Sentences with phrase «sceptical scientists who»

Scientific Alliance are 200 sceptical scientists who have imported wholesale the views of right - wing think - tanks in the US.

Not exact matches

Others have become more sceptical after reading the work of scientists who refuse to accept the broad consensus in their community about climate change.

«For example, even most sceptical scientists would agree...» says who?

In other words, this article is not about the science, but about the reporting of the science by Monbiot of the Guardian, and Connor of the Independent, who will cite any ad hoc comment by a scientist which counters a sceptical argument, as if the simple fact that it is uttered by a scientist demolished the sceptical argument.

Yes there are scientists who are sceptical.

report contained 1000 names of eminent scientists who are sceptical» of man - made global warming claims.

See: The Australian: Climate Depot's «report contained 1000 names of eminent scientists who are sceptical» of man - made global warming claims.

Some of the same people who have deplored this would doubtless have been pleased to see material similarly «stolen» which discredited a major oil company or, indeed, a group of sceptical scientists.

We found it difficult to understand why the BBC had not sought out and conducted lengthy interviews with some of the very many reputable scientists who are sceptical about the impact of CO2 and mankind on the global climate.

He cites two examples of scientists who had written highly sceptical papers which — much to their mortification and irritation — they discovered had been graded by Cook and his team as endorsing the «consensus.»

Moreover, by applying the term «denial» (with all its loaded undertones) to sceptical scientists; by referring to them inaccurately as «well funded» by the oil industry; and by likening those who stress the uncertainties of climate science to unprincipled lobbyists for tobacco companies, Lord May enters on the field of personal vilification — not a suitable place for a distinguished former President of the Royal Society.

David wrote: «Why doesn't Lindzen and the 1000s of scientists who agree with the growing sceptical movement, develop an equivalent to the IPCC.

You mean... you're not a teeny bit sceptical of this «ice age», announced by scientists who apparently work for a lobby - group?

I would say that all scientists are necessarily sceptical, but in the context of the AGW issue the term «sceptic» is usually taken to mean those who do reject, rather than just question the established consensus.

In the words of a climate scientists that I am a little aquainted with... who was trying to get across this simple mesage to the resident sceptical commenators at Bishop Hill: http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/9/28/dellers-on-reason.html?currentPage=3#comments

Many scientists who are privately sceptical about it just daren't speak up for fear of losing their jobs or their grants.

Dennis «A&L» Dutton, who is sceptical about the idea that the present warming trend is mostly anthropogenic, has got together with Douglas Campbell, a philosopher / biologist / computer scientist who isn't.

He hasn't even made preliminary enquiries about who he's attacking, in fact he's said that the sceptical bloggers aren't scientists.

Randol also recommended the Bush administration replace «Clinton / Gore carry - overs» who had «aggressive agendas» with sceptical scientists Richard Lindzen and John Christy.

Climate scientist Steven Sherwood of the University of New South Wales, who proposed the 35 °C survivability limit, said he was sceptical that this threshold could be reached as soon as the researchers say.

Since this book is written by a sceptical French climatoligist who has no connection to the oil industry or the various liberterian think tanks and who claims indisputably, that the «greenhouse effect or global warming scenario is a myth» fostered on the general public by so called scientists, I would be very interested in hearing your rebuttal, because I am still in the process of forming an informed opinion.