Sentences with phrase «of sceptic blogs»

As the research admits, none of the sceptic blogs responded, leading to the criticism that sceptics had not in fact been asked to participate.

Though the scientist Dr Kargel was, it is true, the first to blog on the subject, nothing would have happened without the involvement of sceptic blogs.

And you're wrong that «nothing would have happened without the involvement of sceptic blogs».

I would point out that I am not just a casual sceptic, but take the time to attend anti carbon tax protests, have a submission on record with the joint select committee reviewing the carbon tax and read and comment on a number of sceptic blogs.

As author of the sceptic blog Climate Audit, all of McIntyre's work is funded on his own dime.

Prof Lewadowsky's blog posts as one example (more to follow) taunting the 5 sceptical blog owner he had «contacted» on his blog and giving interviews about it — at places like Desmogblog (a website, that has a number of those sceptic blog owners photographed, named and shamed tagged denier, misinformed, disinformation, denial industry, amongst other derogatory labels, in it's Denier Disinformation Database online --

Not exact matches

It's hard to know just how far this view has seeped into mainstream climate scepticism, but the themes of corrupt science and cheating and lying climate scientists are widely disseminated on sceptic blogs and other outlets.

At very least the publicity was so poor that it got very little uptake from the many readers of climate sceptic blogs... of which there are much more than of consensus blogs.

Daily reader of WUWT and several other influential sceptic blogs.

There are a bunch of particularly nasty serial second law abusers hanging around climate sceptic blogs at the moment spouting nonsense about the greenhouse effect being impossible because a cold object can not heat a hot one.

In this second exchange (1st here) between Adam Corner (Talking Climate blog) and Geoff Chambers --(a regular and prominent commenter at several climate sceptic blogs), they continue to discuss research on the psychology of scepticism.

Whether Maurizio is right or wrong about the source of the error, the essential point is that he raised the possibility on a sceptic blog, and it was discussed at length by sceptics.

I'm sure it's true that the internet and the growth of climate sceptic blogs have hit those newspapers which pushed environmentalism most, but in a more profound way than simply leaking readers to a competing source.

When the mining expert Stephen McIntyre challenged the basis of climate science on his blog, he became a figurehead for many climate - change sceptics.

The Australian newspaper carried a sympathetic account of Dr Salby's sacking, reporting an email written by Dr Salby which had previously been published on several climate sceptic blogs.

However, though these emails were found, they had been ignored by the blog owners as the kind of spam bloggers often get, and were discarded, meaning that, nonetheless, sceptics hadn't really been invited to participate.

See Richard Black's recent blog on the BBC's Earth Watch for a good example of a small number of sceptics steering the discussion towards rationality.

To his discredit, he gives sceptics» arguments zero consideration while pronouncing on them nonetheless, but his blog (now retired) offers many, very well - argued and in fact sober criticisms of green energy policies and incautious renewable energy evangelism.

And, how ever Gavin is trying to phrase it, when I look at the climategate, «hide the decline», MM vs. Mann, Steig vs. O'Donnell, the behavior and attitudes at Real Climate and Tamino (the «scientists» blogs), the issues of Nature and WMO report covers (the question, that you did not answer, by the way), I have to say I'm understanding where the perception is coming from... That is not to say that the sceptic blogs are nice and tidy.

But what would you expect the RC halflife of a pointer to a blog where some sceptics are known to hang out to be?

Hello Coby, Taking advantage of your skills talking to sceptics like me, I'd like to see if you can clarify a couple of issues that I don't see have been directly addressed in your blog yet.

Along with the sheer unpleasantness of the moderators at Real Climate and other alarmist blogs, the Guardian's practice of summarily banning anyone who does not follow exactly the party line as laid down by the Klimatariat has driven more people to become sceptics than any deep study of the science ever has.

This blog is in danger of becoming another contrarian talking shop, where so called «sceptics» reinforce each others entrenched views and continue to demean the scientists rather than challenge the science with more science, which is the rightful purpose of scepticism.

It may be news to you, but your opinion on this doesn't seem to be widely shared outside of the echo chamber of «sceptic» blogs.

Climate Progress commenters were describing that the BBC blog were a hot bed of sceptics and that the BBC should not allow this.

The entire tone of this blog is one openly and offensively hostile to sceptics.

I'm afraid I'm a true sceptic on this so far having read it and a lot of the rebuttals on other blogs.

Now if climate sceptics were awash with oil money, as alleged by the likes of Dessler, Davies, Oreskes and Brulle, wouldn't the top UK and US sceptic bloggers be supplied with sufficient funds that they didn't have to clutter their blog with irritating adverts?

For years I ran a blog called Watching the Deniers (Google it), directly challenging the work of «climate sceptics».

as we know now, the blog these nuts were surveyed from were all acquaintances of Lewandowsky etc and the readers of blogs that basically detest and are atagonistic towards «sceptics», which is one of the «lies» of the paper, «diverse audience»....

Dear Judith Curry, I'm a retired public school teacher in Toronto who has been following your advice for a few years by somewhat reluctantly engaging various climate change sceptics and outright deniers in online media blogs and comment threads but when I encountered your Oct 1 piece entitled «Kill the IPCC:...» in Canada's Financial Post, I realized I had been following the advice of someone who has become something other than an impartial observer of the «climate change wars».

Anthony Watts is the most prominent climate sceptic (by blog traffic) He took the Guardian to task about use of the denier word, and the Guardain responded (positively) http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/02/sea-change-in-climate-journalism-the-guardian-and-the-d-word/

I feel that ad hominem attacks are distasteful, and under this bracket I would put some of what is written here, Santer's comments and the silly bit about «social networking» in the Wegman report and a myriad of other ad - hominem attacks on sceptics blogs.

Of course one may throw in all sorts of rubbish anywhere in between, return to previous talking points when the sceptic realises that he is going down a risky path:) or simply use them all invariably in blog post written a litlle time apart, hoping that your readers either have a short memory or care equally little about such petite details as consistencOf course one may throw in all sorts of rubbish anywhere in between, return to previous talking points when the sceptic realises that he is going down a risky path:) or simply use them all invariably in blog post written a litlle time apart, hoping that your readers either have a short memory or care equally little about such petite details as consistencof rubbish anywhere in between, return to previous talking points when the sceptic realises that he is going down a risky path:) or simply use them all invariably in blog post written a litlle time apart, hoping that your readers either have a short memory or care equally little about such petite details as consistency.

Sceptic blogs do not think much of Skeptical Science's little graph that misrepresent how they would draw a graph.

The blog host asked for examples of sceptics that don't fit his categories.