Sentences with phrase «take on the climate skeptic»

Joe Romm gives his take on the climate skeptic blog «Watts Up With That?»

Whether he's taking on climate skeptics or vouching for a cap - and - dividend system, Hansen is as outspoken a scientist as they come.

Not exact matches

Former South Carolina Republican congressman Bob Inglis, who once scoffed at climate change, overcame a humiliating defeat by deciding to take on skeptics within his party.

Intelligent Design and climate change «skeptics» are both political takes on science.

«Blogging on controversial issues, going on television to talk about climate, or taking on skeptics is not for everybody,» Oppenheimer said.

To illustrate the shenanigans of self - styled «climate skeptics», take for example the following graph, which has been circulating for a while on climate denier websites.

From the context and the linked article, I take this to mean that your «job» was to inform the public that the only respectable discussions on climate change were going on between the «reasonable» AGW believers (you, in this case), and the extreme AGW believers — cutting out the skeptics completely.

Maybe if we could take all the skeptics / deniers into near earth orbit and let them have that same profound moment we could actually make some headway on the climate change predicament we are in.

When scientists and advocates, motivated by these biased perceptions, take action by responding with tit - for - tat attacks on climate skeptics, it takes energy and effort away from offering a positive message and engagement campaign that builds public support for climate action and instead feeds a downward spiral of «war» and conflict rhetoric that appears as just more ideological rancor to the wider public.

I've read the climate sensitivity papers written by Stephen Schwartz, who is taken to be a skeptic by many who comment on this blog.

Scientists do have better things to do with their time than answer questions raised on climate skeptic blogs, and as a result, you will only generally be assured of a climate change paper taking a stance on the cause of the change if the subject of the paper is an attribution study.

Now, the whole point of this bet may be to take money from skeptics who don't bother to educate themselves on climate and believe Rush Limbaugh or whoever that there has never been any change in world temperatures.

A climate skeptic who is stopped in traffic on a state highway just after passing a blind corner, who sees a car in the rear view mirror coming around that corner at high speed and desperately braking to avoid a collision, would refuse to extrapolate that car's velocity at impact and therefore would take no action to avoid the inevitable collision.

«Ever since climate change took center stage at the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro, Pat Michaels and Robert Balling, together with Sherwood Idso, S. Fred Singer, Richard S. Lindzen, and a few other high - profile greenhouse skeptics have proven extraordinarily adept at draining the issue of all sense of crisis.

Today we have one of Germany's most prestigious science associations actively backing adolescent - level attacks on skeptics who have decided not to take part in collective climate hysteria.

If he thinks the challenge is «for policymakers to take action on climate change» then he is indeed talking about getting around the skeptics.

Regarding Nisbet and getting around skeptics, his closing line is «Part of the challenge in creating the incentives for policymakers to take action on climate change and to address the issue in a serious way is to accurately communicate about the nature of public opinion.»

People have every right to take issue with the inane and offensive things you have said on blogs, your innuendo, your unsubstantiated claims, and your uncritical and unskeptical acceptance of all sundry of accusations put forth by so - called «skeptics» against climate scientists.

And, if you think it's bad here, you might take a day and pose as an advocate for action on climate change on sites like WUWT, JoNova, Curry, or any of the many other lightly or unmoderated «skeptic» sites.

But the next question is, considering how Gelbspan's «evidence» supposedly proving industry executives paid skeptic climate scientists to be part of an orchestrated disinformation effort is actually an accusation built on a foundation of sand, how long will it take for the Casten campaign to erase Gelbspan's endorsement entirely?

The latter situation certainly takes on the appearance of a media strategy effort to marginalize skeptic climate scientists in the eyes of the public.

Take the case of Freeman Dyson, who ranks high on the list of climate skeptics.