Sentences with phrase «skeptics like so»

Besides, warmists can perfectly debunk that claim about no increase in the nonsensical «global temperature» fake skeptics like so much.

Not exact matches

That may be why WeWork has a tech - level valuation of $ 20 billion — though skeptics question whether it should be treated like a tech company, given that real estate is so integral to its main product.

All the skeptics out there reading this, you obviously like to read so why don't you go do some real research and read the Bible to get information about Christianity or ask The Creator, God Almighty Himself.

I'm a skeptic, so I don't trust anything that relies upon «gut feelings» like a belief in God does.

Young skeptics like me long to deconstruct old notions of truth, salvation, faith, and doubt, and in doing so, we have developed ideas that can easily be described as «subtle differences or distinctions in expression, meaning, or response,» or «very slight differences or variation in color or tone.»

I've never been a skeptic, never been disillusioned with the Church or Christianity like I am now, and I've never struggled with cynicism about the Christian culture, so it all feels new and foreign and terrifying, like I don't know where this is coming from or who I am becoming in the process.

And they are not merely «trying marriage on» either, which doesn't work anyway, as Susan Pease Gadoua and I detail in The New I Do: Reshaping Marriage for Skeptics, Realists and Rebels; cohabitation is viewed as second - tier to the «real thing» so you can't live together and experience what being married is like.

Ok so I am a huge skeptic of things like this that I call hippie dippie.

I am not a scientist, so I don't know how an educated skeptic would respond to the book, but it was persuasive to me, especially the arguments for giving up grains and eating nutrient - dense foods like eggs.

So, if you are looking to start with online dating and want to know how to put your best foot forward, here is what you should do: Are you aware that there are... Online Dating Skeptic But for the skeptic, it seems like a bit of a dubious concept... The research was divided Read Skeptic But for the skeptic, it seems like a bit of a dubious concept... The research was divided Read skeptic, it seems like a bit of a dubious concept... The research was divided Read More...

Whether it's a complete seafood spread at Sjömagasinet, seasonal oysters & champagne at Restaurant Atelier, or a creative twist on a Swedish classic in contemporary settings like SK Mat & Människor and Mr. P, the food is so fresh it will satisfy even the most skeptic of seafood connoisseurs.

I think the skeptics, at least over the past five years or so, were proven right with regard to the artists who are making abstract paintings that are perfect for the way they are consumed: They make a lot of them, there's a green one and a blue one and a pink one, and you can collect them all like toys in a Cracker Jack box, which is what they're all about.

The skeptic in me says «nothing like a bit of censorship to get the word out, for free» but the old conservative man in me says «tone down the come - hither look and nobody would have a problem with it» (just so we're clear, I'm not old or conservative, I don't sit in any boxes).

Skeptics like Michaels, McIntyre, Idso, Lindzen, Singer, etc. are politicising science so they can continue to get work.

Unfortunately for «skeptics» like Victor, ENSO does not generate heat, it only moves heat around, which is the reason the 1998 spike above the trend line was so short lived.

The reason progressives constantly obscure the meaning of terms like skeptic, «global warming,» «AGW» (when you mean CAGW), is so you can convert your political opinions into «science,» and then falsely label your political opponents as anti-science.

But their PNAS publication also referred to natural climate cycles, superimposed on the trend line, like ENSO and solar variability, both of which have been net contributors to global cooling over 1998 - 2008 [so climate skeptics can not — as they still do — point to either the Sun or El Niño to explain the world's temperature graph over that period of time].

So, from the point of view of a full blow skeptic, this can look like it was «conveniently picked», because of the timing.

So anyone who does not agree with Man - made carbon driving weather is referred to as a «Climate Skeptic» however a great name for someone who does believe in this new religion you could call a «Climate Synoptic» just like a bad weather chart (Synoptic) they get it wrong so many timeSo anyone who does not agree with Man - made carbon driving weather is referred to as a «Climate Skeptic» however a great name for someone who does believe in this new religion you could call a «Climate Synoptic» just like a bad weather chart (Synoptic) they get it wrong so many timeso many times.

Like I said, skeptics won't like that glaciers are contributing so much to sea - level rise, so congratulations on taking the consensus side (if that is what you intendLike I said, skeptics won't like that glaciers are contributing so much to sea - level rise, so congratulations on taking the consensus side (if that is what you intendlike that glaciers are contributing so much to sea - level rise, so congratulations on taking the consensus side (if that is what you intended).

So no need to appeal to the usual, debunked «skeptic» talking points about urban heat island effects and the like, in order to explain lack of amplification over land.

If «skeptics» would like to become more involved, then why shouldn't the onus be on them to work out how to do so?

So in the jaundiced eyes of CAGW truebelievers like yourself, Joshua, what does a «skeptic» need to do to be a plain skeptic?

The media like their ABC refuse to have so called skeptics on their media to argue any points.

