Sentences with phrase «since skeptic climate scientists»

And again, since skeptic climate scientists have had the same position this entire time, where is the corruption in all of this?

Not exact matches

This dialogue about him being full of pontifical nonsense flows one way, without a response, this silence is a buffer extending his life span as a legitimate skeptic by default, since he can't stand the heat from real climate scientists left on the way side, crushing legitimate science away from any chance to reach a badly mislead audience, simply because he is more popular in the fringe right wing media world dwelling on sound bites and stupidity.

Since that PR campaign does not resemble any sort of sinister plot to manufacture doubt out of thin air, it is little wonder why neither Gore nor any other accuser who quotes from its leaked memos has ever had the courage to directly show those to the public as «smoking gun» proof of skeptic climate scientists» guilt.

While I was aware of myriad problems with the «fictional names» narrative in 2010, I was not aware of the Ofcom complaint until skeptic climate scientist Dr S. Fred Singer had emailed the producer of «The Great Global Warming Swindle» in February 2011 (cc» ing my email address among several others, since he was well aware of my work).

His job is to promote skepticism of a truth that even Skeptic magazine believes in, and since Morano's cocksure, and good at yelling on TV, he steamrolls over climate scientists on cable despite his lack of expertise.

Since I've spent the last 6 + years digging into the smear of skeptic climate scientists and who is behind the smear, I'm not surprised at all.

Since this blog is almost entirely on the topic of dissecting the accusation that funding (otherwise comprehended as outright bribery) has corrupted skeptic climate scientists, it is incumbent upon me to disclose and detail anything relating to money I receive which even has the smallest appearance of possible corruption.

First and foremost, I'm a full disclosure guy, and since my blog here concentrates on how everything surrounding the faulty notion that illicit funding «corrupts» skeptic climate scientists, I'm compelled to mention the recent change to my own funding.

Likewise, since before I ever became a skeptic, the establishment climate scientists and their supporters have been characterizing, ad infinitum, the skeptical community as shills of the oil industry and other large industrial concerns, and especially as paid - off pawns of right - wing think tanks and right - wing concerns.

Since to me (and many scientists, although some wanted a lot more corroborative evidence, which they've also gotten) it makes absolutely no sense to presume that the earth would just go about its merry way and keep the climate nice and relatively stable for us (though this rare actual climate scientist pseudo skeptic seems to think it would, based upon some non scientific belief — see second half of this piece), when the earth changes climate easily as it is, climate is ultimately an expression of energy, it is stabilized (right now) by the oceans and ice sheets, and increasing the number of long term thermal radiation / heat energy absorbing and re radiating molecules to levels not seen on earth in several million years would add an enormous influx of energy to the lower atmosphere earth system, which would mildly warm the air and increasingly transfer energy to the earth over time, which in turn would start to alter those stabilizing systems (and which, with increasing ocean energy retention and accelerating polar ice sheet melting at both ends of the globe, is exactly what we've been seeing) and start to reinforce the same process until a new stases would be reached well after the atmospheric levels of ghg has stabilized.

Since more readers are arriving at this blog, I thought it would be a good idea to create a new «Background» post category, so that those who are basically unfamiliar with the 20 year + smear of skeptic climate scientists can easily read a set of elemental details explaining what I mean when I refer to the «industry - corrupted skeptic climate scientists» accusation, the «core evidence» for the accusation, the epicenter of the smear, and Ross Gelbspan.

Ross Gelbspan's tale about circumstances which caused him to look deeper into the «industry funding» of skeptic climate scientists seems praiseworthy, since it could plausibly happen to any objective reporter.

Ross Gelbspan, ever since late 1995, has claimed skeptic climate scientists received industry money in exchange for knowingly spreading misinformation about global warming.