Sentences with phrase «skeptical comments on»

Not exact matches

On Thursday it happened again, and this time the spark appeared to be some skeptical comments from a prominent industry analyst, who said that the entire industry is «structurally impaired.»

Her past comments on inflation aren't explosive, but they're enough for skeptical senators to conclude, correctly, that she's more worried about unemployment and less worried about inflation risks than recent chairs.

I was skeptical to make it since no one had left a comment and I was planning on bringing it to a non-paleo brunch.

The skeptical comments fly in the face of the message of the popular #MeToo movement — focused on believing women when they say they've been harassed and assaulted and pushing back against accusations that women make up such claims for attention or other supposed benefits.

Its easy to come on here and be skeptical thinking heres another person just trying to «cash in» but unless you have actually tried and tested this lifestyle (this is not a quick fix diet) then you cant speak from experience, This book is helping many people read the comments on here and if your not a supporter of this lifestyle why do nt you join a high carb or low fat forum your in the wrong place!

Will, Okay, I understand, but the burden of proof is on you as well and I am skeptical of the comments YOU make!

I like that they've taken an interesting narrative approach, though skeptical on its execution given Alan's comments.

And Chris» periodic phone calls to his hilariously skeptical black friend at home (LilRel Howery) are like a merry - prankster Greek chorus commenting on the whole get - the - hell - out - of - the - houseness of Chris» situation.

# 110 (Hank Roberts), as you can see from the previous comments on this topic, the reference to Lockwood 2001 was provided by Skeptical Science, and not by people that one might refer to as skeptics.

But the newly obtained documents show that Dr. Carlin's highly skeptical views on global warming, which have been known for more than a decade within the small unit where he works, have been repeatedly challenged by scientists inside and outside the E.P.A.; that he holds a doctorate in economics, not in atmospheric science or climatology; that he has never been assigned to work on climate change; and that his comments on the endangerment finding were a product of rushed and at times shoddy scholarship, as he acknowledged Thursday in an interview.

So Mr. Lambert puts in this skeptical view based on this research, BUT fails to ALSO comment whether CO2 has an equally significant ELECTRICAL significance, and, hence, has a dependant relationship with the cosmic ray flux.

I thought I'd just try to tie together a few of the comments from the more «skeptical» of the commentators on this subject.

Or search on Skeptical Science (in case you didn't know, there's now a freely available iPhone app: — RRB - If there's no direct answer, find the closest topic and post a comment asking for answers.

Posted in Other Advocates, Research Blogging, tagged AGU, ben santer, bill mckibben, climate change, education, environment, gavin schmidt, global warming, james hansen, john cook, michael mann, michael tobis, physics today, richard sommerville, science, skeptical science, stephen schneider, susan joy hassol on December 12, 2011 2 Comments»

3 The exact Start date / time and End date / time for the Content Analysis performed on the comments at Skeptical Science.

Treat «skeptical» viewpoints as if they are monolithic (by claiming that almost no «skeptics» believe as you do despite abundant evidence to the contrary on the very same blogs where they comment.

I welcome feedback, but on any articles recently published at Skeptical Science, I would urge anyone to comment there; your comment will be more widely read and there's a much better chance of getting a reply there should you have questions.

Then, when McIntyre left a comment on my blog, the immediate response from others was to ask why he didn't criticize Wegman or other faulty or misleading «skeptical» analyses.

In the meantime, and for some time now, the comments on Black's blog have been becoming increasingly skeptical and mocking which is why the BBC has decided to reduce them to mega-tweet size.

Posted in Media and the Public, tagged antarctica, climate change, credibility, debate, denial, education, environment, global warming, greenhouse effect, greenland, IPCC, lindzen, media, michaels, politics, s. fred singer, science, skeptic, skeptical science on August 4, 2011 13 Comments»

A reader recently asked my opinion about this post at Skeptical Science, which is a comment on Ambaum 2010, Significance Tests in Climate Science, J. Climate, doi: 10.1175 / 2010JCLI3746.1.

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).

Adding to Dana's @ 43, on at least one occassion when a noted «skeptical» climate scientist did comment at SkS, it became very clear that he was only interested in airing his talking points rather than engaging in genuine discussion.

But to be fair, there are a lot of «skeptical» commenters who are flat - out trolls (look at the comments on my Guardian posts and how many the moderators are forced to delete for violating the guidelines, for example).

Although his comment suggested such, I doubt that he really believes that individual commenters here were responding because something had been «deemed urgent» by some unspecified «deemers,» and, (2) it seems to me that you might be drawing conclusions from Lewandowsky's research that (assuming you find his research methodology to be valid — which some seem to question) are not supported by the evidence he offered: Evidence that informs the question of whether conspiracy ideation is relatively more prevalent on the «skeptical» side than the «realist» side.

The Comments Policy here at Skeptical Science mandates civility and a focus on the science.

In the continuing quest to find excellent descriptions of the greenhouse effect, Eli has come across J.S. Sawyers Nature article from 1972, Man Made Carbon Dioxide and the Greenhouse Effect, which was commented on by Skeptical Science and warehoused (bunnies can read it there) by the Weasel.

Nevertheless, the notion that removed stations is causing spurious warming continues to be repeated throughout the blogosphere (and often in comments here on Skeptical Science).

The thousands of comments a week on these skeptical blogs represent a vast opportunity cost as Al Gore tutored activists continue to blanket news sites with comments, often only opposed by amateur hour skeptics who are readily shot down.

I pointed out the Goddard / Marcott analogy on the 24th, twice, and was roundly attacked for it since my name isn't McIntyre, attacked for my nefarious motives that are merely to strongly shun mistakes, outlandish conspiracy theories and outspoken crackpot comments on mainstream skeptical blogs that afford the usual hockey stick team members newfound media attention with very lasting damage to skepticism and also strongly hinder my ability to reach out to reasonable people who are strongly averse to extremism as nearly all normal people happen to be for very good reason.

Delingpole was on first and gave a typical performance stuffed to the gills with strawman arguments and many «usual suspect» talking points that we have debunked beyond death here at Skeptical Science - «no warming since 1997», of course, plus a few throwaway comments about yoghourt - weavers and eco-loons, accompanied by much spirited heckling.

If you go to Roger Pielke Sr.'s blog, you can see that Roger (a prominent skeptic and a big advocate of measuring global warming through OHC) relied on Josh Willis for the latest information on the subject and even has forwarded comments from skeptical blogs about ARGO data.

he has commented on other skeptical arguments which he accepts.

If you want to continue commenting on the Skeptical Science site, you'll need to respond substantively to the original posts and to other commenters» responses to you.

Finally, commenting at Skeptical Science works best if you first limit the scope of your comment to that of the thread on which you post your comment and then follow up on those threads to see what respondents have said in response to you.

If you feel there is a problem with an article on Skeptical Science then post a comment on the relevant thread with supportive citations.

While I'd like to think that posting a generic spam comment, on a post that recommends against this very practice, must be a joke, I am skeptical.