Sentences with phrase «mention skeptics in»

He is careful not to mention skeptics in the context of their story, but one is clearly meant to take this as an example of extreme harassment of scientists by skeptics.

Gelbspan's various narratives often cover his first two talking points in some form within a single sentence, when he mentions skeptics in comparison to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) having more than 2,500 scientists from more than a hundred countries.

Not exact matches

In theory, a citizen can escape being in any other official Federal databases aside from that (I'll leave my tin foil hat on Skeptics and not mention DHS databases, as they presumably aren't legally accessible for the purposes of election registration even if they have enough dataIn theory, a citizen can escape being in any other official Federal databases aside from that (I'll leave my tin foil hat on Skeptics and not mention DHS databases, as they presumably aren't legally accessible for the purposes of election registration even if they have enough datain any other official Federal databases aside from that (I'll leave my tin foil hat on Skeptics and not mention DHS databases, as they presumably aren't legally accessible for the purposes of election registration even if they have enough data).

In addition to ignoring the long - term outlook, he says, many skeptics also fail to mention the potentially most harmful outcome of rising atmospheric CO2 on vegetation: climate change itself.

The journal idea was brought to Copernicus» attention and was taken rather critically in the beginning, since the designated Editors - in - Chief were mentioned in the context of the debates of climate skeptics.

This aspect of their work is rarely if ever mentioned by the authors themselves, and still less in citations of the work in skeptics» tracts such as that distributed with the «Global Warming Petition Project.»

As a side bet, I predict (based on previous years) that despite enormous attention in the skeptic - osphere given the Nenana result in 2013 (when it was remarkably late), it won't be mentioned there this year.

Commenters to counter the phony skeptics please (not to mention the false balance in the article itself, if I read it correctly)?

In response to comment # 30 - Skeptics continue to mention Rossby et al (2014) as evidence that the Gulf Stream is not slowing down, which seems to contradict other observations of the Gulf Stream (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrc.20091/full).

This aspect of their work is rarely if ever mentioned by the authors themselves, and still less in citations of the work in skeptics» tracts such as that distributed with the «Global Warming Petition Project.»

The fact that hurricane events are relatively rare leads to a limitation in the amount of data available — fewer events, and that's why the «skeptics» have to rely on statistical rather then mechanical arguments (notice also that the media seems to avoid any mention of the fact that hurricanes operate as «heat engines»).

Not to mention the peculiar fact that Lindzen recently signed a skeptic letter in which the NIPCC report was approvingly mentioned.

Never mind that neither Gore nor anyone else who quotes the «reposition global warming» phrase and other memo phrases ever shows them in their full context or mentions any in - depth details about the leak, and none of them have ever proven a quid pro quo arrangement exists between skeptics and industry funders.

A pair of pages seemingly point in that direction: Within Greenpeace's archives (what I term «Greenpeace USA née Ozone Action» archives, page 80 here) is an undated, unsourced «Guide to the Ozone Hole Skeptics» with Ozone Action's name at the bottom, no mention of the EWG, and the following wording.....

The situation doesn't appear to something that would be likely to have happened that way, much like the second half of the situation in the above - mentioned Gelbspan timeline situation, where he (as a private citizen whose only public appearance at that time in the matter was a solitary article he co-authored which briefly turned him into a skeptic) claimed an Assistant Attorney General allowed him to influence an official hearing in a major way.

Presume for a moment you are otherwise uninterested in the global warming issue, and you are told skeptic scientists were involved in efforts to hoodwink the public, and the name «Information Council for the Environment» is casually mentioned.

Frederick Seitz, another prominent skeptic on global warming, is involved with two other groups mentioned in the plan: the George C. Marshall Institute, where Dr. Seitz is chairman, and the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, where he is on the science advisory board.

The fake memo prominently mentions Gleick and his Forbes columns like he is really on skeptics minds when in fact he is pretty far down the list.

As has been mentioned earlier, I think an accurate historical perspective (evidence) of the past 50,000 years (to include our early Holocene) would go a long way in building interest from alarmists and skeptics in addressing the problem from a factual perspective (what has happened) rather than a mindless modeling game (what answer do we want to make happen).

