Sentences with phrase «than a climate change denier»

In this, of course, he is at odds with the vast majority of the world's climate scientists, so he probably would more accurately be called a climate science denier rather than a climate change denier.

«Words uncovered by our analysis suggest that responses to climate change news are predominately from climate change activists rather than climate change deniers,» the authors write in the study, «indicating that Twitter is a valuable resource for the spread of climate change awareness.»

Not exact matches

Between 2004 and 2010, the partner group Donors Capital Fund, provided more than $ 28 million in funding ($ 28,490,862) to 75 groups that deny the scientific realities of climate change.

They are worse than holding society back, these deniers are same who deny climate change, and change public policy to detriment of all.

A second, linked rumour was that Aronofsky would replace the sin and judgement message of the story with an environmental tract, and while his pre-flood humanity's mistreatment of creation is a pointed nod at modern climate change deniers, it doesn't go further than that.

Predictions that climate change alone could lead to the extinction of more than one - fifth of plant and animal species before the end of the century have often come under fire, and not just from climate - change deniers.

«And more than just deny it, his policies would make climate change worse.»

«If you're wondering why so many politicians and news sources deny that dangerous human - caused climate change is real, and you want a relatively short and easy - to - read summary of the issue, look no further than The Madhouse Effect»

In this day and age, admitting you adopted (or, more correctly, purchased) a pedigree dog with a known history, rather than a shelter dog in need, is akin to denying climate change, smoking or publicly declaring that you miss having plastic grocery bags in Los Angeles.

Nothing that you list there is anything other than points that are repeatedly recycled by climate change deniers.

I don't think anyone denies that the sun matters for climate, but the question is whether the variability of the sun in recent history has had the impact that we project from greenhouse gases over the next 100 — and there, I think, a majority of your «AGW» ers» would think the evidence suggests that changes in human forcing will likely be several times (at least) larger than any solar variability we've seen in a thousand years or more.

There is no denying that the arctic is melting at a record - setting pace and that this is related to global warming and climate change, but Box is pursuing a theory that soot from wildfires and burning coal in power plants is making Greenland's glaciers melt even faster than they would because of global warming alone.

I'm not a climate change denier, and I can see that a fast rise in acidity in the ocean is much worse than a slower rise because a slower rise might give sea creatures time to adapt evolutionarily.

For climate change, the researchers conducted an experiment to examine why more Republicans than Democrats seem to deny its existence, despite strong scientific evidence that supports it.

The» top ten» arguments employed by the relatively few deniers with credentials in any aspect of climate - change science (which arguments include «the sun is doing it», «Earth's climate was changing before there were people here», «climate is changing on Mars but there are no SUVs there», «the Earth hasn't been warming since 1998», «thermometer records showing heating are contaminated by the urban - heat - island effect», «satellite measurements show cooling rather than warming») have all been shown in the serious scientific literature to be wrong or irrelevant, but explaining their defects requires at least a paragraph or two for each one.

Speaking only for myself, I have never denied climate change and in fact accept it as the norm rather than the exception.

The letter portends to offer facts about «climate change deniers, but readers can't even get further than the first paragraph without running into an unsupportable talking point about skeptic climate scientists saying global warming «isn't happening / happening, but for natural reasons / happening and caused by humans, but it's not so bad.»

While deniers can easily post something calling into question the scientific consensus on climate change, not a single refereed article in more than a decade has sought to refute it.

«While the federal government abdicates its responsibility on climate change, governors do not have the luxury of denying a scientific reality, and it is more important than ever for states to take collective, common sense action,» Governor Cuomo said.

And we should see in Monbiot's appeal to «psychologists and cognitive linguists» precisely the same impulse as the one that drove Stephan Lewandowsky et al to take issue with the structure of climate change deniers» brains, rather than their argument.