When I follow the money it looks like the Mississippi River flowing to the consensus side and my dog's piddle running to the skeptics, so I guess that is your way of saying we need to investigate the consensus side.

Joshua, go learn the science so you, like me, can dismiss the silly things andy says about skeptics and focus on the science.

It has already been pointed out that if he in the same article speaks about something like skeptics in such an incredibly ignorant fashion, why should his science be any less so?

Like you I am a global warming skeptic and am so glad to finally have someone as President who thinks the way I do but globally the people have been brainwashed into thinking that Global Warming is the biggest threat to humanity there has ever been.

Cato's Pat Michaels is certainly qualified to run the Red Team, but he is a lukewarmer so I might like a true skeptic to co-chair.

Certainly AGW skeptics were «encouraged» by the solar minimum, and there was much talk of a «rapid global cooling» and the like, but from a GCMperspective with AGW factored in, there is no way this was going to happen, and the warmth of 2010 is is not so remarkable at all.

The above «Climate of Doubt» program qualifies as such with its blatant insinuation about skeptics corrupted by illicit money, as does its prior 2008 program «Heat», in which only unidentified skeptic scientists were shown while the narrator said «Not only have big oil companies not invested much in renewables, but for years they were among the largest contributors to so - called climate change denier groups, groups like the Heartland Institute, the organizer of this 2008 convention.»

Personal attacks on «skeptics» like me began as evidence failed to support the claim that human CO2 was causing global warming and we persisted in saying so.

So, let's see, when we (those defending the AGW theory) note that, of the small minority of scientists on the skeptic side making discredited arguments, many if not most seem to have quite direct connections to right - wing or libertarian organizations like the Cato Institute or the George C. Marshall Fund or with the fossil fuel (especially coal) industry, we are derided as engaging in «ad hominem» attacks and so fortSo, let's see, when we (those defending the AGW theory) note that, of the small minority of scientists on the skeptic side making discredited arguments, many if not most seem to have quite direct connections to right - wing or libertarian organizations like the Cato Institute or the George C. Marshall Fund or with the fossil fuel (especially coal) industry, we are derided as engaging in «ad hominem» attacks and so fortso forth.

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.

I see conspiratorial ideation expressed quite often by my much beloved «skeptics» here at Climate Etc. — so I don't really feel like I need Lewandowsky's evidence to support such a conclusion, but: (1) I think that while it is often expressed, it is likely that such expressions of conspiratorial ideation are often only skin deep — and that if you probed more deeply, you'd find that it was mostly back - slapping, yuk - it - up rhetorical hyperbole of the sort we saw from NW in this thread.

It looked like James Cameron really was a man of his word who would get to take on the skeptics he felt were so endangering humanity.

I think you'll find as most skeptics (like my self) have that you'll get a much better level of balanced discussion on so called «skeptic» blogs than you will on so called «warmist» (i.e. pro-AGW) blogs / forums.

Tie this all together, and what we have is Gelbspan's central bit of «evidence» not proving a sinister industry directive exists where skeptic climate scientists are paid to lie, and the collective narratives about what led him to investigate skeptics has too short of a timeline to be feasible, with details so inconsistent that it looks more like a fabrication hiding the true details of the entire situation.

But (and when a comment starts like this there is always a «but»), while as a conservative and skeptic I find it odd to be defending anything the Hockey Team has to say, I must confess that I don't think your post can be taken as anything other than a statement that the individuals involved in hiding the decline, were dishonest in doing so.

Among the public it looks like roughly half who have an opinion are skeptics, so still not a rearguard, but not a majority either.

But the skeptics and lukewarmers do themselves no favors by making it harder for them to ever do so by attaching emotionally - loaded words like «dishonest» in describing them.

I used to have doubts about AGW because I heard so many skeptics, but now that they've dropped their masks and are trying to move in for the kill I see that the whole thing is just like the evolution «debate».

Apparantly the IPCC like type I more than Type II so as to not appear to alarmist in order to offend the climate skeptics.

So that would include skeptics like Dr. Curry and you would want to know about any potential financial conflict of interest?

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.

Like I said before skeptics tend to confuse hypotheses, because they are so stuck on seeing everything through the lens of wanting to deny AGW.

So, imply the «reposition global warming» phrase is proof of skeptic climate scientists» guilt while failing to explain precisely how, and it only ends up looking like slick propaganda no matter which way you try to push it.

However, there are skeptics, who can't believe what is happening can have inputs from weather technologies, so exaggerated in capabilities they just may result in bankrupting governments, economies and financial systems, and severely limiting resources like food, water, and shelter for months!

(A skeptic might say that's like robbing from the not - so - rich to give to the poor.)

I was a bit skeptic about this update because that i repaired my phone from the offcial store and then it dosent have the Mali T830 MP3 but instead its MALI T830 so please reply to me whats the diffrents It feels like my phone is a bit slower now I do nt know if i downloaded to many apps or was it intentionel