In my August 20, 2013 blog piece, I briefly mentioned the role Minnesota assistant Attorney General Barbara Freese had in the May 1995 Minnesota Public Utilities Commission hearings where skeptic climate scientists were called to testify, and I detailed her subsequent association problems with Ross GelbspaIn my August 20, 2013 blog piece, I briefly mentioned the role Minnesota assistant Attorney General Barbara Freese had in the May 1995 Minnesota Public Utilities Commission hearings where skeptic climate scientists were called to testify, and I detailed her subsequent association problems with Ross Gelbspain the May 1995 Minnesota Public Utilities Commission hearings where skeptic climate scientists were called to testify, and I detailed her subsequent association problems with Ross Gelbspan.

And I don't know about you, «Justtellthetruth», but in my view characterizing Roger Pielke Jr. as a «hurricane expert» when Peike doesn't even hold a science degree while moreover also not mentioning the fact that Pielke is a prominent global warming «skeptic» does not constitute reliable and balanced reporting.

In one of my other recent articles, I describe how the PBS NewsHour's 1996 - to - present bias in its global warming discussion segments presents only four instances where any semblance of skeptic science points were mentioned out of more than 355 on - air broadcast discussions (plus a few online pages directly relating to some of those segmentsIn one of my other recent articles, I describe how the PBS NewsHour's 1996 - to - present bias in its global warming discussion segments presents only four instances where any semblance of skeptic science points were mentioned out of more than 355 on - air broadcast discussions (plus a few online pages directly relating to some of those segmentsin its global warming discussion segments presents only four instances where any semblance of skeptic science points were mentioned out of more than 355 on - air broadcast discussions (plus a few online pages directly relating to some of those segments).

Her main opponent in the presidential race did not mention this topic in his speech and has previously put himself in the climate - skeptic camp.

The earliest media reports mentioning the phrase in 1991 didn't focus on skeptics» funding or really imply that they were anything more than logical experts to consult who were already aware of the problems in the idea of man - caused global warming.

I'd planned to also mention how our pro-global warming friends must view skeptic scientists and skeptic organizations as a very annoying irritation, but they probably fear the general public the most, over the looming potential of the public losing faith in talking points about «settled science» and «corrupt skeptic climate scientists» that become too preposterous to accept.

In a BBC News article, it mentions Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott, another climate change skeptic who had previously described the science behind human - induced global warming as «absolute crap.»

Not to mention that your own work shows that many «skeptics» do believe that the climate is currently changing and arguably, also believe that ACO2 emissions are currently changing the climate, contingent on the contextual framework where they are evaluating the issue (i.e., the farmer in Kentucky).

Another study skeptics cite so frequently yet the IPCC hasn't mentioned in AR5!!!! mustbefraud!

I'll mention just three here, so that you can exercise your compulsion to deny scientific claims that contradicts your faith in the skeptics message.

«While climate skeptics gain traction in the media and with policy makers — drawing endless attention to trivial errors (such as an AR4 typo on Himalayan glaciers that was not present in other mentions of the same topic elsewhere in the report), or highlighting media - friendly soundbites from spokespeople and figureheads in as negative a light as possible — it seems to me that this emphasis diverts attention from actually using climate, meteorological and hydrological knowledge and research in the application of pressing current needs in the developing world.»

I am reading Montford's book, in which is mentioned a forum called ** Climate Skeptics **.

Within the main text of Oreskes» book, however, she only makes a brief mention of Gelbspan on page 246, lumping him in with others who themselves only cite him as their source when accusing skeptic climate scientists of industry corruption.

Back in 2009, when I first began writing about the smear of skeptics at American Thinker, I mentioned a quote from Dykstra at the top of a list of several people who spoke of the notion of reporters giving unfair balance to skeptic climate scientists.

9/15/16: Although seemingly out - of - sight - out - of - mind from this fellow's blog for months at the time of November 2015, I still was living rent - free in his mind so much that he felt compelled to mention my name while offering some spin on what constitutes «evidence» proving skeptic climate scientists were corrupted by industry money.

In some retellings, he mentions skeptic scientist Dr S. Fred Singer in a way that suggests he'd never heard of Singer beforIn some retellings, he mentions skeptic scientist Dr S. Fred Singer in a way that suggests he'd never heard of Singer beforin a way that suggests he'd never heard of Singer before.