Sentences with phrase «sceptics gets»

People are always claiming that Steve and other sceptics gets some bit of funding from the gas and oil lobby (he doesn't), while they never consider the scientists who will be, not just poorer, but out of both a job and a career when AGW is shown not to be an issue.

It's a neat bit of circular logic: sceptics can't get published in peer - reviewed journals, so journals that sceptics get published in therefore can not be properly peer - reviewed, and since only peer - reviewed material is allowed into the IPCC reports, scepticism can and must be entirely excluded from them, by definition.

The mainstream view is represented by the University of NSW's Tim Lambert at scienceblogs.com/deltoid, while the sceptics get a run at my favourite environmental website, jennifermarohasy.com/blog.

Posted in Advocacy, China, Climatic Changes in Himalayas, Development and Climate Change, Environment, Global Warming, Governance, Government Policies, Green House Gas Emissions, India, Information and Communication, International Agencies, Lessons, News, Opinion, Publication, Research, Resilience Comments Off on Climate sceptics get less press in developing countries Tags: Asia, Climate change, Developing country, Global Warming, Government of India, IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, United Nations

Not exact matches

Sceptics, however, note that Amazon (AMZN) is also investing heavily in new content for its Amazon Prime Video service, and that it has far deeper pockets than Netflix will ever have, unless the latter gets acquired by someone like Apple or Disney.

Great, scrape the UCL place, Stan gives Wenger new contract for another 3 years of mediocrity whilst he gets to build bother ranch or two and the fans have to put up with this sceptic tank and his leaching ways.

Citizen Corbyn, elected with more votes than the Tories have members as he's fond of warning sceptics, will parade his grassroots legitimacy at Labour's conference in Brighton next week where he's guaranteed a hero's welcome from the army of activists who feel this time they've really got their party back.

Those in favour of a break with the EU often paint a rosy picture in which the UK is able to get what it wants and maintain unfettered access to the single market while sceptics tend to assume that the EU can not offer to renege on some core principle like the freedom of movement for persons but at this stage it's mostly guesswork (and possibly quite a bit of bluff / wishful thinking on both sides).

I would say incremental obduracy would be the best way to go, get us the best deal and (if you are interested...) would reflect the broadly Euro - sceptic but small c Conservative views of the British.

the views of working class voters, we needed to get back from UKIP were socially Conservative, against Neo liberalism and EU sceptic, the views of Maurice Glasman's Blue Labour, Glasman in the Mail on Sunday http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3693947/We-crisis-new-party-doomed-says-leading-Labour-peer-LORD-GLASMAN.html has now said a break away party would be a mistake.

In a 2003 email, Mann discusses encouraging colleagues to «no longer submit [papers] to, or cite papers in» Climate Research, after it published papers by known sceptics «that couldn't get published in a reputable journal».

Climate change sceptics love to point out that science is «always realising that it got it wrong» or that «theories that all scientists used to believe in are always being overturned».

«Climate sceptics like to criticize climate models for getting things wrong, and we are the first to admit they are not perfect, but what we are finding is that the mistakes are being made by those models which predict less warming, not those that predict more,» said Prof. Sherwood.

I'm sure this will leave you terrified and it's a great watch for non-sceptics and sceptics alike to get a real feel for the powers of beyond the grave.

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.

I'm researching the sceptics view of climate change for an international engineering firm that needs to know more about how this issue will affect us... I've got the IPCC report and other things that support anthropogenic climate change, but I need to address the other side of the argument as well, especially for a group of conservative engineers.

Reading and listening to global warming sceptics can get a little tedious because they keep trotting out the same discredited arguments.

But when prices rise, the sceptics tend to get the poor households on their side.

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.

When anyone who is not much engaged in this debate sees that this is the level of argument that gets seized on and promulgated by the «sceptics» they will immediately understand where the balance of credibility lies.

And that it is possible for a sceptic like me to discuss things with avowed alarmists without me getting a nasty green rash all over.

(I know, I get the sceptics» e-mails.)

