Sentences with phrase «warming denialists as»

Not exact matches

The happy band of denialists (presumably the gang of nine who advise Judge Alsup with their nonsense) have been «quietly but very busily investigating how much global warming we may cause, known as the «equilibrium - sensitivity» question.»

But in that letter, he comes across as a complete global warming denialist.

But in that letter, he comes across as a complete global warming denialist.

The happy band of denialists (presumably the gang of nine who advise Judge Alsup with their nonsense) have been «quietly but very busily investigating how much global warming we may cause, known as the «equilibrium - sensitivity» question.»

(And, as the Guardian noted aptly, also the time where the «climate science denialists feverishly yell -LSB-...] that global warming stopped in 1998.»)

FWIW even the denialist site icecap.us admits that it took «from the 1920s to the 1950s» (49 years) to get six of their 10 warmest years, and only from 1990 - 2008 (18 years) to get four more --(49/6) / (18/4) = 1.8 times as frequent in the more recent period.

In fact, I was by default not doubting the global warming classic interpretation till I started reading multiple sources on the net, and as my self - confession as a recent skeptic shows, the argument from the denialist camp are not only convincing to petrol gulping rednecks, but also to a very scientifically minded, atheist european (although, I must admit, I like motor sports; — RRB --RRB-.

The troll's first citation is to good old Wikkithing which presently contains an unchallenged quote from Scarfetta & Wilson (2014) who are well known as being denialist sources that would warm the cockles of any cold - blooded troll.

As noted above, the recent warming «is seen in the oceans, the atmosphere, in Arctic sea ice retreat, in glacier recession, earlier springs, reduced snow cover etc.» Another «inconvenient truth» for denialists to avoid mentioning or acknowledging while overblowing the UHI issue.

Could anything be more out of date, backward - looking, or antiquated in spirit than the Carlin report's repackaging of yesterday's denialist illusions and pseudoscientific nonsense about climate — fantasies that have been shot down time and again, that don't have a melting Greenland glacier's chance in a warming climate when exposed to the light of reason, yet which have been presented to the world as if they were a brilliant refutation of the CO2 - global warming link by the sharpest analytical minds in the field of climatological research?

However, as long as we don't mind disregarding physical reality, it's easy to pretend global warming just boils down to these El Niño step changes by playing the denialists» favorite game - curve fitting.

The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is a United Kingdom think tank founded by climate change denialist Nigel Lawson with the purpose of combating what the foundation describes as «extremely damaging and harmful policies» designed to mitigate climate change.

The denialist argument that deep ocean warming is harmless - Beyond ENSO as per @ 8, I would suggest the best approach would be to ask that, given these folk are so well informed about how the oceans operate, could they explain why the oceans are so cold?

The explanation for this, though, rests on an understanding of wider political and economic interests — could it be, perhaps, that this is the result of the billions of pounds pumped into the economy by professional denialist foundations such as Nigel Lawson's Global Warming Policy Foundation and the legions of right wing Tory backers (not to mention the combined, and substantial efforts, of the global oil industry and other vested interests) which influence, through their ownership, most of the mainstream media?

the billions of pounds pumped into the economy by professional denialist foundations such as Nigel Lawson's Global Warming Policy Foundation

Regardless of what one thinks of cap - and - trade as a policy approach, nothing looks likely to change in that arena in the near - foreseeable future, except for greater numbers on the no - compromise corporate and global warming denialist side.

If humans are rational creatures we would expect that, as the scientific evidence confirming human - induced global warming has become overwhelming, the denialists would adjust their beliefs to accommodate the facts.

Yet, as Festinger would have predicted, instead of falling silent, perhaps even admitting error, the denialists have become more vehement in their attacks on climate scientists, environmentalists and anyone who accepts the evidence for global warming.

As the evidence of warming accumulates, the denialists cling ever more firmly to their contrarian views.

The editorial skewered academic doubters of man - made Global Warming as the «climate - change - denialist fringe» and in a shocking Freudian - slip the Nature editorial roared its political partisanship:

Stolen e-mails have revealed no scientific conspiracy.To the denialists, the scientists» scathing remarks about certain controversial palaeoclimate reconstructions qualify as the proverbial «smoking gun»: proof that mainstream climate researchers have systematically conspired to suppress evidence contradicting their doctrine that humans are warming the globe.

What I am talking about is, that it seems to me that with regard to climate science, this blog spends far too much time responding to the phony, trumped - up «debate» fueled by denialist drivel, and not enough time addressing the legitimate scientific question as to whether it is in fact too late to prevent global warming and climate change that will be catastrophic to human civilization, not to mention the entire Earth's biosphere.

Looks like the denialist claim that global warming peaked in 1998 is clearly shot down (as if it had any legs to stand on in the first place): http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2116873.ece

No doubt, if and when the Gulf Stream fails and North Atlantic temperatures plunge (as happened repeatedly during global warming events in the recent history of Earth, due to ice melt flowing into the ocean)-- denialists will claim «global cooling».