Sentences with phrase «over skeptics who»

1UP A -: «Wii Music may have a hard time winning over the skeptics who just want to laugh at it, but give the game the chance it deserves.

The HFPA won't win over skeptics who say the group does not represent people in mainstream Hollywood.

Not exact matches

The strident attempt to silence the skeptics who question the popular thesis that humans are adversely affecting the earth's climate hit a new high over the past couple of weeks with the release of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project (BEST) report from a group of scientists centered....

Idolatry arbitrarily elevates the worth of objects over ideas and the people who discuss them, and is cited as a bad practice by the bible and its skeptics alike.

I made this last night for some people who were squash skeptics — and won them over!

Still, there are growing numbers of skeptics, particularly teachers who over the past several years have often seen their state ratings fluctuate from year to year in a complex system that many regard as statistically unstable.

That claim isn't likely to win over many skeptics, but even some theorists who favor the standard theory say the analysis hands them a homework problem they should solve.

Andrey Zvyagintsev's majestic portrait of casual political corruption has been almost universally praised, and even managed to win over a skeptic like myself, who disliked all his previous films.

But skeptics warned that the academic gains made by retained students would diminish over time and that they would ultimately be less likely to complete high school: nationwide, students who are unusually old for their grade are far more likely to drop out.

(For skeptics who speculate that the survey might have been conservative - leaning by its nature, the same group of respondents also favored Democrat Barack Obama over Republican Mitt Romney for president 51 percent to 40 percent.)

Moreover, if winning over skeptics is any indication of success, Hensley points with pride to a comment years later from a veteran teacher who had initially opposed his changes at Atkinson: «She said, «They sent a lot of people here to fix this school.

Oakland's charter movement can be traced to 2003, when the state took over the financially troubled district and concerned parents clamored for more choices for their children, according to Gary Yee, a self - described charter skeptic and a former school board member who was interim superintendent before Antwan Wilson took over as superintendent.

Mr. de Blasio's departure from the Bloomberg philosophy of school reform has skeptics in Albany, particularly among Republicans in the Senate, who granted the mayor, a Democrat, just a one - year extension of his control over city schools, requiring him to make his case for another extension next year.

I think the skeptics, at least over the past five years or so, were proven right with regard to the artists who are making abstract paintings that are perfect for the way they are consumed: They make a lot of them, there's a green one and a blue one and a pink one, and you can collect them all like toys in a Cracker Jack box, which is what they're all about.

I associate «open - minded skeptic» with «scientists» (those who do science, or are are at least well - read in the science, and have formed various opinions in the process, and can mold those views over time as evidence develops).

«The era of «equal time» for skeptics who argue that global warming is just a result of natural variation and not human intervention seems to be largely over — except on talk radio, cable, and local television,» she tells us.

You see the same thing today, with skeptics fed by «scientists» paid for by energy companies afraid of losing their control over the industry, of having energy that is renewable and can not be gamed (and don't forget the energy traders and hedgers, who make a ton of money out of this very volatile market).

And that reality has been demonstrated over and over again, most recently in the work of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, led by Dr. Richard Muller, who began his comprehensive assessment as an avowed climate skeptic and ended it convinced by the clear evidence that global warming is happening and is caused by human activity.This conclusion is emphatically shared by the best and brightest of the global scientific community, including our own National Academy of Sciences.

So what we have is someone who is clearly identified with an in - group (in your case «skeptics») and who asserts an asymmetry in the climate change domain that qualitatively elevates his own identity group over the out - group («realists»), asserting a cultural cognition bias in someone that he feels is identified with that out - group (without even an attempt to explain the basis for such a determination *), even those that person isn't asserting such a qualitative elevation of his own in - group.

They instead parse the message and find a way to blame the skeptics who have been correctly pointing that the science is not well understood and that there has been no significant warming in over ten years.

The skeptics here at WUWT (myself included) often hammer the dishonest alarmists over their willful ignoring of thermometer measurement precision in temperature records who then try and proclaim «highest - ever» alarmism, when the differences are being proclaimed to hundredths of a degree.

The hacker gave the file to a small group of climate skeptics, who pored over it to pick out potentially controversial snippets.

