Sentences with phrase «skeptic arguments about»

Other skeptic arguments about sea level concern the validity of observations, obtained via tide gauges and more recently satellite altimeter observations.

Not exact matches

I make it less about making a good argument and more about proving myself to the skeptics for the sake of improving my status.

Note that a similar argument regarding polar bears is often cited by AGW skeptics and even Alaska's governor in her recent NYT piece about oil drilling.

Now, as Leslie Kaufman reports in The Times, there appears to be some overlap emerging between those pressing for equal time for non-evolutionary explanations for life's diversity and those demanding equal time for skeptics» arguments about the causes and significance of climate change.

The e-mails, attributed to prominent American and British climate researchers, include discussions of scientific data and whether it should be released, exchanges about how best to combat the arguments of skeptics, and casual comments — in some cases derisive — about specific people known for their skeptical views.

In a few years, as we get to understand this more, skeptics will move on (just like they dropped arguments about the hockey stick and about the surface station record) to their next reason not to believe climate science.

Your argument about the skeptics saying that science is not 100 % right and then saying I told you so, is just ridiculous.

Same way I have beefs with stupid skeptic arguments and stupid arguments about FOIA and stupid arguments in general.

Joshua: «And in addition, think about all the wasted energy the «climate community» spent mitigating the impact of «deniers,» when «skeptics» could have helped out by listening more carefully to the «climate community,» and trying to understand «the climate community's» arguments, and adding to progress on increasing our understanding of the causes of climate variability and change...»

And in addition, think about all the wasted energy the «climate community» spent mitigating the impact of «deniers,» when «skeptics» could have helped out by listening more carefully to the «climate community,» and trying to understand «the climate community's» arguments, and adding to progress on increasing our understanding of the causes of climate variability and change — rather than apologizing or ignoring the input from scientists like Fred Singer — who deliberately lifts a conditional clause from a larger sentence, divorces it completely from context, and creates a fraudulent quotation in order to deliberately deceive, or Ross McKitrick who slanders other scientists on purely speculative conclusions about their motivations, or guest - posters at WUWT who call BEST «media whores,» or the long line of denizens at Climate Etc. who falsely claim that the «climate community» ignores all uncertainties towards the goal of serving a socialist, eco-Nazi agenda to destroy capitalism.

In an essay «Why the Global Warming Skeptics are Wrong» in the New York Review of Books of Feb. 22, 2012, Yale professor William D. Nordhaus attempts to counter the arguments of a group of 16 prominent scientists who published an essay, «No Need to Panic about Global Warming,» in the Wall Street Journal on Jan. 27, 2012.

Since climates are always changing anyway (another skeptic argument) I think we should expect to see about half of the dozens of solar bodies showing signs of warming.

He also speculated the hacker understood enough about climate skeptics» previous arguments to know what types of information to highlight, but did not spend enough time with the file to find all of what would be considered «juicy» evidence.

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1950/mean:12/plot/esrl-co2/scale:0.01/offset:-3.2 If only more skeptics knew more about paleoclimate we wouldn't be having these arguments about cause and effect.

Since the beginning of this «warmest year» and» warmest decade» meme about four or five years ago, it has been a hallmark argument for an alarmist who thinks skeptics are stupid, and for an alarmist who can't recognize the implicit recognition of the pause within.

It's funny that despite all the skeptics whining about chartmanship and graphs they have been totally unable to stop the likes of Easterbrook pushing this zombie argument.

I don't like the skeptic argument of «science isn't about consensus», meaning that we can just ignore any and all consensuses, that they don't give better than chance outcomes.

I think that arguments about magnitude of sensitivity and estimates of certainly are the rightful domain of a skeptic (and even, IMO, arguments about the physics of AGW)-- but the «skeptical» illogic of claiming to accept the basic physic of AGW and at the same time claiming that global warming has «stopped» or «paused» remains.

What I love most about «skeptics» is that they say that they don't doubt that ACO2 might warm the climate — they only have questions about the certainty related to the magnitude of the effect, but then they turn around and offer an argument like AK's that effectively argue that there is no scientific basis for reducing the uncertainties related to the magnitude of the effect.

It reminds me of the arguments about estimation vs. measurement and whether or not Muller is a «skeptic.»

I talked to them about the Wegman case, and advanced the same arguments being made by the «skeptics».

I have a history with Andy Revkin's DotEarth, which is prone to provide fuel for sloppy thinking about weather and climate, as well as a hangout for the worst kind of clever - looking phony skeptic arguments.

If I wanted a stupid argument about religion I'd go to youtube, also using the word «diversity» while claiming to be a skeptic is conflicting ideals.

I personally agree with this assessment of true skepticism but use the term «skeptic» so we don't get distracted into arguments about labels and instead stick to discussing and understanding science.

What I find laughable about the skeptics arguments via cherry - picked pauses and questionable trendology is that everyone realizes that lags and latencies exist in the carbon cycle.

I find that skeptics have troubles at about this point of the argument when we talk about actual data.

You might find that your method of argument is better received at one of the skeptic sites where they do not care about evidence either.

Funny, I argue about CS quite often with AGW skeptics, and the only time I ever use any argument related to CS anything above 3C is to say that, Lindzen's estimates of < 1C is just as unlikely as the estimates that are above 4.5 C. Outside of that, I say the IPCC central figures are probably about close to reality.

You can make an argument about those areas having the best coverage but the accepted truth, even by skeptics, that the world has been warming up steadily since the little ice age.

What I was amazed about was how the mere existance of the paper seemed to embolden a number of skeptics, with no previous argument against the greenhouse effect, to believe it was now acceptable to argue against even that.

«In a few years, as we get to understand this more, [referring to ocean variability and the pause] skeptics will move on (just like they dropped arguments about the hockey stick and surface station record) to their next reason not to believe climate science.»

Of course, it is interesting that many of those same «skeptics» also make contradictory arguments that suggest that they have great certainty about the magnitude of the effect (that it definitely isn't as large as the range estimated by the IPCC), and / or argue that none of the ways that climate scientists have measured the effect are valid.

While the argument rumbles on for some, with Exxon now accepting the existance of man - made climate change, and with the climate skeptic's favorite scientist actually being a vocal climate action proponent, I'm ready to move on until someone shows me convincing evidence of this elaborate hoax I keep hearing about.

Saying the IPCC is 90 % sure does not answer the arguments about what skeptics feel the IPCC is ignoring.