Sentences with phrase «other global warming skeptics»

He personally became aware of what other global warming skeptics have known for years and is embarrassed by his lack of awareness of how unjustified and nasty the attacks.

Ross Gelbspan wrote a 1995 article in Harper's Magazine which was very critical of Lindzen and other global warming skeptics.

«These papers should lay to rest once and for all the claims by John Christy and other global warming skeptics that a disagreement between tropospheric and surface temperature trends means that there are problems with surface temperature records or with climate models,» said Alan Robock, a meteorologist at Rutgers University.

Not exact matches

► In other climate change news, Leigh Dayton wrote on Tuesday that in April, «the University of Western Australia (UWA) in Perth announced plans to set up an Australian Consensus Centre (ACC), chaired by [global warming skeptic Bjørn] Lomborg, that would conduct policy research on overseas aid, Australian prosperity, agriculture, and regional issues.

Like others in the incoming administration, Mulvaney is also a skeptic on climate, referring to «baseless claims regarding global warming» on his 2010 election campaign website (archived here).

More broadly scoped, a variety of factors are present, some of which are widely used by skeptics of global warming, and others which are used by proponents.

Government in the U.K. and other places outside of the United States seem to have supported the consensus IPCC findings on global warming, which has kept their skeptics at bay in their countries for the most part (except perhaps in Australia which is heavily influenced by interests in the U.S.).

I felt that he is global warming skeptic or denier to read his article but it was not related with global warming issue and I felt his article is difficult to understand because English is my foreign languge, I give up others of him.

Other than that, there is «Some skeptics, however, have suggested that the rise in global temperatures has actually slowed since 1998, which was itself a record - warm year.»

Never mind that neither Gore nor anyone else who quotes the «reposition global warming» phrase and other memo phrases ever shows them in their full context or mentions any in - depth details about the leak, and none of them have ever proven a quid pro quo arrangement exists between skeptics and industry funders.

While I was aware of myriad problems with the «fictional names» narrative in 2010, I was not aware of the Ofcom complaint until skeptic climate scientist Dr S. Fred Singer had emailed the producer of «The Great Global Warming Swindle» in February 2011 (cc» ing my email address among several others, since he was well aware of my work).

Although global warming strikes me as one of those issues where there is no real balance and it is wrong to create an artificial or false equivalence, there is no harm and some possibility of benefit in inviting skeptics about the human contribution and other factors to speak, but in a setting in which the context of the vast majority of scientific evidence and speakers is also made clear.

Global warming believers need only to counter dry recitations of skeptic science material with assertions about the numbers of «IPCC scientists», declare this to be the settled consensus opinion, then claim there is leaked memo evidence proving skeptics are paid industry money to «reposition global warming as theory rather than fact» — hoodwink the public, in other Global warming believers need only to counter dry recitations of skeptic science material with assertions about the numbers of «IPCC scientists», declare this to be the settled consensus opinion, then claim there is leaked memo evidence proving skeptics are paid industry money to «reposition global warming as theory rather than fact» — hoodwink the public, in other global warming as theory rather than fact» — hoodwink the public, in other words.

Frederick Seitz, another prominent skeptic on global warming, is involved with two other groups mentioned in the plan: the George C. Marshall Institute, where Dr. Seitz is chairman, and the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, where he is on the science advisory board.

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.

This means there are now 3 levels of rebuttals addressing the skeptic argument «humans aren't causing global warming»: If other climate bloggers are interested in allowing their existing articles to be used as advanced rebuttals to skeptic arguments, please contact me.

Yet the New York Times and other major media strain to keep the global warming movement alive by carefully ignoring global warming «skeptics,» and giving undeserved coverage -LSB-...]

In other words, he took calculated results and baselessly modified them willy - nilly in order to claim skeptics are wrong to say global warming has stopped.

But we were told repeatedly by climate skeptics that the lost data was a big problem: that the basis of «global warming theory» had been lost and other such nonsense.

After promoting the eco-group World Wildlife Fund's new climate study, the Washington Post's Eilperin also dug up a scientist with a woeful reputation, Robert Corell, and chooses not to identify his employment with the partisan Heinz Foundation, vice-chaired by Teresa Heinz Kerry, wife of Senator John Kerry (who recently claimed: Global Warming Is The Next 9/11) Eilperin felt compelled to state that Fred Singer was a «skeptic» but the reporter felt no obligation to label any other scientists she cited in the article.

In one of my other recent articles, I describe how the PBS NewsHour's 1996 - to - present bias in its global warming discussion segments presents only four instances where any semblance of skeptic science points were mentioned out of more than 355 on - air broadcast discussions (plus a few online pages directly relating to some of those segments).

Because they're skeptics, scientists know to tread carefully when they come across stories that begin with the words «According to a new study...» But, a new study published last week about the impact of global warming on precipitation patterns in the lower and middle latitudes has caught the eye of John Walsh and other researchers.

However, claims based on «eyeballing» and similar offered here in the thread by Mr. Coal - Magazine Editor, who is probably going to write his PhD thesis soon where he refutes global warming using «eyeballing», and by other «skeptics» are not a scientifically valid approach to provide evidence for the assertion of the «stopped» global warming.

