Sentences with phrase «sceptic blog eike»

-LSB-...] three charges were rejected by sources such as Fox News and well know climate sceptic blog site Climate Audit.

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 --

Take a look at the UK's most active climate sceptic blog, Bishop Hill.

Andrew Montford, who runs the Bishop Hill climate sceptic blog, former children's television presenter Johnny Ball and Bob Carter, a retired Australian geologist, are among the other climate sceptics that have appeared on the BBC.

At this stage it is probably limited to the sceptic blog community world wide (not a small number) and a few other outlets but I'd say the twitter brigade will not be far behind.

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

That then is the first idea — if there is a desire to deal with this problem then some acknowledged climate sceptic blog host would need to host the question and process the results.

You may be right that the solution is on some sceptic blog (s).

Steve McIntyre, who runs the sceptic blog Climate Audit, said in an interview that the team deserves credit for going back to the primary data and doing the work.

`... the essential point is that [Maurizio] raised the possibility on a sceptic blog, and it was discussed at length by sceptics.»

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Most climate sceptic blogs link to each other and reference each other's stories.

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

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.

I don't think that the suspect in this case is being proposed with anything like confidence on the sceptic blogs.

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.

Skeptical Science would be considered in direct antagonistic opposition to Watts Up With That, Climate Audit and all the other sceptic blogs.

I commented here, politely on his first article: (pointing out thatonly antis - sceptic blogs surveyed in LOG12) http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2012/08/24/conspircism-and-climate-scepticism-empirical-research-confrims-what-we-all-know-and-some-predictions/#comments August 31, 2012 at 12 - 33 pm

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.

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

Not exact matches

I'm finding myself aligned with the sceptics now — this started as a «competition» to make the bottle impactful and I think it's getting sidetracked into making the bottle appeal to people who've read the blog and or are in the community.

So when you then add «I came to this blog seriously hoping that there was an honest climate skeptic,» I would suggest that you came here with the intent to look for any evidence, no matter how semantic, pointless or ridiculous, to reinforce your view that all sceptics are «dishonest.»

Are you fed up with sceptics and pseudo-scientists dominating blogs and news articles with their denialist propaganda?

In his spare time he writes for his own blog Real Sceptic and volunteers where possible for Skeptical Science.

The How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic guide comes up in blogs in at least 5 languages!

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

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.

I love your «How to Talk to a Sceptic about Global Warming» in fact i found it so useful i had to copy your catagories to my blog... i hop you don't mind.

From what I can tell their argument is circular: it is irresponsible to give air / blog time to sceptics because there's a strong scientific consensus that says they're wrong.

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.

I have a dialog on another blog about AGW, And oneof the sceptics claims that there is not enough CO2 being added to the atmosphere to make a difference.

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.

Have sceptics ever engaged in that on warmist blogs?

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.