Sentences with phrase «people on the climate skeptic»

There are many smart, informed people on the climate skeptic side of the debate (see here).

Not exact matches

As a lay person (albeit with a Science degree) I find it interesting that the last 7 posts on this site have been disputing claims by Climate Change skeptics or data / studies that may / may not support their case.

Climate change skeptics and people on the right are now expressing disapproval of the Heartland billboards, which is appropriate.

In my movie we pulled a Borat - like prank on 12 people we interviewed, having a comic actor pretend to be one of our cameramen who would interrupt the interview to argue with the subject as a climate skeptic.

The New York Times Magazine is running a long profile of Freeman Dyson, the independent - minded physicist and polymath from Princeton, N.J., who has come into the public eye of late because of his anti-consensual views of global warming — which are also different from the views of many people in the variegated assemblage of climate skeptic / denier / realists (depending on who is describing them) fighting efforts to curb greenhouse gases.

«The skeptics are always going to be out there, and as people have to start spending money on climate change, reducing emissions or seeing impacts on lifestyles, people become more vocal about it,» she said.

In the talk, Victor, trained in political science, warns against focusing too much on trying to defeat those denying the widespread view that greenhouse - driven climate change is a clear and present danger, first explaining that there are many kind of people engaged at that end of the global warming debate — including camps he calls «shills» (the professional policy delayers), «skeptics» (think Freeman Dyson) and «hobbyists.»

On Nov. 7, news flashed around conservative and climate - skeptic e-mail chains, some Web sites and a couple of talk - radio programs that an important new scientific paper proved that undersea bacteria, not people, were responsible for most of the recent buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

However, based on a literature review, Verheggen et al (2014) found the emails of approximately 8000 people, of which approximately 7600 where climate scientists (the other 400 being contacted because they where known «skeptics».

Leaving aside the PC issues associated with labeling people, I don't think their main premise that motivating skeptics by framing the issue in terms of the welfare of their society, instead of focussing on risks of climate change, works.

To climate skeptics the scientists are mole people to be strung up, or at least jailed in those jurisdictions that frown on lynch mobs.

Tom W, 101 Jackson, 139 Ron — I think it's encouraging that people who are skeptics on climate change still supports plug - in cars.

Those who push using RICO laws against «corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change» («other organizations» meaning conservative think tanks and any skeptic climate scientist having any association with such entities) are likely emboldened because they've never before encountered push - back on the very core of their accusation.

At a climate skeptic conference, writes Hoffman, one presenter «went so far as to suggest that a binding international agreement on climate change would end with individuals being required to carry «carbon ration cards» on their person.»

Do an internet search of those phrases or variations on them, subtract my own repeats of them, and you have uncountable numbers of people saying this is the proof of industry corrupting skeptic climate scientists.

One other item, another of the commenter Friends at Gelbspan's Facebook post is Desmogblog financier John Lefebvre, the person owning the private jet that Desmogblog co-founder James Hoggan was flying on when he declared — as I detailed here — that he (Hoggan) knew nothing about climate change but felt compelled to start Desmogblog in order to expose skeptic climate scientists, which he knew to be liars as a result of reading Gelbspan's 2004 «Boiling Point» book.

along with a tougher question on whether the core people of this clique actually believed that skeptic climate scientists had been corrupted by industry payments.

An unknown person put postings on some climate skeptic websites that advertised an FTP file on a Russian FTP server, here is the message that was placed on the Air Vent today:

People who challenge the claims of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are often labeled «global warming skeptics».

People have every right to take issue with the inane and offensive things you have said on blogs, your innuendo, your unsubstantiated claims, and your uncritical and unskeptical acceptance of all sundry of accusations put forth by so - called «skeptics» against climate scientists.

On May 29, 2015, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, attended a Big Green - funded League of Conservation Voters event where he called for using RICO against climate skeptics and fossil fuel companies (see the YouTube here), then in a Washington Post op - ed, «The fossil - fuel industry's campaign to mislead the American people,» prompting a backlash asserting that the charge was false, and defending the right to dissent.

Also keep in mind that Quiggin previously posted on his «observation'that climate change skeptics are the type of people who believe Obama is not a US citizen.

As part of our contribution, CSW commented that the document might carry greater relevance for decision - makers who want to advance a needed adaptation agenda to an unconvinced or climate - skeptic audience (a very real possibility) by including more explicit language on the ways in which climate change issues can be framed to appeal to diverse groups — for example, emphasizing the potential damages to people and property to one community, the negative impacts to industry in another.

All this pride, despite the presence of skeptic climate scientist Dr John Christy (Ph.D., Atmospheric Sciences) in the first McCain hearing (not listed in Ozone Action's list from that same hearing), and the presence skeptic climate scientist Dr S. Fred Singer (Ph.D., physics) in the second hearing, a person previously held in massive dislike by Ozone Action regarding his congressional hearing appearance on topic of ozone depletion, and held in massive dislike by Ozone Action on the topic of global warming — in a press release attack of Dr Singer, (screencapture here), having Kalee Kreider — future spokesperson for Al Gore — as one of the contacts.

Aside: Kalee Kreider, for those newer readers now arriving at this blog, is one of the people at what I term the epicenter of the smear of skeptic climate scientists, she was the long - time spokesperson for Al Gore who worked at Fenton Communications not only before she worked for Gore, as she only discloses here, (full LinkedIn resumé text here) but also after she worked for Gore, which we are told about here (full text here *)[* Author's 12/16/16 addition: click on that link, and you see its «not found» result now.

I'll grant that detailed material such as climate science is beyond the scope of politicians, bloggers and most college students, but when it comes to elemental accusations of corruption, people ranging from the President of the United States on down to college professors, bloggers and students like the one I feature here can undertake basic due diligence to see if the «industry - corrupted skeptic climate scientists» accusation is above reproach.

There are only two kinds of people on Earth; skeptics of catastrophic man - caused global warming, and those who'd become skeptics of that idea after reading the migraine headache - inducing levels of science detail within assessment reports from skeptic climate scientists.

Climate skeptics struggle with getting the majority of people to understand the problems with the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) anthropogenic global warming (AGW) story.

On the one hand, he says that any reasonable person should've been skeptical two years ago due to valid points raised by skeptics (despite these points having been dealt with by mainstream climate science for * years *).

I am sure there are people in the T administration who are scientists, perhaps working in Climate Science, who are skeptics, but who are open minded on it.

More on Global Climate Change: Just Because It's Snowing Out Doesn't Mean Global Warming is Fake, Say It With Me People Melting Arctic Sea Ice May Actually Cause Colder Northern Winters Answer Your Climate Skeptic Relatives PDQ With NRDC's Holding Global Warming FAQ

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.

But then, we could ask if people who genuinely fit the old definition of journalists — such as those seen on the PBS Newshour — are committing acts of journalism when they don't report half the story of global warming, and can't answer the direct question of why they've apparently excluded skeptic climate scientists» lengthy and detailed viewpoints from their program for the entire 20 year time their news outlet has been discussing the issue.

Not one other person repeating the accusation ever praises the Sierra Club for blowing the lid on the skeptic climate scientists.

Much like Bernie Madoff's ponzi scheme, this scheme, with its constant infusions of material that could be libel / slander against skeptic climate scientists, was also doomed to fail from the start, built on a foundation of sand about its core «evidence» that was pushed by a person who never won a Pulitzer, and whose narratives don't line up right.