Sentences with phrase «skeptic science points»

In one of my other recent articles, I describe how the PBS NewsHour's 1996 - to - present bias in its global warming discussion segments presents only four instances where any semblance of skeptic science points were mentioned out of more than 355 on - air broadcast discussions (plus a few online pages directly relating to some of those segments).

Not exact matches

Wordy as the letter is, it could be boiled down much like Al Gore's 2006 movie or the collective lot of the entire catastrophic man - caused global warming into a 3 - part talking point: «the science is settled» / skeptics are industry - funded & orchestrated liars» / «reporters may ignore skeptics because of the prior two reasons.»

Harris cites the work of PhD - level climate scientists and atmospheric physicists who've studied global warming for decades, and none of these skeptics deny climate science in any general sense of the word — that's another unsupportable talking point from believers of catastrophic man - caused global warming.

Neither Gelbspan nor anyone repeating his accusation ever proved the money trail led to an industry directive to lie about global warming science; none of them have proved skeptic climate scientists were instructed to mimic tobacco industry tactics; journalists have demonstrably not offered overall fair balance in to skeptic climate scientists; the «wedge» being driven is one arguably pounded by enviro - activists who push the «skeptics don't deserve fair media balance» talking point; and Gelbspan was not the first one to bring up this talking point.

My elemental objective is to show how extensive time exclusively devoted to seeing where the accusation came from and whether it has any evidence to back it up reveals a disturbing pattern: Inconsistent narratives that don't line up right; no hard evidence is ever presented proving such skeptics are in an orchestrated arrangement where they are paid industry money in exchange for fabricating false science assessments; and an overall set of talking points which is ultimately traceable to the clique of people surrounding Ross Gelbspan.

Skeptics do not argue the science so much as point out that the science does not support the popular conclusions.

They instead parse the message and find a way to blame the skeptics who have been correctly pointing that the science is not well understood and that there has been no significant warming in over ten years.

There are also skeptics insisting that the issue is ONLY about the state of the science — whether AGW is real — but on this point I disagree.

One wonders how he justifies this, given the evolution of views of Phillip Abelson, former editor, from full blown skeptic to a view close to that of Kennedy http://tinyurl.com/9zegw As I pointed out, Science also gives short shrift to quantum mechanics deniers.

The point would seem to be that skeptics distrust all government, publicly funded science because they believe the peer review system has been corrupted and incestuous — after all, it's not a free market system — and the «ClimateGate» brouhaha just served as a confirmation to them of this deeper distrust.

This new objectively - based climate science undercuts the climate alarmist «consensus,» but also a few points often made by some climate skeptics.

Typical of fake skeptics and illiterates to think that you can score linguistic points in science

«It stretches the science to the point of breaking and provides skeptics with fuel.

It has already been pointed out that if he in the same article speaks about something like skeptics in such an incredibly ignorant fashion, why should his science be any less so?

Skeptic climate scientists and organizations associating with them point straight to highly detailed science - based assessments when they criticize the idea of man - caused global warming, an action that saints and axe murderers can do.

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?!).

The «skeptics» get their debate points either way — which just goes to show that they don't understand science at all.

You seem to want skeptics to prove that something is correct, whereas we mostly point out limitations in the science: showing that the IPCC / CAGW view does not rest on a solid base.

It was an October 2012 public TV program that simply could not expand out of the 3 - point mantra that the man - caused global warming issue always boils down to: «the science is settled» / «skeptics are industry - corrupted» / «reporters may ignore skeptic material because of points 1 & 2».

I'd planned to also mention how our pro-global warming friends must view skeptic scientists and skeptic organizations as a very annoying irritation, but they probably fear the general public the most, over the looming potential of the public losing faith in talking points about «settled science» and «corrupt skeptic climate scientists» that become too preposterous to accept.

Basic point being, these are people collectively operate in the realm of «climate change sociology» under the unsupportable premise that man - caused global warming is settled science, thus it is up to them to explain to the rest of us what's wrong with the mindset of skeptic climate scientists....

Skeptics don't like to say any science is «settled» but as Joshua pointed out, they often say «most skeptics would agree...» which implies that some things are settled in climate science, and there is probably about half a dozen of these things that they would agree with the mainstreaSkeptics don't like to say any science is «settled» but as Joshua pointed out, they often say «most skeptics would agree...» which implies that some things are settled in climate science, and there is probably about half a dozen of these things that they would agree with the mainstreaskeptics would agree...» which implies that some things are settled in climate science, and there is probably about half a dozen of these things that they would agree with the mainstream about.

But that's just the science end of the issue, which I leave to the skeptic climate scientists to point out.

