Sentences with phrase «not real climate scientists»

On a number of occasions in the midst of conversations / debates on AGW / ACC (got to keep the «A» in the conversation), someone (sometimes including journalists) will say that the so - called skeptics / deniers are not real climate scientists, etc., I'll simply email them your link and ask that they actually spend a few minutes reading it over.

Im sure, though, that Zachary will be along any second now to tell us just how wrong Judith was and how she isn't a real climate scientist (which is actually probably a compliment:).

Institutions that let men prey on young women also look past demeaning and harassing public behavior, such as a senior male scientist recently describing me as «not a real climate scientist» despite having a Ph.D., or belittling me as «someone [he had] never heard of» when discussing my professional work.

«Well you see, Lindzen is only a professor of meteorology, he's not a REAL climate scientist.

You wring your hands and inform us that [paraphrased] «Well you see, Lindzen is only a professor of meteorology, he's not a REAL climate scientist.

Not exact matches

Climate scientists caution that this does not mean climate change is noClimate scientists caution that this does not mean climate change is noclimate change is not real.

His amendment states not only that scientists agree that climate change is real and human - caused, but that society needs to shift from fossil fuels toward cleaner energy.

It's not just Americans who are becoming more and more unsure about whether scientists believe climate change is real.

98 % of actual climate scientists (a distinction Dr. Willie Soon does not earn) agree that global warming is real and primarily drive by humans burning fossil fuels like coal and oil.

In fact, there is broad agreement among climate scientists not only that climate change is real (a survey and a review of the scientific literature published say about 97 percent agree), but that we must respond to the dangers of a warming planet.

He does not believe in the slightest that climate change is real and tells us that he can find many a eminent scientist who would back up his claim.

Real scientists (as opposed to climate modellers) have long maintained that the decline in Arctic ice is caused not by warmer air — in the past year or two Arctic air temperatures have actually been falling — but by shifts in major ocean currents, pushing warmer water up into the Arctic Circle.

(not a real scientist, like you guys, but a fairly up to date guy on the climate change news stories) Do you think the methal hydrates are going to melt in the harsh light of this new study I've just pointed out?

I am not a scientist nor am I anyone of great interest in the world but I actually do my own homework on this subject and find Climate change is real.

He does not believe in the slightest that climate change is real and tells us that he can find many a eminent scientist who would back up his claim.

As an outside observer, it seems that climate science is marked by scientists not only debating data, but credentials: who is a real climatologist and who is not.

While he is not a physical scientist, what Dr. Glantz brought to the table was a perspective on the social aspect of such climate research in a real - world setting.

It was a good deed to give Dennis Schmitt a forum to respond to Patrick Michaels since Michaels doesn't offer one, we need to see less of the tug of war and more of the real evolving science as scientists strive to fill in gaps in data and missing links in climate models, and to understand feedbacks and the coupled dynamics of land, air and water.

It's useful to think of this as an example of Bayesian priors in action — given that 99 % of the criticisms we hear about climate science are bogus or based on deep confusions about what modeling is for, scepticism is an appropriate first response, but because we are actually scientists, not shills, we are happy to correct real errors — sometimes they will matter, and sometimes they won't.

In fact, there is broad agreement among climate scientists not only that climate change is real (a survey and a review of the scientific literature published say about 97 percent agree), but that we must respond to the dangers of a warming planet.

That's actually a good idea, although our unskilled - and - unaware - of - it friend may not care for the treatment his links receive from Real Climate scientists.

Steve, aside from the fact that Climatology is not a «debate», so there are not 2 sides, the comment section posts here are NOT «the blog», that consists of the lead articles by the group of scientists known as «Real Climate», for which see the Contributors link, the comments are from folks like you and me, generally non-scientists with varied opinions and sometimes clashing personalitinot a «debate», so there are not 2 sides, the comment section posts here are NOT «the blog», that consists of the lead articles by the group of scientists known as «Real Climate», for which see the Contributors link, the comments are from folks like you and me, generally non-scientists with varied opinions and sometimes clashing personalitinot 2 sides, the comment section posts here are NOT «the blog», that consists of the lead articles by the group of scientists known as «Real Climate», for which see the Contributors link, the comments are from folks like you and me, generally non-scientists with varied opinions and sometimes clashing personalitiNOT «the blog», that consists of the lead articles by the group of scientists known as «Real Climate», for which see the Contributors link, the comments are from folks like you and me, generally non-scientists with varied opinions and sometimes clashing personalities.