Michaels and Balling are labeled «skeptics» because they don't believe the warming is likely to be as severe or as disruptive as most other climate scientists, but they readily accept the reality of anthropogenic global warming.

Back in the early spring of 2007, believers of catastrophic man - caused global warming were no doubt quite happy with Al Gore's «An Inconvenient Truth» movie, Ross Gelbspan's books, prominent pro-global warming blogs, mainstream media outlets, and others who gave essentially no fair play to the presentation of detailed climate assessments from skeptic climate scientists.

After spending time at the largest gathering of world class climatologists, meteorologists, physicists, engineers, and economists, among other very brainy folks, I came away with the feeling that the battle remains joined by this hearty group, otherwise derided as skeptics and deniers of global warming.

By calling the science «still incomplete,» Bush also lent new credibility to the tiny handful of industry - sponsored «greenhouse skeptics» who have been thoroughly discredited by the mainstream community of climate researchers — including the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the National Academy of Sciences and other blue - ribbon scientific groups that deem global warming to be real, immediate and ominous.

Many climate skeptics argue that the most likely scenario for global warming is that human emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases will cause mild warming, a geographic mixture of winners and losers, and what problems arise can be met by adaptation.

Since the science doesn't convince most skeptics, they are looking for other ways to help the poor and misinformed masses understand that global warming is real.

Yet the New York Times and other major media strain to keep the global warming movement alive by carefully ignoring global warming «skeptics,» and giving undeserved coverage to a small minority of liberal Republicans who call for carbon dioxide restrictions.

This sent a message not recognize any sort of «debate» about global warming, which was evidenced by mainstream climate scientists and other advocates refusing to debate skeptics.

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.

And, as can be seen in my 6th and 7th Tweets out of my primary Twitter account, I tried in 2010 to alert Fox News» Glenn Beck to the smear of skeptics, and GOP Senator Jim Inhofe (along with 14 others) to the mainstream media's malfeasance of failing to tell half the story of global warming.

And the larger question is, why do no others corroborate his accusation that skeptic scientists were paid to lie to the public by fossil fuel interests about the global warming issue?

For no apparent reason, the state of California, Environmental Defense, and the Natural Resources Defense Council have dragged Lindzen and about 15 other global - warming skeptics into a lawsuit over auto - emissions standards.

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: It's clear from ice cores and other geological history that CO2 fluctuates naturally.

If readers insist on debating the pecuniary motives of scientists and their patrons, I'd be curious to see figures comparing how much money corporations, foundations and government agencies today give to global - warming skeptics versus how much they give to the other side.

Global warming «skeptics» — scientists and others who question whether the scientific debate is truly settled and ask for real data to support the claims of the alarmists — are frequently attacked in the press, by politicians (including President Barack Obama), and on countless blogs and Web sites.

In two of my other posts here, I showed how IPCC Vice Chair Jean - Pascal van Ypersele had prominently accused a particular skeptic scientist of industry corruption, and how Ypersele cited Naomi Oreskes for his insinuation that the ClimateGate email leaks were the result of an effort ««organized» to undermine efforts to tackle global warming.»

Michaels appeared in The Great Global Warming Swindle along with other prominent climate change skeptics such as Tim Ball, Roy Spencer, Fred Singer and others.

A study by Cornell and the University of Michigan researchers found that those «highly concerned» about climate change were less likely to engage in recycling and other eco-friendly behaviors than global - warming skeptics.

2) The majority of those having meteological background in the U.S. are global warming skeptics... they don't understand that global warming is happening yet they haven't taken the time to investigate and see that it is, and their background in other earth sciences, including hydrology, is limited.

However, they convey the skeptic views on global warming to the media, local governments and other... usually off the record on an informal basis.

As reported on this site on February 15, the documents revealed, among other facts, that the Heartland Institute, as part of a larger strategy for undermining support for global warming, was supporting prominent skeptics such as physicist Fred Singer and geologist Robert Carter.

How odd, considering that Greenpeace's Kalee Kreider, (alleged creator of Ozone Action who moved on to Greenpeace before Greenpeace merged with Ozone Action) emailed an alert about skeptic climate scientists / Western Fuels in October 1996 to (among other people, including two at Ozone Action) Dan Becker, who was the Sierra Club's Global Warming Program director at that time.

Gelbspan's version of the events sequence leading him to discover the «corruption of skeptic scientists» has him co-authoring a global warming article with a scientist in early 1995, becoming alarmed enough at the scope of the issue to consider writing a book about it, becoming so relieved after reading works from Dr Singer and others that he dropped the book idea, and then discovering that such skeptics were industry - corrupted liars.

The surprise to me with this lawsuit is that it doesn't feature sensational evidence like others did — the older Kivalina v Exxon case and the newer San Mateo / Marin / Imperial Beach v. Chevron cases — by citing the infamous «leaked memo set» headlined with «reposition global warming as theory rather than fact,» which are universally accepted among enviro - activists as smoking gun evidence of skeptic climate scientists being paid to push misinformation to the public at the behest of sinister corporate handlers.

I think Terje actually is something of an example of what Michael was referring to in calling for another category: the habit of responding to points where the «skeptics» are obviously wrong by admitting that on this point they're wrong, but there are other «chinks in the data,» and a «problematic culture,» (no specific examples given) which make the theory of global warming somehow not to be acted on.