Sentences with phrase «skeptic scientists»

Although I am no more than an ordinary citizen, my email address book reads like a «Who's Who» list of skeptic scientists and speakers.

Among the climate skeptic scientists, we wondered which fields of science were most represented.

But the larger question concerns who would have known in advance that a hearing about global warming science assessments was going to compel skeptic scientists to disclose what their funding was under oath....

First, people with no climate science expertise are saying PhD - level skeptic scientists are lying about science - based points.

Most obviously, however, It should be noted that skeptic scientists earn their reputation based on their personal body of work.

So if Gelbspan's raison d'être was no more than to uphold the tenets of sound democracy and dispassionate investigative journalism by exposing dishonest information from skeptic scientist industry shills and debunking misguided notions about global warming having a hidden agenda of wealth redistribution and global governance.......

To further analyse this sentence one would have to know what is meant by «skeptic scientist accusation» (since science is by nature skeptical, this sounds like an oxymoron and redundant but one can not be sure.)

The associations I point to among the man - caused global warming promoters is really just a secondary problem, with the relevance being simply to amplify the core problem: nobody corroborates the corruption accusation against skeptic scientists, and it has been devoid of evidence to prove it true from its inception.

Yes, many people repeat Gelbspan's line about reporters giving unfair media balance to crooked skeptic scientists, but it doesn't take much additional digging to see where a Senior Producer at Turner Broadcasting, Teya Ryan, made her case in 1990 with a lengthy opinion in the Society of Environmental Journalists Winter 1990 - 91 newsletter about media balance being «artificial, a matter of giving equal air time or newshole space to dissenting views of questionable merit.

If we don't actually have an industry conspiring with skeptic scientists in order to hoodwink the public into ignoring the certainty of the «global warming crisis» for the express purpose of keeping their profits, do we instead have an enviro - activist industry trying to hoodwink the public into believing the certainty of «industry - corrupted skeptics» for the express purpose of preventing their environmentalist gravy train from derailing?

She instead inferred that money influence had tainted what he said so badly that none of it was worthy of consideration, which crumbles to dust when she and other accusers fail to prove that industry money was given to skeptic scientists in exchange for laughably and demonstratively false fabricated papers, reports or assessments.

But they did no such thing, and this collective set of missteps on their part absolutely begs for investigation about why none of it lines up right, and why skeptic scientists stand accused of being «industry - funded crooks» in the first place.

The science is settled, no need to listen to skeptic scientists because those scientists are corrupt industry shills.

Money does corrupt when someone is on the wrong side of the issue, and this collective notion was essentially encapsulated in IPCC Vice Chair Jean - Pascal van Ypersele's position of condemning skeptic scientist Dr S. Fred Singer for an association with the fossil fuel industry, while saying his own association with Greenpeace was above reproach.

If your position is that global warming skeptic scientists operate under guidance from industries opposing CO2 regulation, are you prepared to provide specific proof of improper payments to those scientists, and specific proof of faults in the scientists» resulting reports that are obvious indications of industry - guided science errors?

If those guys can't keep their accusation narratives straight, and something weird is happening in the way Gore is handling this, I'd think you guys would be more worried about how the public is being confused by the AGW promoters, not skeptic scientists and demand that this situation get straightened out before it gets out of hand.

We've swapped a centrally organized government effort to distort climate science for a kind of grassroots, guerilla war against it, driven by blogs and skeptic scientist amateurs who nourish a powerful sense of self - motivation, a generous helping of anger and outrage, and seem to smell blood in the water.

Hackney points to Dr Sherwood Idso as a great test case person when it comes to getting skeptic scientist experts rejected by the Daubert Standard, noting that.....

Check out this chart showing the interconnections of the most often cited skeptics scientists and groups such as the Heartland Institute, whose mandate is to fight anything that might lead to regulation.

A sledgehammer message if there ever was one: Nasty, greedy billionaire industrialists who hatched a plan to pay skeptic scientists associated with think tanks to lie to the public, and the hard evidence is that sinister - sounding «reposition global warming» phrase.

It's a major problem that the «industry - corrupted skeptic climate scientists are paid to lie» accusation has no evidence to support it, but now it appears the person widely credited with «discovering / exposing» that corruption is seen with significantly conflicting dates of when he actually started examining skeptic scientists.

In a nutshell, his narratives about the situation surrounding his attendance at the 1995 Minnesota Public Utilities hearings where skeptic scientists testified are crippled with unexplained contradictions.

Then we have Michael Mann's email from earlier in the month, October 2, 2003, in response to a UK reporter's inquiry about PhD skeptic scientists Sherwood and Craig Idso at the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, which he cc'd to Phil Jones:

Here, rather than having a written - out guest post, Dr Soon suggested I could place two videos featuring him, followed by a specific comment question he wants to pose to his accusers, along with a statement from a fellow skeptic scientist, Dr Richard Lindzen.

The most disturbing element is the collusion on how to stop skeptic scientists from getting papers accepted in peer - reviewed journals.

Climate modeler Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann's side kick on the RealClimate website, would only appear on John Stossel's show if there was no face to face debate and skeptic scientist Dr. Roy Spencer removed himself while Schmidt was on stage.

The invalid alarmist hypotheses, the more valid replacements for them, and the general views of alarmist and skeptic scientists towards them are as follows:

Western Fuels selected climate skeptic approaches with well - established skeptic scientist spokesmen as a balance to the deluge of alarmist publicity of the day.

Worse, from Gelbspan's various narratives, we could only guess he talked to scientists he didn't know, who advised him that skeptic scientists put out questionable science assessments and had unknown funding sources.

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.

What's one way to get the public to skip reading skeptic scientists» material?

The most that can be taken from the ’93 report is Western Fuels decided to become more familiar with the issue in 1989, they found Dr Singer in their research, and he offered some information that led them to other skeptic scientists.

Skeptic scientists dispute that in considerable detail now, and did so as far back as when Hackney wrote his essay.

But here, Hoggan says this was a friend naming a specific skeptic scientist, suggesting more directly that Dr Singer's funding was suspect.

Gelbspan's second career as an «investigative reporter» exposing the corruption of skeptic scientists began with his odyssey to the May 1995 Minnesota Public Utilities hearing where he «discovered» skeptic climate scientists were corrupted by industry money, and he earned worldwide praise and fame from a Western Fuels Association leaked memo set he «obtained» having a phrase «reposition global warming as theory rather than fact» in it.