Sentences with phrase «skeptic climate scientists because»

Make no mistake about it, the mantra repeated by enviro - activists everywhere is that there is no doubt about the certainty of catastrophic man - caused global warming, and nobody should bother to listen to skeptic climate scientists because what few skeptics there are were paid industry money to lie, just the same way «shill experts» lied on behalf of «big tobacco» years ago.

His various narratives tell how he fell into the investigation of skeptic climate scientists because a backlash to their article caused him to first doubt Epstein's expertise and briefly take the skeptic side.

Not exact matches

Contrary to David Hart's suggestion, many of us are climate science skeptics not because we're carrying water for Exxon stockholders, but because we don't trust an intellectual culture of scientists - as - activists.

Climate skeptic Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama, Huntsville, says that scientists have lost touch with the public because their message is flawed, writing:

Brendan, I can understand that, too, but mostly because many climate scientists tend to believe rumors, straw men and unwarranted generalizations about climate skeptics rather than checking who's actually saying what.

And similarly, «Climategate» is a huge, gigantic, humongous, earth - shattering scandal, because scientists were found to say unflattering things about climate «skeptics».

Consider that some AGW skeptics say scientists are pursuing climate change research only because that's where the funding is, and you begin to see why the U.S. will eventually be a second - rate power with the world's best military.

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.

While many climate scientists have come under the withering fire of skeptics, some of the toughest fights have centered around Mann and his research — largely because of a single study that demonstrated that modern climate change is unprecedented in at least the past millenium of Earth's history.

Yes, the notion that scientists tow the global warming line in exchange for fame and money seems to ignore the many benefits of being a published climate scientist who tows the «skeptic» line, or even seems to sympathize with some of their talking points — who are valuable, as market theory would predict, because they are very scarce.

Just because you don't like him, you try to delegitimize him by refusing to call him a scientist, but instead a «climate skeptic,»... and then you tell us not to call names!!!

The reason I'm a skeptic is because I see and hear intelligent climate scientist calling for a political solution, and that is just plain nuts.

In the ongoing battle between climate scientists and skeptics there will be disproportionate carnage, because the climate scientists have so much more to lose... for climate science I fully expect things to get worse before they get better, simply because the most vocal, politically active climate scientists have shown no skill at operating in the political arena.»

In the ongoing battle between climate scientists and skeptics there will be disproportionate carnage, because the climate scientists have so much...

However, based on a literature review, Verheggen et al (2014) found the emails of approximately 8000 people, of which approximately 7600 where climate scientists (the other 400 being contacted because they where known «skeptics».

If the reason why skeptic climate scientists» funding continues to be brought up is because the pure science information they offer is so damaging to IPCC climate assessments that it needs to be buried via outright character assassination by elected officials, then we have a monumental problem.

Those who push using RICO laws against «corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change» («other organizations» meaning conservative think tanks and any skeptic climate scientist having any association with such entities) are likely emboldened because they've never before encountered push - back on the very core of their accusation.

In the past few months, climate scientists speaking out about the dangers of global warming have come under increased assault, largely because of climate skeptics voicing concerns over the information contained within certain scientists» email messages.

Michaels and Balling are labeled «skeptics» because they don't believe the warming is likely to be as severe or as disruptive as most other climate scientists, but they readily accept the reality of anthropogenic global warming.

This is inevitably going to be uncomfortable for «skeptics,» because every argument they have directed at climate scientists easily rebounds upon them.

Climate skeptic scientists have long questioned whether the effects of relatively minor (compared to other CO2 sources and sinks) human - caused emissions of CO2 have more than a minor effect on global temperatures and some have even questioned whether the UN and USEPA have even gotten the causation backwards (i.e., because on balance global temperatures affect atmospheric CO2 levels).

This is because mainstream climate scientists are the true skeptics.

It is strange because we can witness «skeptic» - style temperature graph cherry picking by (two economists and) two actual climate scientists of Boston University (Robert Kaufmann and Michael Mann).

The reason why I stopped posting on the topic is because apparently, unlike as we see in the comments of numerous «skeptics» mocking the tribalism of climate scientists, Judith objects to my mocking criticism of a prominent «skeptical» scientist's blatant tribalism (comparing an environmental ethos to eugenics).

The science of catastrophic man - caused global warming is settled, no need to pay attention to what skeptic climate scientists say about the science or its political angles, such as the «97 % consensus» because they are paid illicit industry money to lie....

97 % of even skeptics are incompetent in this, because my comparison should have been done by any competent climate scientists 20 years ago, and the greenhouse effect dropped from science then.

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide) Objection: Climate scientists never talk about water vapor — the strongest greenhouse gas — because it undermines their CO2 theory.

And similarly, «Climategate» is a huge, gigantic, humongous, earth - shattering scandal, because scientists were found to say unflattering things about climate «skeptics».

This is a problem because of what Kalee Kreider has to say on the topic of skeptic climate scientists.

For all the length of this student's paper, it could just have easily been distilled to a single sentence: «The science of man - caused global warming is settled, skeptic climate scientists are paid industry money to lie about it being not settled, and everybody may ignore those skeptics because of those first two points.»

This book shines a fascinating light on this process by revealing how climate change has been transformed from a physical phenomenon, measurable and observable by scientists, into a social, cultural and political one... This book is so important because Mike Hulme can not be dismissed as a skeptic yet he is calling for a radical change in the way we discuss climate change.