Sentences with phrase «more skeptic blogs»

Since then, over those 8 + years, many more skeptic blogs have been started and prospered with growing audiences.

Not exact matches

Some of the things that I've tried in my quest to understand skeptics and more effectively counter misinformation include posting at skeptical blogs, such as climateaudit, and inviting prominent skeptics to give seminars at Georgia Tech.

Not only NASA, but others including some of the more intelligent skeptics that inhabit lucia's blog, «The Blackboard».

However, I do use the phrase «conveniently picked» which is a little softer than arbitrarly picked; skeptics (more skilled than I) who have examined the models maintain that aerosol input values have dubious legitimacy, and nothing that I have read in pro-AGW blogs have convinced me otherwise.

She noted that she was welcomed into the «tribe» when she published a paper that suggested global warming could be causing more severe hurricanes, but shunned after she congratulated a skeptic, Steve McIntyre, when his blog, ClimateAudit.org, was named «best science blog» of 2007 through a Web poll.

The problem here is that Gleick and many contributors to the more alarmist blogs (DeSmog particularly) appear to believe their self - constructed narrative of the «skeptic / denier» has to be true.

Daily Beast described Climate Depot as «a bustling, one - stop - shop for climate skeptics» and noted that Climate Depot is «bringing in more visitors than RedState.com, one of the most popular conservative blogs on the web.»

Wally says: «Now you want draw up more BS parallels between climate skeptics (oh yes, this special brand of skeptics) and creationists regarding blogs or media.»

One of the first «out» climate skeptics was an Australian named John Daly — who believed, probably correctly, that climate change has a lot more to do with solar activity and multi-decadal cycles than with CO2 — and maintained a blog which became a magnet for the climate resistance.

Now you want draw up more BS parallels between climate skeptics (oh yes, this special brand of skeptics) and creationists regarding blogs or media.

The alleged «Mike's Nature trick» to «hide the decline», which is nothing more than a talking point, unproven assertions that are disseminated in fake skeptic opinion blogs and similar.

We have seen many examples of these lists, for example in The Wall Street Journal and Fox News, but the most frequently - cited list of «skeptics» which was also referenced by Fred Singer in Climate of Doubt (we'll have much more on Fred Singer in an upcoming blog post) is the Oregon Petition.

My point, which you missed, was that you can't deride skeptics for the exact same knowledge gap that non-skeptics have; e.g. you're saying it's OK for the layman to read and regurgitate RC, but if the layman paraphrases non-party line sites (e.g. Roy Spencer) then s / he's little more than some moron who gets everything from blogs.

You really should go waste your resources on this blog entry along with the rest of your fellow «skeptics», where Tim Lambert has set up the perfect honey pot, while we non-deniers move on to more important climate related issues.

When I started looking into different blogs I was shocked by the aggressive, humiliating and selfish communication style of many so called «climate scientists» using their time more for advocating «settled» science and attacking «skeptics», than for research.

As a consequence I then started to read more «skeptic» science and some blogs, realizing that many «skeptic» scientists are not «science deniers» at all, on the contrary, they need to be taken seriously.

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.

These issues and many more are hotly debated on consensus and skeptic websites and blogs.