Well, one thing they don't have in common is that the vast majority of working, publishing climate scientists have concluded that global warming is real, is caused by us, and will have drastic consequences for millions of people in the next few decades.

I said no it didn't & he'd better check out RealClimate.org to see its critique by real climate scientists (luckily you're on that topic again, in case he visits here).

This dialogue about him being full of pontifical nonsense flows one way, without a response, this silence is a buffer extending his life span as a legitimate skeptic by default, since he can't stand the heat from real climate scientists left on the way side, crushing legitimate science away from any chance to reach a badly mislead audience, simply because he is more popular in the fringe right wing media world dwelling on sound bites and stupidity.

Wouldn't it have been great if Virginians had been able to use those millions of dollars productively to deal with the already very real impacts of climate change rather than to bury their heads in the sands because this attorney general wanted to not only discredit us, but send a message to all scientists in Virginia that... if you too decide to talk about the impacts of climate change then you too can be subject to a subpoena from the attorney general?

Don't think Happer will come to an NBC programme to get grilled, especially if there's a real climate scientist of stature on the other side of the table.

It occurs to me; the politicians understand that 97 % of scientists (not just climate scientists) believe global warming is real and manmade.

Not being a climate scientist, and not realizing in the mid-70's that there WAS such a thing, I'm sure you will forgive me for noticing that all the articles in the «popular press», like «Newsweek», «Popular Science», «Popular Mechanics», «Science Digest», newspapers, et al warning us of an imminent ice age and proposing methods of staving off disaster were simply being made up out of whole cloth by science editors to drum up circulation while the real Climate Scientists were frantically trying to warn us that we were about to be rendered into cracklings by anthropogenic CNot being a climate scientist, and not realizing in the mid-70's that there WAS such a thing, I'm sure you will forgive me for noticing that all the articles in the «popular press», like «Newsweek», «Popular Science», «Popular Mechanics», «Science Digest», newspapers, et al warning us of an imminent ice age and proposing methods of staving off disaster were simply being made up out of whole cloth by science editors to drum up circulation while the real Climate Scientists were frantically trying to warn us that we were about to be rendered into cracklings by anthropogenclimate scientist, and not realizing in the mid-70's that there WAS such a thing, I'm sure you will forgive me for noticing that all the articles in the «popular press», like «Newsweek», «Popular Science», «Popular Mechanics», «Science Digest», newspapers, et al warning us of an imminent ice age and proposing methods of staving off disaster were simply being made up out of whole cloth by science editors to drum up circulation while the real Climate Scientists were frantically trying to warn us that we were about to be rendered into cracklings by anthropogenic Cnot realizing in the mid-70's that there WAS such a thing, I'm sure you will forgive me for noticing that all the articles in the «popular press», like «Newsweek», «Popular Science», «Popular Mechanics», «Science Digest», newspapers, et al warning us of an imminent ice age and proposing methods of staving off disaster were simply being made up out of whole cloth by science editors to drum up circulation while the real Climate Scientists were frantically trying to warn us that we were about to be rendered into cracklings by anthropogenClimate Scientists were frantically trying to warn us that we were about to be rendered into cracklings by anthropogenic CO2.

'' As a rule, Dr. XXX has no interest in taking part in any event that continues to perpetuate the myth that scientists don't agree that human induced climate change is a real and serious problem.

The claim, which Mann himself uses in the NYT, for example, that 97 % of scientists agree that «climate change is real» and that «we must respond to the dangers of a warming planet» isn't borne out by a reading of the survey, which was itself imprecise about its own definitions, and captures the perspectives Mann has himself dismissed as «anti-science»: sceptics are part of the putative ’97 per cent».

