Sentences with phrase «science skeptic sites»

Not exact matches

There are a few «skeptic» sites, but most of them are not run by scientists, and the «science» presented there is only of value in terms of entertainment.

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.

Please, please, please, quit going to the skeptic sites until you have enough of an understanding of the actual science to avoid being fooled.

A key site for addressing a wide range of questions raised by climate change «skeptics» is Skeptical Science (www.skepticalscience.com)-- in particular the questions discussed with references to the scientific literature at http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php.

Ironically, Rado's complaint relied on information from a web site who's own co-founder expressed exactly the same lack of science expertise combined with a zeal to expose «lying skeptics» via what amounts to a never - ending complaint — a spooky parallel that's hard to miss in the fourth paragraph in my March 27, 2015 post about that co-founder.

Yes, they were interesting (and educational) times, before Climategate I didn't think much about the reasons for the great big new taxes but when Climategate occurred I took an interest and since then have become a skeptic or denialist or whatever the current word is Perhaps what Politicisation has done in the name of science is demonstrate that there are inquiring and courageous scientific and other minds that do not close And where's Bulldust (I think he is Australian as I am) and the coiner of the phrase «Climategate» Happy anniversary everyone, thank you Anthony for a wonderful site

It is by climate scientists, and most skeptics think they themselves are better expert on climate science than climate scientists, so they find all kinds of ways to denigrate and convince themselves it is a bad site, etc..

As to «ambush site» — you can certainly disagree with the conclusions reached on skeptic science; the moderators do have their own points of view (as do Jo and Watt — should I avoid them and their sites?!).

I myself have been (temporarily) persuaded of some things by skeptic web sites only to find that when I look up the same topics on AGW sites, I realize I've been swayed by rhetoric and glitzy presentation and not science.

I've already detailed the way Desmog's founder James Hoggan essentially torpedoes his site's entire existence with the way he first admits he knows nothing about climate science, but is certain that skeptic climate scientists are liars, the latter of which he derives entirely from Ross Gelbspan, the «Pulitzer - winning investigator» who Al Gore says discovered the supposedly leaked Western Fuels Association «Information Council for the Environment» (ICE) PR campaign's sinister strategy to «reposition global warming as theory rather than fact.»

I did not say that Abelson was necessarily a global warming skeptic, though many web sites seem anxious to debunk the idea (or at least so I found out in the last couple of days), my point was that under his editorship Science was open to publishing articles whose findings were not supportive of the theory.

Much of this science malfeasance has been tracked / reported by a growing legion of skeptic sites.