Sentences with phrase «not warmists»

But the Little Ice Age is not warmists» only antagonist.

Here we debate the real science, not your warmist fantasies.

If you do, you are not a Warmist» Fig Leaf == BUT, you are, if you don't acknowledge that: they are cooling the planet, not CO2!!!

As far as I can tell, he's not a warmist - turned - denier so much as a warmist who thought he might benefit from a wider range of acquaintances.

In fact, we can add in the Satellite data and it becomes a 98 % chance that 2014 was not the warmist year.

icouldn'thelpit: So it is a 62 % chance that 2014 was not the warmist year.

For the record I'm not a warmist, just a used to be meteorologist and now working instrument engineer.

Isn't the Warmist dogma pointing to the seas boiling again, unless we repent our sins, and adopt the Way of the Warm?

Over at Guardian Environment there's an abnormally civilised debate going on at an article called Blame Games on Climate Change, with not a warmist in sight.

But wouldn't a warmist have to concede that even without humans on the planet that there must be dramatic pivot points in climatic timeline trends where warming would necessarily rapidly accelerate by default, measurable over multi decadal levels?

I am not a warmist.

But see, I'm not a warmist.

Why don't the warmists just accept that there was a recent slowdown.

Why didn't the warmists just admit that there had been a small temporary slowdown.

Not exact matches

And not only is it an historical essay, it's one strongly characterized by unsubstantiated assertion — the central one, that «warmists» haven't bothered to examine the evidence, being easily falsified by, among other things, the existence and popularity of this very blog.

So you think Skeptics don't get threatened?Didn't Santer want to beat the crap out of Pat Michaels?And why shouldn't skeptics be allowed free speech instead of the warmists trying to silence them?

The only way, the last decade could not have been the «warmist ever», is if a cooling trend had set in over the whole decade, that was equal or greater than the previous warming decades trends.

Killian's concept doesn't do that, and luke - warmist equivocation doesn't either.

This concept wouldn't exculpate CO2 terribly well for those who'd like to otherwise, but that might explain the discrepancies that are inciting we skeptics and puzzling the warmists.

The «warmists» are not making an assumption.

If the Global Warmists can't deal with criticsm, maybe their argument is not as airtight as they would like to portray.

Could that mean the warmists «natural variations» from Los Ninos are actually reflecting the system's ability to shed the excess heat they can't find right now?

This component of the debate is what fuels right wing opposition to the «warmists», not any dispute with the science.

al can not prove concusively that the earth is warming as a direct result of human actions... and it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt the data used for al gore's hockey stick chart, most of the «record temperaures», and much of the other basis for the warmist culture has been manupilated and / or cherry picked....

Using the word» pause» makes you a Warmist role of toilet paper — you are doing the Warmist dirty job... Spooking the public that: the non-existent global warming is only having a» pause» until the Paris conference - > makes you a» Warmist gelding» — because they can not have any legitimate proof of something that doesn't exist — they are only exploiting Skeptic's ignorance — obsessed to be trendy; because contemporary the phony warming is fashionable...

My point was that you asked for reinforcements from a noted skeptic site yet I don't see where you did this on a warmist site.

Maybe the 84 % (roughly) of the world's population not resident in either the EU or the US, don't care what a handful of fanatical Western Warmists think.

If they speak more moderately, or not at all, and never in terms that blame the faults of warmists on their politics, then it would be easy to underestimate their percentage on contrarian blogs.

The warmists seem to think Gleick is going to get off scot free, is identity theft not prosecutable?

We don't know, including warmists, and we're not going to know barring an anti-chaotic growth in computing power that isn't going to happen.

The other Warmists don't seem to have found it.

The point is that if a station starts out as CRN1 and over the years moves up the scale to a CRN5 and the warmists don't even know what the changes have been WRT new cement or asphalt installations, buildings being built around them, air conditioner vents pointed toward them, etc.; how can you claim that a station that has undergone those types of changes will measure the same trend as a station with the same lifetime but with a CRN1 rating over its lifespan?

You are clearly not a regular reader of the Telegraph, whose line is generally in favour of the warmist cause and whose two regular contirbutors as «envorinmental correspondents» Geoffrey Lean and Lousie Gray are both very firmly committed to the alarmist / catastrophist cause.

That question opens up the whole issue of why the warmists have been working so hard to eliminate any references to the Medieval Warm Period — it doesn't fit The Narrative at all.

That the sea level was not rising is a real problem for warmists everywhere.

About 26 years ago, I started taking an interest in potential CAGW as a matter of concern, and suggested a role for economic analysis in assessing potential costs and benefits (not welcomed by then warmists).

With the possible exception of Climate Depot, I find their tone, in the main, to be non-belligerent — a «nice change», in fact, from some of the warmist blogs I visit — where ad hominem, ridicule, condescension, unfounded accusations and censoriousness toward dissenters (by the blog owners, not merely by visitors!)

lolwot, have a doze of the real truth, it will help you a bit against your suffering from the Warmist CON: oxygen & nitrogen are the» greenhouse gases» in the atmosphere, not CO2!!!

Yet another not - so - subtle difference between skeptic and warmist blogs: collegial dissenters are generally welcome to contribute.

But people will simply not buy into the fraud of catastrophic global warming much longer, and more and more warmists will abandon ship as the ice closes in.

You don't need a label — you are a scientist and don't need fake labels such as sceptic, warmist, etc..

When the warmist - alarmists started trying to sell the CAGW story some time ago, did they say (in whatever year that was) that the world would have to wait for 30 years to see if the story was going to pan out, and to not worry about it in the meantime?

David — obviously the warmists want to discuss pH and not propaganda, which the word acidification is.

I was told by a warmist scientist that it wouldn't warm up at all, but that it is in the stratosphere where the CO2 is significant and causes warming.

For the Warmist: captain James Cook was commissioned to map the north - west passage — BECAUSE THEN WAS N'T MUCH ICE (same as today).

Conversely if the convective were to be 4 % like warmists that don't understand heat transfer would have people believe, then the Rayleigh number would be 3.2 E4.

So don't worry — my null is perfectly sound in principle — it just needs some swivel - eyed warmist zealot to come along and furnish it with a properly framed alternative, and it will have all the testability you could wish for.

Warmists don't have a rational argument, with the assistance of a thug media complex that shares their voting record they had power and have exercised it for the past 50 years in particular.Once again Dr. Curry, you give them cover while pointing out their abuses.

What the warmists, including our hostess, refuse to accept is that there comes a time when the science has progressed as far as it is possible to go with current technology, and the science is not good enough to solve the problem.

What's especially silly about the «we can't think of anything else» argument is that the warmists can't explain what (if anything) caused the Little Ice Age or the Medieval Warm Period.