Sentences with phrase «not against the skeptic»

I'm not against the skeptic (with supporting arguments) because it provides for a healthy debate.

Not exact matches

Curiously, the skeptics did not argue against it.

In winning on the road against tough Kansas State, Missouri not only put up but also shut up its main skeptics — its fans

Frank Field and Michael Portillo both said tat it would be better for Scotland to go independent, Michael gove was described last year in a spectator article as the greatest leader Labours never had, portillos first political hero was Harold Wilson, and black Tory lord John Taylor said of Portillo that he was just pretending to be Thatcherite to further his career in the 80's So to take the view that there are some non Blairite, non Corbyinsta, EU skeptics who appeal to the Socially conservative, yet Social democrat view of politics, what was needed was a 42 year old, Admirer of Frank field and Michael Portillo, who was against Iraq, voted leave, and didn't back David miliband for leader in 2010

Bill Hare, who leads a group of top climate scientists and economists at Berlin - based Climate Analytics who helped produce the UNEP gap report, said Geden's accusations «could not be more wrong» and lumped the researcher in with climate skeptics and other naysayers «who systematically downplay the risks of climate change and argue against action to reduce emissions on spurious and ill - founded grounds.»

Slightly off topic, but not totally and in a good cause: the continuning battle against «skeptics» What occupations / professions would climate scientists accept as falling with the rubric of «climate scientist»?

This is not a debate between rational scientists and some well meaning group of honest skeptics who use honest logic and honest reason to formulat honest arguments against the science.

Hayhoe vehemently advises against engaging with the «smokescreens» skeptics tend to offer as the reasons they couldn't possibly agree with or act on the issue of climate change.

If you want to label me a skeptic or claim that I «argue against global warming,» then so be it, but I don't consider my position as such.

We / I am labelling those who are not skeptics, but who have an irrational and prejudiced disbelief against GW.

You may be against properly releasing the code and data because you don't want to waste your time with skeptics.

In essence isn't the new null hypothesis a no brainer which cant be argued against and the whole point of the exercise from Trenberth's point of view simply to push towards demonstable agreement from prominent skeptics such as Judith?

What I can't take is this aggressively stupid belligerence against the trail of knowledge and evidence that you garden - variety skeptics take, using all sorts of strawman arguments along the way.

And thanks to you, and Mr Watts, and probably many others from skeptic camp who can not accept the idea that AGWers are taking no chances in this fight against opponents of their «new religion».

Others discussed how to deal with skeptics, some displaying a hostility to contrarians that seemed surprising to people who haven't followed the growing nastiness of the fight against global - warming science, which has come to resemble the fights over abortion and evolution.

Find me a statute that could be used against skeptics, you won't find any.

The Democratic Senators had every opportunity to go directly to JC and the other scientists to get an inventory of the ideas and questions on the minds of skeptics or lukewarmers, they not only didn't do it, they did ends around the science guests and at times chastised them with the very group think that the scientists were warning against.

I think the claims made by the skeptics in this respect are extremely optimistic and what's more they disgregard (or rather do not accept) the negative consequences of the increased warming which will have to be balanced against any gains from increased crop yields.

Lewandowsky falsely linked climate skeptics to moon landing hoaxism, and free marketeers to rejection of beliefs they overwhelmingly endorsed, so I guess an enterprising lawyer could think about a class action civil suit for libel (I'm not sure if there's ever been a class action libel action), against the researchers and the journal.

Today Gore's whiney foul mouthed diatribe against skeptics and how he can not push his AGW vision without dispute has gone viral on the internet.

Most «skeptics» are not acolytes of the Koch brothers, but people who have not thus far been convinced that the problem is as serious as represented or that the prescribed policies (wind, solar especially) provide any form of valid insurance against the risk.

For people who don't read skeptic blogs it will be news that there are claims of scandal and corruption about temperature data adjustments around the world, against institutions that are (or were) respected household names.

Wouldn't want to end up on a list of «alarmist psycho rants» against skeptics, would ya.

Steve: let me try to make my point a different way as I have argued over and over against excessive expectations by «skeptics» of the legal system and do not wish to be perceived as having such expectations myself.

Why does the strategy you skeptics employ not work against you in the same way?

Complaining that the public isn't smart enough or that skeptics are too fanatical or that there is vast conspiracy against climate science or that the media won't report climate science always in a favorable light is just complaining.

Thanks for illustrating one of the key markers of the fake skeptic - perfectly happy to sieze on terms like «not statistically significant» when applied to things that you think work in your favour, like «no warming for x years», but completely ignoring them when it would work against you.

A brief set of questions and answers illustrates how any sort of examination of the «skeptic climate scientists are industry - corrupted» accusation doesn't reveal a nice, tidy, open - and - shut case against such skeptics, all that's seen is something begging for a deeper investigation of why the accusation exists at all.

