Sentences with phrase «sides against the skeptics»

Yet somehow the military make some alleged climate related study and suddenly some see the military as taking sides against the skeptics.

Not exact matches

After the stunning victory, one of the scientists on the side promoting the belief in a climate «crisis» appeared to concede defeat by noting his debate team was «pretty dull» and at «a sharp disadvantage» against the skeptics.

If it is, it means media should move their focus from both «consensus» and skeptic blogosphere (including the too - much touted short - term pause), suspend talk of false equivalence, and start hold the consensus side up against a Holocene - paleoclimatology side, both being inside scientific - community sides.

Rather than fighting against climate consensus, which is how we are so often portrayed, skeptics in fact have history and empirical data on our side.

On the other side of things, if the warming resumes despite all of the natural factors that the AGW skeptics claim are aligned against it (PDO, sun, etc.), then can we expect the skeptics to start to accept AGW?

You said, «On the other side of things, if the warming resumes despite all of the natural factors that the AGW skeptics claim are aligned against it...».

Start dissecting their narratives, comparing them side - by - side while looking for physical evidence corroborating Ross Gelbspan's «industry corruption» accusation against skeptic climate scientists, and a very different picture becomes clear: these people's narratives don't line up right, they collectively have no evidence backing up their accusation, and this prompts serious questions of whether core leaders of the global warming movement are totally oblivious to this situation, or if they knew their narratives had no merit from the start.