And in addition, think about all the wasted energy the «climate community» spent mitigating the impact of «deniers,» when «skeptics» could have helped out by listening more carefully to the «climate community,» and trying to understand «the climate community's» arguments, and adding to progress on increasing our understanding of the causes of climate variability and change — rather than apologizing or ignoring the input from scientists like Fred Singer — who deliberately lifts a conditional clause from a larger sentence, divorces it completely from context, and creates a fraudulent quotation in order to deliberately deceive, or Ross McKitrick who slanders other scientists on purely speculative conclusions about their motivations, or guest - posters at WUWT who call BEST «media whores,» or the long line of denizens at Climate Etc. who falsely claim that the «climate community» ignores all uncertainties towards the goal of serving a socialist, eco-Nazi agenda to destroy capiclimate community» spent mitigating the impact of «deniers,» when «skeptics» could have helped out by listening more carefully to the «climate community,» and trying to understand «the climate community's» arguments, and adding to progress on increasing our understanding of the causes of climate variability and change — rather than apologizing or ignoring the input from scientists like Fred Singer — who deliberately lifts a conditional clause from a larger sentence, divorces it completely from context, and creates a fraudulent quotation in order to deliberately deceive, or Ross McKitrick who slanders other scientists on purely speculative conclusions about their motivations, or guest - posters at WUWT who call BEST «media whores,» or the long line of denizens at Climate Etc. who falsely claim that the «climate community» ignores all uncertainties towards the goal of serving a socialist, eco-Nazi agenda to destroy capiclimate community,» and trying to understand «the climate community's» arguments, and adding to progress on increasing our understanding of the causes of climate variability and change — rather than apologizing or ignoring the input from scientists like Fred Singer — who deliberately lifts a conditional clause from a larger sentence, divorces it completely from context, and creates a fraudulent quotation in order to deliberately deceive, or Ross McKitrick who slanders other scientists on purely speculative conclusions about their motivations, or guest - posters at WUWT who call BEST «media whores,» or the long line of denizens at Climate Etc. who falsely claim that the «climate community» ignores all uncertainties towards the goal of serving a socialist, eco-Nazi agenda to destroy capiclimate community's» arguments, and adding to progress on increasing our understanding of the causes of climate variability and change — rather than apologizing or ignoring the input from scientists like Fred Singer — who deliberately lifts a conditional clause from a larger sentence, divorces it completely from context, and creates a fraudulent quotation in order to deliberately deceive, or Ross McKitrick who slanders other scientists on purely speculative conclusions about their motivations, or guest - posters at WUWT who call BEST «media whores,» or the long line of denizens at Climate Etc. who falsely claim that the «climate community» ignores all uncertainties towards the goal of serving a socialist, eco-Nazi agenda to destroy capiclimate variability and change — rather than apologizing or ignoring the input from scientists like Fred Singer — who deliberately lifts a conditional clause from a larger sentence, divorces it completely from context, and creates a fraudulent quotation in order to deliberately deceive, or Ross McKitrick who slanders other scientists on purely speculative conclusions about their motivations, or guest - posters at WUWT who call BEST «media whores,» or the long line of denizens at Climate Etc. who falsely claim that the «climate community» ignores all uncertainties towards the goal of serving a socialist, eco-Nazi agenda to destroy capiClimate Etc. who falsely claim that the «climate community» ignores all uncertainties towards the goal of serving a socialist, eco-Nazi agenda to destroy capiclimate community» ignores all uncertainties towards the goal of serving a socialist, eco-Nazi agenda to destroy capitalism.

I denied climate change for longer than I care to admit.

That sounds pretty progressive, and is certainly greener than the position of EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, who has explicitly denied the «broad scientific and policy consensus» on climate change.

None other than Monty Python legend Eric Idle asked where deniers like Roberts come from and how they get elected, adding that their denial of climate change is a danger to us all.

Their work seems, consistently, to be representative of their Global Warming denier board member Don Blankenship rather than members like Nike, who have issued strong statements about climate change.

«For the remainder of this paper, I will use the term «denier» rather than skeptic to describe the active social movement members as it best describes a category of constituents who do not believe that climate change is happening, as opposed to just being doubtful.»

We don't get any closer to science by denying the significant possibility that we are causing significantly adverse changes in climate than we do by the ridiculous assertion that we understand the chaotic complexity of climate well enough to say with certainty how many parts per millions of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will lead to how many degrees of global warming.

Acknowledging an embarrassing mistake in its August 7 front - page article, the New York Times — in what appears to be an attempt at fear - mongering rather than producing news — was forced to revise a part of an article aimed at casting the Donald Trump administration in a climate change - denying light for supposedly suppressing a report detailing man - made climate change.

I would have as many disagreements discussing climate change with a «denier» as I would with a firm believer in CAGW or someone who shares my general beliefs but is a firm believer in the precautionary principle which roughly states the even if the science is not settled, we should treat CAGW as a real threat and focus on preventing it rather than living with it.

This is why the climate change deniers or even those who admit to climate change but see more benefits than detriments from the change are not considered just wrong but Bad.

These external ones can affect long - term climate, and things like the MWP and LIA could be responses to those rather than ocean circulation changes (most skeptics would not deny this).

