Sentences with phrase «of global warming denialist»

It's incredibly hypocritical of global warming denialists to whine that compilations of global temperature anomaly like GISTEMP have large distances between recording stations and this makes them an inaccurate estimate of global anomaly and then we have a global warming denialist extraordinaire, Roberts, claim that a SINGLE locality, Central England, can provide an adequate estimate of global anomaly.

on Misrepresentation of leaked review draft IPCC climate assessment report shows intellectual bankruptcy of global warming denialists

Not exact matches

The happy band of denialists (presumably the gang of nine who advise Judge Alsup with their nonsense) have been «quietly but very busily investigating how much global warming we may cause, known as the «equilibrium - sensitivity» question.»

You can be certain that various anti-science, anthropogenic global warming denialist web blogs and op ed writers (with no scientific background) will take this study and trumpet it from the hills, completely out of context in order to continue to be disingenuous and to purposely mislead people.

It was even demonstrated in a paper by prominent global - warming denialists (who correctly estimated the lag, but the rest of their thesis was rebutted here).

The less data you collect on global warming, the more room there is for a handful of denialists to claim that it isn't really happening — that's been the story on ocean warming for the past decade, hasn't it?

The happy band of denialists (presumably the gang of nine who advise Judge Alsup with their nonsense) have been «quietly but very busily investigating how much global warming we may cause, known as the «equilibrium - sensitivity» question.»

Should this be the case, they could be deemed to be more of a threat to my grandchild than that represented by global warming denialists (many of whom are pro nuclear and concerned about peak oil and population overshoot).

From my perspective, we have a remarkably large and loud number of people, many of them are our leaders, who are denialists and naysayers with regard to the science of global warming.

Could anything be more out of date, backward - looking, or antiquated in spirit than the Carlin report's repackaging of yesterday's denialist illusions and pseudoscientific nonsense about climate — fantasies that have been shot down time and again, that don't have a melting Greenland glacier's chance in a warming climate when exposed to the light of reason, yet which have been presented to the world as if they were a brilliant refutation of the CO2 - global warming link by the sharpest analytical minds in the field of climatological research?

Given the level of denialism in the face of glacial mass loss, plummeting Arctic summer ice cover, progressive collapse of ice shelves that have been stable for 6000 to 10000 years, northward, upward, and seasonally earlier movements of ecosystems and other phenological changes, increasing Greenland ice melt, and all the other direct observations of global warming, I think denialists will go to their graves believing it can't be happening.

I have no idea what you are referring to, except perhaps that the rote regurgitation of long - since and many - times - over debunked denialist nonsense is mercifully (and no doubt laboriously) deleted by the RC moderators — unlike every other open blog on the Internet where any attempt to discuss the science of anthropogenic global warming is quickly drowned out by a torrent of pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, blatant falsehoods, and hate speech against climate scientists.

What if the contrived logic of ideology is «blinding» denialists and naysayers to the virtual mountains of good scientific evidence of global warming?

Pingback: Author of global warming «consensus» study calls top climate scientists denialists!

We find this to be well - argued and in line with what we have been saying about global warming denialist interventions to manipulate the communication of climate change research.

Some of our earlier posts on the global warming denial machine and ExxonMobil: «The Denial Machine» — Canadian TV to air investigative documentary on global warming denialists (October 26)(Includes interview with CSW Director Rick Piltz.

Presumably, that is not aimed at Martin Durkin, producer of The Great Global Warming Swindle, and the man falsely accused by Bob May, former president of the Royal Society, of being an HIV - AIDS denialist.

NRK (Norway's BBC) has a bad habit of inviting denialists, but no climate scientists when debating global warming.

But despite the onslaught from the influential denialists, the fact remains that — according to Oreskes» own figures — 62 % of the US public «believe that life on Earth will continue without major disruptions only if society takes immediate and drastic action to reduce global warming».

He maunders on to accuse «climate denialists» of drawing inconvenient conclusions from the recent temperature record about the rate of global warming.

Nova is an Australian climate denialist and author of «The Skeptic's Handbook,» a crash course in false science claiming global warming isn't happening and isn't human - caused.

The departure is in Willis» head, refusal to accept basic science is why the denialists fail to understand the evidence of Global Warming.]

The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is a United Kingdom think tank founded by climate change denialist Nigel Lawson with the purpose of combating what the foundation describes as «extremely damaging and harmful policies» designed to mitigate climate change.

The investigative blogger Deep Climate has been working to set the record straight on how an orchestrated campaign by members of Congress, industry - funded global warming denialist groups and PR operatives, and professional «skeptics» has spread misleading information about the paleoclimate... Continue reading →

The popularity of the graphic is probably due to the fact that (1) it's a simple, stand - alone debunking of the «global warming stopped» myth, and (2) that particular myth has become so popular amongst climate denialists.