In my previous blog post, I showed a window into the world of far - left environmentalist reasoning, using the exact illustration of how Desmogblog co-founder James Hoggan immediately believed Ross Gelbspan's «the science is settled / skeptic scientists are industry - corrupted shills» core talking point as literally true upon first reading it, never reading alternative science assessments or doing the most basic fact - checking to see if Gelbspan's accusation was true.

The ultimate psychological projection here might be that when enviro - activists say the fossil fuel industry engaged in racketeering when it conspired with skeptics to misinform the public about the certainty of catastrophic man - caused global warming, this is instead a giant arrow pointing to enviro - activists doing all the racketeering on misinforming the public about settled global warming science and industry - corrupted skeptics.

In the M&N thread http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2013/4/12/a-scholarly-rejoinder-to-the-economist-article.html when it has been pointed out just what the evidence says, it is not just «skeptics» but «believers» as well that misconstrue the science.

My point is that they are more respected by «skeptics» because of their take on the science, and not based on the criteria you listed (although I think they are criteria that everyone should aspire to).

The standard skeptic's approach is to look at one point at the time and to claim that the science doesn't know more than one can learn by that approach.

cerescokid, you can put it up against the Paltridge post, where Paltridge goes through all the skeptic talking points but gives no solid science, and this program showing the scientists doing the work and explaining the physical basis.

Jim D: cerescokid, you can put it up against the Paltridge post, where Paltridge goes through all the skeptic talking points but gives no solid science,

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.»

In fact, many skeptics believe that the continued positive reception of catastrophic global warming theory is a function of the general scientific illiteracy of Americans and points to a need for more and better science education (see here for an overview of the climate debate that does not once use the ad hominem words «myth», «scam» or «lie»).

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.

What is debated in the warmist / skeptic debate is level of sensitivity, tipping points and the «settled science of: Armageddon soon if business as usual».

assuming what you say about skeptics changing topic as you describe is accurate, and at this point I do we are talking about data that is less than 200 years old, out of which extraordinary claims are made as to how that data relates to distant past and future trends tough sell assuming that all adjustments to the data are scientifically sound, It is very difficult for me to believe that measurements that have gone through so many iterations can be trusted to.0 and.00 in most other sciences, I doubt they would tough sell (the photo of the thermometer is downright funny) in terms of goal post moving I observe predicted heat being re-branded as «missing» a prediction of no snow re-branded as more snow a warming world re-branded to a «warm, cold, we don't know what to expect» world topped off with suggestions that one who thinks the above has some sort of psychological disorder extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence especially when you are teaching children that their world is endangered

More on Lord Monckton: Climate Change Skeptic Lord Monckton Gets a Point - by - Point Debunking Lord Monckton: Everything You Need to Know (Video) Lord Monckton Calls Youth Climate Activists «Hitler Youth» (Video) Lord Monckton Claims Non-Scientists Shouldn't Talk Climate Science?

On the one hand, he says that any reasonable person should've been skeptical two years ago due to valid points raised by skeptics (despite these points having been dealt with by mainstream climate science for * years *).

Looking at the «bore hole», it seems to contain mostly comments from skeptics, especially when they point out glaring inconsistencies with CAGW «science» that can not otherwise be addressed without capitulating or looking foolish.

Still, the science is out there for skeptics to access if they are interested in knowledge, not point - scoring.

Here is a start: skeptics should criticize the IPCC, skeptics should ask for access to data and analytical disclosures, skeptics should not criticize the science with economic arguments, skeptics should not put words into the mouths of those they criticize, skeptics should define some goalposts so that progress can be understood from their point of view, skeptics should use the peer - reviewed literature....

We can argue the points of climate change science for 400 posts but what about morality and responsibility — are they words in the skeptics vocabulary?

The center's founder - director, Jerry Taylor, was an energy policy analyst at the Cato Institute, where he helped forge Cato's unflinching climate denialism («I used to write skeptic talking points for a living,» he said in an April 2017 interview) until an immersion in climate science led him to a change of heart and a 180 - degree turnaround on climate.

I'll just say that I've seen denialists pointing at some of this articles in The Guardian as a proof that climate science is under question (because EVEN The Guardian has now concerns) and I think people who don't pay much attention to it have actually been misled by the headlines and the comments from skeptics.

During the deposition process of Dr Singer (full text here), Lancaster acted as his own attorney, posing most of his questions on the Revelle - Singer - Starr paper and related science points, but closed with questions about skeptic climate scientists and Western Fuels» funding of them.

What I obviously point out time and again is that there is no evidence proving skeptic climate scientists knew catastrophic man - caused global warming was settled science but were corrupted by giant wads of illicit cash which caused them to spew industry - created / directed lies.