Amusingly, by claiming Idso isn't a «real scientist» but Michael Mann is, you insult climate scientists more than practically any skeptic.ever has.

Another 4 % think that most scientists do not think climate change is real, and 18 % just do not know.

But it is far cry from the message by some strident climate scientists who maintain that the models accurately portray the real world — even when the evidence has been strong and growing that they do not.

Today's Graph of the Day shows that all those climate deniers that spoke of «the global temperature plateau «(as some weird «evidence» that climate change would not be real, busted on numerous occasions) should openly admit they were wrong — as real climate scientists have explained all along.

Some — instead of calculating the trend — simply draw a line between these two years *, and for unapparent ** reasons that is not just opportunistic climate skeptics, but also real climate scientists with a funny definition of decades.

I suspect that it is his lingering doubt about his true position in the firmament of climate debate that is the source of his real frustration, not his «frustration with the ongoing efforts... to attack climate science and scientists and prevent -LSB--RSB- debate.»

What real climate scientists (not smarmy climate modelers) forget is the climate change cult is almost entirely interested in the FUTURE climate, which they «predict» with computer games.

... when you hear scientists say that we have about eight years left in order to really tackle climate change, I don't think what the public actually want is cautiousness, what they want is real leadership, and that is what the EU is promising to give, and yet that's what we're failing to do here.

Paul Driessen — September 23, 2013 «The real climate change «deniers» are the alarmists who deny that natural forces still dominate weather and climate events, and refuse to acknowledge that thousands of scientists do not agree with IPCC proclamations and prescriptions.»

«Could turn the climate change world upside down» The rise in skeptical scientists are responding not only to an increase in dire «predictions» of climate change, but also a steady stream of peer - reviewed studies, analyses, real world data, and inconvenient developments have further cast doubts on the claims of man - made global warming fear activists.

Dear Moderator slightly of post but it is response to the use of the word Tribalism at CA to describe the behaviour of the Not so Real Climate Scientists.

Since «climate scientists» are not real scientists, they don't realize that Einstein's theorems were only accepted by scientists following the confirmation of certain predictions made by his theorems; that all they have to do to earn a consensus of belief is demonstrate a confirmation of their predictions.

It's not just that climate change isn't real, or isn't certain — it's that the world's leading climate scientists and climate organizations (who are all in agreement about it) are perpetrating what Senator James Inhofe calls The Greatest Hoax.

It's called solar geoengineering, and while it's not happening yet, it's a real strategy that scientists are exploring to head off climate disaster.

This is real world bog standard physics necessary to understanding climate, and all climate scientists claiming shortwave and not thermal infrared longwave from the Sun is doing this are required to prove it because the whole of the AGW Greenhouse Effect is based on the claims about the electromagnetic energies from the Sun, of «shortwave in longwave out».

Yet who despite lack of relevant expertise, do not welcome the appraisal of experts — and on this topic the experts are those scientists in directly related fields who professionally study this issue — but often, at least with the more general anti climate change efforts that have massively skewed the «discussion,» in fact often expend a great deal of effort to find any possible fault, real or imagined with anything they assert, then erroneously turn that into a refutation of the broader issue, along with, often, denigrating climate science efforts, and often climate scientists.

As we have documented in numerous articles on the disinformation campaign on this website, although responsible scientific skepticism is necessary for science to advance, the climate change disinformation campaign has been involved not in the pursuit of responsible scientific skepticism but in tactics that are morally reprehensible including: (a) telling lies about mainstream climate scientific evidence or engaging in reckless disregard for the truth, (b) focusing on unknowns about climate science while ignoring settled climate change science, that is cherry - picking the evidence, (c) creating front groups and Astroturf groups that hide the real parties in interest behind claims, (d) making specious claims about «good science», (e) manufacturing science sounding claims about climate change by holding conferences in which claims are made and documents are released that have not been subjected to scientific peer - review, and (d) cyber bullying journalists and scientists.

He just can't seem to grasp what the vast majority of Americans and scientists have already figured out: climate change is real, it is happening now and human activities are causing it.»

Hey Coby, I noticed you have Roger Pielke Jr's site linked, but not his father's, who is a real climate scientist.