None of the funds made available to the Environmental Protection Agency by this division or any other Act may be expended for purposes of enforcing or promulgating any regulation (other than with respect to section 202 of the Clean Air Act) or order, taking action relating to, or denying approval of state implementation plans or permits because of the emissions of greenhouse gases due to concerns regarding possible climate change.

The Philadelphia Inquirer reported, «In the high - stakes conflict over U.S. climate - change policy, groups that deny or cast doubt on global warming brought in $ 7.2 million from 2003 to 2010... «Powerful funders are supporting the campaign to deny scientific findings about global warming,» reported Robert J. Brulle...» In the eighth paragraph, the Inquirer noted the response by James Taylor of the Heartland Institute, who observed that many of the groups «support other causes as well» and, in some cases, spend «less than 10 percent of their funding... on climate - related efforts.»

However, in this culture of transparency where climate scientists describe degrees of certainty and confidence in their findings, climate change deniers have linked less than complete certainty with not knowing anything.

Lewandowsky's work unwittingly demonstrates that what is passed off as peer - reviewed and published «science», even in today's world, is no more scientific than the worst ramblings of the least qualified and nuttiest climate change denier on the internet.

A Llyod's of London global survey of corporate executives regarding risks their companies face in 2013 ranked «climate change» as one of the smallest risks, just less than «ocean pirate» risk and a bit more than «space weather» risk... (Ramez Naam denies this)

Exxon has also given $ 1.8 million in campaign contributions since 2007 to more than 100 members of Congress who deny climate change, such as Texas Senators Ted Cruz and John Cornyn.

To be honest I think this is less of a problem than people simply ignoring / denying Anthromorphic climate change because they don't like and they don't understand the arguments about it!

There is also no doubt that climate change deniers have been using freedom of information requests to harass researchers and waste their time, with the CRU receiving more than 50 such requests in one week alone this year.

«Denying climate change is worse than spreading the usual kind of conspiracy theory: it costs lives ``, wrote former Political Editor, Mehdi Hasan, whose lefty - liberal street - credentials enjoyed a short lived boost last month when he layed into Daily Mail Editor Paul Dacre on BBC TV.

In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment.

And worse for Klein's apparent appeal to scientific authority, Hansen's remaining projections are further away from the scientific consensus on climate change than many deniers».

However, this is also a can't - miss opportunity to put that entire enviro - activist notion to the ultimate test, with an outright challenge to billionaire Tom Steyer to consider a far more chancy gamble than the $ 100 million he's pledged toward Senate and gubernatorial races that «attack climate - change deniers» — a gamble that either makes or totally busts the two decade - old accusation that skeptics are paid to lie and spread misinformation.

Economic growth in developing countries was much more important than countering global warming, Mr Howard said, and the West had no right to deny economic development to the rest of the world in the name of climate change.

But it is a simple fact that still today that climate change deniers in Congress receive about four times more fossil fuel industry funding than non-deniers in Congress.

It is ironic that a climate change denier should ask someone to be factual, when your entire thesis is based on deliberate misinformation and obfuscation and, apparently, it doesn't matter how many times your arguments are debunked; you people are seemingly incapable of doing anything other than repeating them.

The accident at Fukushima is «potentially worse» than the accident at Chernobyl, claims Vidal, while complaining that his erstwhile green comrades have compared those who question nuclear safety to «climate change deniers».

To suggest that coastlines aren't quite as perilous as green activists claim, that the government shouldn't be picking winners, or that cheaper energy might be more helpful to poor people than mitigating climate change was to «deny science», and to be victim of some horrific right wing ideology that would make Hitler's crimes against humanity look like a summer picnic... Climate sceptics were inviting certaiclimate change was to «deny science», and to be victim of some horrific right wing ideology that would make Hitler's crimes against humanity look like a summer picnic... Climate sceptics were inviting certaiClimate sceptics were inviting certain doom.

Perhaps the bigest «freemarketer» anthropogenic climate change denier currently is the Czeck Republic President Václav Klaus http://www.hrad.cz/en/president-of-the-cr/current-president-of-the-cr-vaclav-klaus/selected-speeches-and-interviews/5592.shtml Whether or not he is more atractive than «Ardi», he probably qualifies as more of a knuckle dragger.

Earlier this week, documents revealed by the Guardian and New York Times provide irefutable evidence that climate denier Willie Soon and the Harvard - Smithsonian Center for Astrophyics received more than $ 1 million in funding from fossil fuel companies to deliver scientific reports that called into question the scientific conclusion that climate change is the result of burning too much oil, coal and other carbon - emitting fuel sources.