The phrase
"skeptical scientists" refers to scientific researchers or experts who have doubts or questions about a particular idea or claim. These scientists may not easily accept new information or theories without substantial evidence or proof. They trust in the scientific method of investigation and require strong evidence to change their beliefs.
Full definition
In some countries this
means skeptical scientists are frozen out by the sort of self - selected true - believers one would expect to find in government departments focused on the environment.
Every
serious skeptical scientist has been consistently saying essentially the same thing for over 20 years, yet most people have never heard the message.
Not only do journalists not have a responsibility to report
what skeptical scientists have to say about global warming, they have a responsibility not to report what these scientists say.
While examining these arguments
from skeptical scientists, something quickly becomes apparent: many of the arguments are contradictory.
The amicus curiae provided by CEI
include skeptical scientists Sallie Baliunas, John Christy, Christopher de Freitas, David Legates, Anthony R. Lupo, Patrick Michaels, Joel Schwartz, and Roy Spencer.
Its goal was to get coverage
for skeptical scientists, and such coverage was effective, as Gelbspan first learned in 1995, after co-writing an article with an IPCC physician on how global warming would affect the spread of disease.
Several skeptical scientists picked apart the general consensus of their peers, who say humans are warming the Earth at an unprecedented pace.
On Monday, the National Academy of Sciences disassociated itself from the most recent effort to drum up support
among skeptical scientists.
Grijalva's letter targets universities where noted
skeptical scientists work, including MIT's Dr. Richard Lindzen, Georgia Tech's Dr. Judith Curry, Colorado's Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. and the University of Alabama's John Christy and Roy Spencer.
-- Groups, such as Heartland, gathered and published data and reports that contradicted the IPCC «consensus» CAGW position and held climate conferences of their own,
where skeptical scientists could present their findings.
Luckily,
skeptical scientists rejected the «Biblical invisible demon theory» and pinned it on microscopic but visible physical realities called GERMS.
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley About 18 months ago, as soon as I heard of Dr. Richard Müller's Berkeley Earth Temperature project, I sent an email to several
skeptical scientists drawing their attention to his statement that he considered his team's attempt to verify how much «global warming» had occurred since 1750 to be one of the most important pieces of research ever to be conducted in the history of science.
Like a simple parlor trick, the networks are able to
make skeptical scientists vanish, at least from the eyes of their viewers.
Neutral and
skeptical scientists frequently used the word «uncertainties» out of politeness, when referring to dubious methods and errors in the works of practitioners, associated with alarmism.
They conferred awards and recognition on each other,
excluded skeptical scientists from «peer reviews» of one another's papers, and conspired to blackball editors who permitted the publication of professional papers by Sallie Baliunas, Willie Soon, Patrick Michaels, Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer and other climate experts whose work challenged the Mann - made global warming disaster thesis.
Today, decades later, the climate science establishment is still whacking away, faster and more frenetically than ever, as more and
more skeptical scientists, journalists and politicians surface.