: If other climate bloggers are interested in allowing their existing articles to be used as advanced rebuttals to skeptic arguments, please contact me.

Those who push using RICO laws against «corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change» («other organizations» meaning conservative think tanks and any skeptic climate scientist having any association with such entities) are likely emboldened because they've never before encountered push - back on the very core of their accusation.

Though this flurry of recent papers has attracted some media attention and plaudits from climate skeptics, their publication doesn't mean scientists are «backing off» higher climate sensitivity, as some have suggested.

When I say I am a skeptic I mean I am skeptical about the degree of anthropogenic input to climate change.

Also, the above chart of the 12 - month means clearly shows a climate that moves from cooling to warming phases, and then back - a natural oscillation that «catastrophic global warming» skeptics have long discussed, while being dismissed by the IPCC and its cohorts.

So when I say people want a stable climate, I mean they don't want such an excursion, probably even the skeptics.

While CAGW skeptics might at first blush celebrate the possibility of a single, non-climate related, non-partisan, science - based theory that explains the whole complex range of CAGW's social characteristics, acceptance of this theory also requires acceptance of a couple of pretty uncomfortable truths, and the ditching of at least one touchstone used by many (but by no means all) climate change skeptics.

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.

That doesn't mean, however, that NW's comment (of the sort that I often see here at Climate Etc. coming from my much beloved «skeptics» that fantasize some larger context to explain the individual comments of individual commenters) was not conspiratorial ideation.

What I know is that actively engaged online «skeptics» want to argue that there is no strong prevalence of agreement among climate science experts that continued and increasing aC02 emissions pose a potential threat... but they know that there is such a consensus... so in the process of making that argument that there is «no consensus» they transform the meaning of «consensus» to be equivalent to «CAGW is settled science» and as such can find validation in arguing that there is no «consensus.»

Is the judge saying that Tim Ball's views as a skeptic have no credibility, and that climate change skepticism itself has no credibility; or does he mean that Ball's deficiencies are poor presentation, inaccuracte statements and poor reasoning?

The basic issue I have with all of this is that the result of climate - skeptics» efforts is that they remove all impetus to ever develop cleaner, renewable means of generating power and more efficient technologies.

Since more readers are arriving at this blog, I thought it would be a good idea to create a new «Background» post category, so that those who are basically unfamiliar with the 20 year + smear of skeptic climate scientists can easily read a set of elemental details explaining what I mean when I refer to the «industry - corrupted skeptic climate scientists» accusation, the «core evidence» for the accusation, the epicenter of the smear, and Ross Gelbspan.

BBD It would certainly mean that the skeptics were correct to question the high estimate that was the consensus of all the world's climate scientists (and thus, could not be questioned by any rational person).

If they did not mean to imply a parallel of the situations of Soviet geneticists and Western climate skeptics, why did they use the example?

By effectively drawing a line around academia and calling it «science» and persuading all the press, politicians, etc. to see those inside as legitimate to speak on subjects like climate and those outside as therefore illegitimate, it means that no matter how qualified or experience we skeptics are, that we will always be deemed as illegimate.

Not to mention, why do skeptics continue to ignore, dismiss, or simply «argue with» by any means possible, the far more important fact that most of the increased absorbed heat energy is going into warming the oceans, not the atmosphere (thus keeping the ambient air temp rise from registering as high as it otherwise would, and impacting FUTURE climate far more).

However, this kind of controversy doesn't mean that the last 50 years of molecular DNA research is suspect — but that's the kind of argument the climate skeptics are making every time some confusing new data pops up.

I consider myself a climate apostate, meaning someone who used to accept the basic climate science paradigm that ∆ T = lambda ∆ F but now rejects it... in any case, a definition of what you are calling a «skeptic» and what you are calling a «denier» would make your comment understandable to the rest of us.