Why Warmists Hate Debate: Flashback 2007: Scientific Smackdown: Skeptics Voted The Clear Winners Against Global Warming Believers in Heated NYC Debate — NASA & RealClimate.org's Gavin Schmidt appeared so demoralized that he mused that debates equally split between believers of a climate «crisis» and scientific skeptics are probably not «worthwhile» to ever agree Skeptics Voted The Clear Winners Against Global Warming Believers in Heated NYC Debate — NASA & RealClimate.org's Gavin Schmidt appeared so demoralized that he mused that debates equally split between believers of a climate «crisis» and scientific skeptics are probably not «worthwhile» to ever agree skeptics are probably not «worthwhile» to ever agree to again

Flashback 2007: Scientific Smackdown: Skeptics Voted The Clear Winners Against Global Warming Believers in Heated NYC Debate — NASA's Gavin Schmidt appeared so demoralized that he mused that debates equally split between believers of a climate «crisis» and scientific skeptics are probably not «worthwhile» to ever agree to again - Schmidt on his teams debate loss: «We were pretty dullSkeptics Voted The Clear Winners Against Global Warming Believers in Heated NYC Debate — NASA's Gavin Schmidt appeared so demoralized that he mused that debates equally split between believers of a climate «crisis» and scientific skeptics are probably not «worthwhile» to ever agree to again - Schmidt on his teams debate loss: «We were pretty dullskeptics are probably not «worthwhile» to ever agree to again - Schmidt on his teams debate loss: «We were pretty dull.»

After using World Earth Day to warn about the impact the changing climate is already having on the US, [Obama] used his annual stand - up routine in front of White House journalists to rant against his «stupid, short - sighted, irresponsible» climate skeptic opponents who throw snowballs in the Senate to illustrate global warming isn't happening.

Other citations within Hackney's essay do nothing to lessen the problem about any given prominent accusation against «industry - corrupted skeptics» being separated by no more than three degrees from Ross Gelbspan and those worthless non - «ICE» «reposition global warming as theory, not fact» / «older, less - educated males» / «younger, lower - income women» memo strategy / targeting phrases.

This abysmal failure to show us all absolute evidence of illicit money exchanged for fabricated, demonstratively false science papers / assessments is the proverbial «mathematical certainty «that dooms the accusation, and places the whole idea of man - caused global warming in peril of sinking if its promoters can not defend their position against science - based criticism from skeptic scientists.

An elemental question begs to be corroborated in more than one way for sheer fairness: When the main pushers of the idea that the «reposition global warming» phrase insinuate it is proof of an industry - led disinformation effort employing crooked skeptic climate scientists — Naomi Oreskes saying it indicates a plot to supply «alternative facts,» Gelbspan saying it is a crime against humanity, and Al Gore implying it is a cynical oil company effort — are they truly oblivious to the necessity of corroborating whether or not that phrase and the memo subset it came from actually had widespread corrupting influence, or did they push this «evidence» with malice knowing it was worthless?

Instead, couldn't it be said the Western Fuels Association was taking a stand against an ostensibly political issue pushed in the media as settled science egregiously devoid of input from skeptic scientists?

It's amazing that Joshua, who tries to pretend he is impartial, hasn't been railing against them and attacking them for years, instead of continually picking on trivial and irrelevant points by Judith in he posts and by rational skeptics in blog comments.

Start dissecting their narratives, comparing them side - by - side while looking for physical evidence corroborating Ross Gelbspan's «industry corruption» accusation against skeptic climate scientists, and a very different picture becomes clear: these people's narratives don't line up right, they collectively have no evidence backing up their accusation, and this prompts serious questions of whether core leaders of the global warming movement are totally oblivious to this situation, or if they knew their narratives had no merit from the start.

Given all that I've dug up on the origins of the «industry - corrupted skeptic climate scientists» accusation, I'd call it a can't - lose wager if you bet that the «e-mail message circulated at a U.S. climate research lab» which Myanna Lahsen referred to owes its «funded by the oil and coal industry» accusation against skeptic climate scientists to Gelbspan / Ozone Action.

Does your giving critiquing and giving policy advice to the Aussies mean we won't have to read any more xenophobic diatribes from you against non-US skeptics who discuss the current idiotic US energy policy?

«How Obama Is Burning the Constitution to Make Your Electric Power Bills Skyrocket Left - wing Street Tactics Appear to Have Been Deployed Against Climate Skeptics Too, Not Just Trump»

I really don't intend this post to be a snide «gotcha» post against climate skeptics.

I know I'm going over old ground here, but it's interesting how such a case of misrepresentation of the science doesn't seem to merit much attention by the self - appointed «skeptics» and hasn't resulted in any sanctions against the authors.

Jon wrote a very interesting paper in which he argued that even if the skeptic narratives are correct, the old narratives I was telling wasn't an argument against climate action.

There was the climate scientist who became the best thing that ever happened to climate skeptics, and would not have been able to win a debate against a primary - school Year - 1 distracted opponent.

Hank (216), No, I'm simply saying that the argument that the supporters of AGW are just like the good guys from the tobacco studies, or that the skeptics are just like the folks that didn't buy off on the tobacco studies is not a compelling argument for or against, though for some reason it is viewed by some as a absolute proof of the validity of climate change studies.

Quite an effort has been made by many people (including Dr Richard Muller) to portray the BEST pre-pre-pre-papers as some kind of death blow against climate skepticism, as if the whole debate had been a sports match with everybody pigeonholed in two opposite camps: here, the noble scientists finding out the world is warming; there, the ignoble skeptics pretending the world is not warming.

Much like Bernie Madoff's ponzi scheme, this scheme, with its constant infusions of material that could be libel / slander against skeptic climate scientists, was also doomed to fail from the start, built on a foundation of sand about its core «evidence» that was pushed by a person who never won a Pulitzer, and whose narratives don't line up right.