Sentences with phrase «skeptics blogs out»

There are many skeptics blogs out there, but I didn't see enough science on them for my tastes.

Not exact matches

Ah, yes but on skeptic blogs you'll find these seemingly reasonable people who think it's legitimate to debate whether or not it's cold enough in Antarctica ot make CO2 snow out of the air.

Blogs of those variously called climate realists / skeptics / deniers are hammering on the chilly conditions, presumably in hopes of fending off a new push to close out the climate bill in the Senate.

That blog was pointed out by a friend as being a skeptic blog worth watching.

It is somehow unsurprising that your sources for «climategate» are a series of cherry - picked, out of context quotes from one of the British tabloids that hyped the faux scandal in the first place, and a «skeptic» blog.

I've seen skeptics both on and off the blogs make some pretty ridiculous statements as well, but that doesn't lead me to believe anyone questioning the IPCC does so out of fear of a One World Government.

Then we can also assume that you would expect every «skeptic» blog out there to make similar qualifications every single time they mention the «pause.»

Reporters need to actively ferret out these problems on a weekly basis rather than waiting until climate skeptics and blogs discover them and blow their significance out of proportion.

I've already detailed critical problems with Gelbspan's narratives about his «discovery of skeptic corruption odyssey» in my January 22, 2014 and May 9, 2014 blog posts, regarding the way he supposedly found out that skeptic climate scientists were «paid industry money to lie», and regarding the questionably short time frame in which this took place.

One of the first «out» climate skeptics was an Australian named John Daly — who believed, probably correctly, that climate change has a lot more to do with solar activity and multi-decadal cycles than with CO2 — and maintained a blog which became a magnet for the climate resistance.

Amusingly the blog denizens who are in the habit of contradicting climate skeptics get just as dismissive when ocean oscillations are pointed out to them as the skeptics do when the big rise in CO2 and temperature over the past half century is pointed out to them.

You can see the general idea of BEST laid out in a blog comment made by me (at Lucias) to a question asked by Judith; What do skeptics want to see.

On AGW skeptical blogs, however, just as is the case on conspiracy theory blogs of any kind (e.g. vaccination, moon landing, 9/11), it seems like there is a tacit agreement between fellow skeptics, and also the blog host, never to point out that an idea is flat out wrong or an argument flat out illogical so long as it purports to refute the «official» account.

Yes, it's true — skeptical, legitimate climate scientists like the ones who run this site have been very frustrated by the deliberately deceitful pseudoscience, outright lies — and most recently vicious personal attacks against them — that have been cranked out for the last couple of decades by fossil fuel industry - funded frauds and cranks and given unwarranted legitimacy by the mass media, and regurgitated ad nauseum on blogs everywhere by Ditto - Heads who unquestioningly believe whatever drivel is spoon - fed to them by the phony «conservative» media, and call themselves «skeptics» for doing so.

Not that this post has anything to do with the various ad hominems tossed at the skeptics, but it seems that comparing climate skepticism to other forms of anti-science cranks and medical quacks seems to be the [not so subtle] M.O. of one blog over at Science Blogs [even if they don't go out of their way to actually make that comparison, having it on their list is enough to give one that impression]: http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/

9/15/16: Although seemingly out - of - sight - out - of - mind from this fellow's blog for months at the time of November 2015, I still was living rent - free in his mind so much that he felt compelled to mention my name while offering some spin on what constitutes «evidence» proving skeptic climate scientists were corrupted by industry money.

And whereas Jones made his remark in a «private» e-mail, this «skeptic» did so on a blog that anyone could read, out in the open, with the explicit goal that people would be able to see this.