The explanation for this, though, rests on an understanding of wider political and economic interests — could it be, perhaps, that this is the result of the billions of pounds pumped into the economy by professional denialist foundations such as Nigel Lawson's Global Warming Policy Foundation and the legions of right wing Tory backers (not to mention the combined, and substantial efforts, of the global oil industry and other vested interests) which influence, through their ownership, most of the mainstream Global Warming Policy Foundation and the legions of right wing Tory backers (not to mention the combined, and substantial efforts, of the global oil industry and other vested interests) which influence, through their ownership, most of the mainstream global oil industry and other vested interests) which influence, through their ownership, most of the mainstream media?

the billions of pounds pumped into the economy by professional denialist foundations such as Nigel Lawson's Global Warming Policy Foundation

Regardless of what one thinks of cap - and - trade as a policy approach, nothing looks likely to change in that arena in the near - foreseeable future, except for greater numbers on the no - compromise corporate and global warming denialist side.

Yet, as Festinger would have predicted, instead of falling silent, perhaps even admitting error, the denialists have become more vehement in their attacks on climate scientists, environmentalists and anyone who accepts the evidence for global warming.

I predict that we we will soon see denialist arguments of the form «yeah sure global temperatures are again rising sharply, but that is due to decreased albedo due to decreased arctic sea ice, not because increased CO2 causes global warming».

The editorial skewered academic doubters of man - made Global Warming as the «climate - change - denialist fringe» and in a shocking Freudian - slip the Nature editorial roared its political partisanship:

The updated analysis undercuts denialists of climate change who have long - argued that global warming has «stopped» and the world was growing cooler.

While our email exchange has taught me nothing about global warming, it has given me another insight into the perplexing mind of your typical denialist type.»

University of Virginia After a November 1 hearing, a Virginia judge has granted a petition from the University of Virginia to alter an earlier, inappropriate agreement by university lawyers that would have allowed the radical right - wing, global warming denialist American Tradition... Continue reading →

Like the tobacco lobbyists who spent years denying the links between smoking and cancer, global warming denialists don't have to win the debate — they simply have to confuse the public indefinitely to successfully undermine any political action which might hit the interests of their backers in the fossil fuel industries

But you don't need to be a global warming denialist, or even a sceptic to be part of the 56 % of us who are unconvinced of science's current ability to successfully model the climate.

Most of the glibertarians, cultural conservatives, and gadget - heads who constitute the useful idiots around the core oil - and - coal - company global - warming denialist constituency would be horrified to imagine themselves playing the role of 9/11 Truthers, or RFK Jr. pumping the thimerosal / autism link, or Thabo Mbeki claiming that AIDS isn't caused by HIV.

And with the words «the useful idiots around the core oil - and - coal - company global - warming denialist constituency» Kleiman demonstrates exactly the same failure of logic.

To summarize: Aside from the denialist cranks, everyone agrees that global warming is a looming problem of unprecedented scale that needs to be met with long - term, fundamental change.

I note that the word «denialist» is used to describe people who have an alternative view to that of man made climate change and the «Comment Policy» forbids the use of other words which offend those who believe in man made global warming.

The show trial was a chance for the Kochtopus, fossil fuel interests, and global warming skeptics (including Senator James Inhofe (R - OK) who announced he is releasing a denialist book) to cry foul that industry is being victimized and that global warming is not a threat, and does not pose any risks to the health and well - being of Americans, and the planet.

For years, the more dimwitted of the climate denialists have been yammering on about a pause in global warming.

«Since Day 1 of this I have been calling it a non-event, a manufactured controversy by global warming denialists trying to make enough noise to drown out any real talk on this topic.»

They even use a variant of the old «global warming ended in 1998» rubbish that has been doing the rounds in denialist circles for some time with the following comment:

This, of course, is why the denialist community harps on «CAGW» — catastrophic anthropogenic global warming — despite the fact that this is not a scientific term (i.e. commonly used by scientists).

Consider some of the arguments that are proposed and promoted by well - qualified scientists in the denialist camp: Global warming stopped in 1998.

You can be certain that various anti-science, anthropogenic global warming denialist web blogs and op ed writers (with no scientific background) will take this study and trumpet it from the hills, completely out of context in order to continue to be disingenuous and to purposely mislead people.

The «hockey stick» may be a cause celebre among denialists, but it's only a secondary part of the mainstream case for global warming, which is based on the physics of the greenhouse effect and the observed warming of recent decades.

In scientific contexts, the denialist can deny a cause (carbon dioxide does not cause global warming), an effect (the Earth is not warming), the association between the two (CO2 levels are rising and the Earth is warming, but not because of the carbon dioxide), the direction of the cause - and - effect relationship (carbon dioxide concentrations are increasing because the earth is warming) or the identification of the cause - and - effect relationship (other factors than greenhouse gases are causing the Earth to warm).

No doubt, if and when the Gulf Stream fails and North Atlantic temperatures plunge (as happened repeatedly during global warming events in the recent history of Earth, due to ice melt flowing into the ocean)-- denialists will claim «global cooling».