Sentences with phrase «skeptic side»

There are many smart, informed people on the climate skeptic side of the debate (see here).

In examining his other repeated talking point about the psychological denial of the issue, it's hard to miss references to the «corrupted skeptic side.»

A lack of true curiosity plagues the fake skeptic side of things.

On the skeptic side I see many wanting to validate and verify all information and on the AGW (CO2) proponent side I see reasoning why validation and verification is not needed.

This is not unique to the skeptic side, of course.

I am hoping that your research and explanations reach further in the minds of the masses by perhaps writing a book or airing a documentary made by scientists; as the skeptic side has done, but mostly by misleading and inaccurate arguments.

But none of the rest of the post apparently, is dedicated to examining what the «other side» to the skeptic side promulgated here on this site, might be.

Hundreds of papers on the skeptic side of AGW?

Did I ever say Monckton was an embarrassment to the skeptic side?

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.

Personally I think now, more than ever, the «well oiled» hypocrisy of special industry intersts promoting and highjacking this «fake» debate on the skeptic side needs to get into the publics eye.

The Skeptic side is represented entirely by many scientists who are experts in climate and actively researching and publishing in that area.

That's the message I am getting from the skeptic side of the issue.

It can also be said there are some on the skeptic side you are the same.

Dr. Carter, like many other of the «celebrity figures» on the skeptic side of the CAGW issue, was a person who not only shared his time to his famous fellow skeptics, he also gave time to ordinary citizens.

You have to laugh at that «peer reviewer» who rejected Professor Bengtsson's paper because it might bolster the «oversimplified claims» of the skeptic side.

Such an action would have seemingly indicated that there were no concerned readers wanting to steer him to the skeptic side among all those readers of his Washington Post piece, thus the skeptics must have not been very persuasive at the time.

The skeptic side of the blogosphere is all agog over the academic investigation into Charles Monnett, the man of drowning polar bear fame.

I'm fully aware of the IPCC side, and I've seen the skeptic side, and if you haven't figured it out yet, the only thing I ask is how the contradictions are to be resolved.

Are you actually criticizing the skeptic side of attempting to «exercise political authority in science?»

As for the latter yes there are more duds that there should be, but a high proportion of them are on the skeptic side.