Sometimes they're not, and it takes a challenge from a sceptic (in the general sense) to get us to realise it.

One thing that really gets my goat when responding to many sceptic arguments is how often misrepresentations of the science are put forward as a basis for a supposed rebuttal of the science.

It is surely a welcome thing that, be it on the Today Programme, or BBC News 24, or Earth: The Climate Wars, sceptics» arguments at least get a little airtime.

Let's get it straight — most sceptics are not doubting that humans have contributed to a warming trend.

Sceptics looked at all the warmist's ships getting stuck in the Antarctic ice and decided there was no point in joining them.

and the only place to get it published is in a silly, sceptic journal like E&E?

A «free - thinking» of sceptics has a nice ring An «independence» A «Won't Get Fooled Again» A «Chilling» — as in «chill out» A «Calmness»

Most scientists who go against «the consensus» get labelled as mavericks, sceptics or denialists.

My point is that with funds so relatively low and so many sceptics around doing such great work, I could only reasonably expect to get a few quid every month.

So... M`lord Monckton, Dellers, Mr Watts, and any other sceptics who still believe the bbc is where you may get a fair hearing, abandon all hope ye who enter there, they ai n`t nice.

Saying that Lewandowsky's attempts to get responses from sceptics was inadequate is nothing like saying that the CIA killed Martin Luther King.

Gets me huge amounts of kudos at the joint Sceptic Central and Big Oil Deniers Gala Evenings and Ladies Nights.

Also, when «sceptics» object to the dominant behaviour of CGM in teh AGW theory, they always get thrown back that the theory rests on much more.

Hobby sites like «WattsUpWithThat» are a start to effective opposition, but to be honest it really is time that the fossil fuel industry who so many believers think are funding the sceptics, got off their backsides, put their hands in their pockets and did the decent thing to fund the professional science «opposition» which is needed to force the climategate forecasters to stop feeding this monster with their PR and start to try to justify the existence of their monster based on real science in the face of real decently financed opposition and not part - time unpaid people like us here.

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.

For instance, if we divide the respondents into «sceptics» and «warmists» on the basis of their assent to / dissent from the statement, «I believe that burning fossil fuels increases atmospheric temperature to some measurable degree», and then compare those groups» assent to / dissent from popular conspiracy theories, we get the following result:

As former US vice-president and climate sceptic Dick Cheney said: «If there is only a 1 per cent chance of terrorists getting weapons of mass destruction, we must act as if it is a certainty.»

Charles I don't think Fielding is a special case the no heating since 1998 argument gets trotted out by «sceptics» fairly regularly.

Had Black wished to overcome the limitations of mediocre journalism, to get to the heart of the debate, there are many well - informed sceptics he could have turned to for comment and advice.

But in the BBC's coverage of the report's release in Stockholm, which was attended by several BBC science journalists, the voice of climate - change sceptics, who do not accept the IPCC's core findings, got considerable airtime.

Before Jack Savage and I and a lot of others were banned, we sceptics would consistently get about five times as many «recommends» as the warmist comments.

John Abraham made an astute point the other day when he said that it rarely gets noticed that climate sceptics have actually conceded a lot of ground over recent years when it comes to the science.

So after 450 + posts on the second thread devoted to this topic, we have sceptics who think it'll get cooler, firebrands who think it'll get warmer, those who think nothing will happen, those who think everything will happen.

Sceptic comments that get through now tend to be from newcomers and get less support, and the discussion between true believers is frequently surreal, («we're all going to die from ocean acidification!»

I find it ironic that this article is often cited to refute sceptic criticism, it actually illustrates very well how deep - rooted that scare got to be at the time).

Get a climate sceptic and a climate advocate together and let them take each other around the world to meet people in an attempt to change each other's mind.

Now it may well be that the scientists themselves have good and solid arguments (I don't know, I've never managed to get that far), but most non-technical «lay» sceptics judge AGW by the people who they meet arguing for it.

As for Keenan's accusations against Jones and Wang, I find the case most notable as yet another «sceptic» meme gotten wrong by Fred Pearce.