The hacker created a 61 mb file from this data and gave it to a small group of climate skeptics and «lukewarmers», who pored over it to pick out potentially controversial snippets.

For example, some «skeptics» who don't understand anomalies are worried that the dropout of lots of cold weather stations in Siberia over the last few decades has biased the record warm.

For those who, without further question, either 100 % accept a theory or 100 % reject it, they are no longer skeptics, but cross over into the category of the True Believer or True Non-Believer.

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.

It is not surprising that there are many skeptics who like I am, are very knowledgeable in many of the over lapping fields, of gas chromatography, anthropology, radio graphics of X-ray and particle physics, biological plant and animal processes, agriculture, high power radio transmission and reception, and its attendant multiplexing of signals, mining, reforestation plans and progress realities, nuclear, gas, and coal power plant construction techniques, organic gardening, astronomy, stellar physics, global circulation pattern drivers, and have also spent considerable time out doors in a tent and sleeping bag.

Can you name a notable skeptic who's gone over to your side?

Interestingly no one, not even Michael Cunningham, got my intended analogy with climate skeptics, namely with the truck driver who was overtaking a car around a bend on a two - lane highway with the involved vehicles closing at well over 200 kph.

We shouldn't forget, these «Skeptics «are the exact same creatures who support whatever our President does, love to tell women they're not intelligent enough to know what's right for them... quibble over sick little details, like does cigarette smoke really harm infants and all the other «moral «things these great REAL Americans stand for.

I think the reason those who, rather than being «believers», accept the massive, overwhelming amount of evidence behind man - made global warming, say to «ignore the skeptic scientists» is because those scientists have been debunked and proven wrong over and over and over and over and over.

As I read and re-read your work, the work of other skeptics, the work of the «Slayers», and others who are fighting the current madness over the magic molecule CO2; I find that the above statement of yours may be one of the most important concepts.

The course doesn't waste time wringing its hands over whether or not to call deniers «deniers» — a true skeptic, Cook explains in his welcome video, «doesn't come to a conclusion until they've considered the evidence,» while «someone who denies well - established science comes to a conclusion first, and then discounts any evidence that conflicts with their beliefs.»

As for skeptics who concern themselves with the «pause in global warming», it is baffling to me how anybody would think a bit of cooling, warming or «pausing» over two or even ten decades can indicate very much at all.

Amusingly the blog denizens who are in the habit of contradicting climate skeptics get just as dismissive when ocean oscillations are pointed out to them as the skeptics do when the big rise in CO2 and temperature over the past half century is pointed out to them.

Over the last three years, I've had the opportunity to meet with scientists who occupy different positions on the climate spectrum: Some are out - and - out «skeptics»; some broadly agree with the so - called «consensus» but dislike its intolerance; others define themselves as «lukewarmers» or have only relatively modest disagreements with Mann & Co - yet even that can not be tolerated by the Big Climate enforcers.

a suggestion for anyone following this site who happens to be directly or tangentially involved in efforts to say skeptic climate scientists are paid to operate under an industry directive to lie about the issue:» Fess up about not having any evidence over the last 23 + years to back that up.

When somebody who is purported to be a responsible scientist and the custodian and curator of a central repository of historic temperature data writes «I would rather destroy the data than hand it over to skeptics» then, amazingly, like the IRS, the very data in question is destroyed, I would say that the «profession» has taken a severe black eye and has some serious reputation restoration work to do.

Additionally there is now a list of well over 400 scientists who spoke out as skeptics of Global Warming in 2007.

3) Please keep in mind that the main purpose of this Visualizing series is to help those of our fellow Skeptics who (IMHO) have gone over the line to an equal and opposite error from the Alarmists, expressing total Disbelief in the very scientific basis of the ill - named «greenhouse effect» of the Atmosphere and in the total Earth System.

The bit in my A.T. piece was how Robert McClure (a Society of Environmental Journalists board member who had previously offered me the unsupported idea that Gelbspan's work was also documented by others) quoted Dykstra's concern over skeptic climate scientist Patrick Michaels getting too much «false» media balance.

Tesla quieted the skeptics who lamented the lack of an infrastructure to charge electric cars by building the first of over 200 Supercharger stations.