Sentences with phrase «skeptic scientists put»

Not exact matches

Given that skeptics, taken as a whole, put forward a nearly infinite variety of often conflicting and contradictory beliefs regarding global warming and climate science, exactly what is a climate scientist supposed to agree with?

The physics behind it is now solid thanks to the decades of work of many different scientists, and despite the first highly respected skeptic ever who put the CO2 theory on hold for half a century.

If I'm dead wrong and skeptic scientists will be exposed as pushing industry - fabricated drivel, then you should not be shunning such public debate, you'd be demanding it in order to put the situation permanently six feet under.

Well the problem with that is that many of arguments put forth by skeptics (e.g. the greenhouse effect is thermodynamically impossible) requires the collusion of many many scientists outside of climate science.

People have every right to take issue with the inane and offensive things you have said on blogs, your innuendo, your unsubstantiated claims, and your uncritical and unskeptical acceptance of all sundry of accusations put forth by so - called «skeptics» against climate scientists.

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.

What I think is lost on those skeptics who read the IPCC selectively is that no AGW would not be a black swan to most climate scientists: to put it in reference to probability distributions for the climate sensitivity, every serious climate scientist has a probability distribution with some density at 0.

Let me put it another way — would you rather have a body vetted scientists outing and then explaining errors in AR4, or would you rather have the skeptics do it?