Sentences with phrase «warming denialists in»

Climate scientist Michael Mann is under constant attack by global warming denialists in the government.

Not exact matches

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

You can be certain that various anti-science, anthropogenic global warming denialist web blogs and op ed writers (with no scientific background) will take this study and trumpet it from the hills, completely out of context in order to continue to be disingenuous and to purposely mislead people.

«Warming» also allows denialists to reject it because «it's cold in Walla Walla today».

Did you know that Anothony Watts is raising the dead in order to dredge up Nobel Prize winning global warming denialists?

It was even demonstrated in a paper by prominent global - warming denialists (who correctly estimated the lag, but the rest of their thesis was rebutted here).

It seems clear that the UHI effect is a real physical effect and the complaint from AGW skeptics and denialists is that the strong (and real) warming in urban areas is contaminating regional and global temperature averages.

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

And of course none of the denialists who claimed that warming peaked in 1998 or that warming has leveled out make a peep about being wrong... again.

However, two are from journalists (I'm not sure what a discussion of ocean warming below 2000m has to do with the price of cheese, mind), one a quote from a piece written by a NASA employee interviewing a climatologist, and KKTung is some sort of misguided mathmatics professor and very denialist in his approach to AGW.

# 125 MARodger: «However, two are from journalists (I'm not sure what a discussion of ocean warming below 2000m has to do with the price of cheese, mind), one a quote from a piece written by a NASA employee interviewing a climatologist, and KKTung is some sort of misguided mathmatics professor and very denialist in his approach to AGW.

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

In other words, we can and should note that we are probably hitting the 400 ppm barrier, but then later when we drop slightly below, temporarily, 400ppm, the climate science denialists will be all over that claiming that there is no global warming.

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-.

So now I answer the «ice - age» denialist argument (denialists usually trot out ALL their inconsistent & contradictory arguments) this way: I draw a sine - wave in the air with my hand, saying, yes, that the normal fluctuation over a long geological timeframe is to alternate between cold ice ages and warm interglacial periods, and that now we are right here in a warm interglacial period (my hand raised at the top of the wave), and if there were no human GHGs, then we would expect that over a long time frame we'd be sliding down into an ice age.

There is one denialist argument that I hear but is not discussed in this post and that is «Only solar energy can warm the oceans.»

It is when that person is Jim Cripwell, whose postings here make it clear that he's a denialist...» offsetting greenhouse gas warming» presumes one accepts greenhouse gas warming in the first place, after all.

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?

Given the level of denialism in the face of glacial mass loss, plummeting Arctic summer ice cover, progressive collapse of ice shelves that have been stable for 6000 to 10000 years, northward, upward, and seasonally earlier movements of ecosystems and other phenological changes, increasing Greenland ice melt, and all the other direct observations of global warming, I think denialists will go to their graves believing it can't be happening.

We find this to be well - argued and in line with what we have been saying about global warming denialist interventions to manipulate the communication of climate change research.

Congress is the ultimate funding authority in the US system — and NASA has already suffered funding cuts because Congressional denialists don't like the fact that NASA data clearly shows that warming is a present reality.

Nova and her husband, fellow climate denialist David Evans — whose name was attached to Nova's email address in Fred Singer's messages — also run Science Speak, a «scientific modeling and mathematical research company» that challenges evidence the world is warming.

Nova is an Australian climate denialist and author of «The Skeptic's Handbook,» a crash course in false science claiming global warming isn't happening and isn't human - caused.

Earlier this year, he co-wrote an article in the peer - reviewed Chinese Science Bulletin with fellow climate denialists arguing that the IPCC's models are inaccurate and the world won't warm dangerously by the end of the century.

Goddard is the pseudonym of climate denialist Tony Heller, who has been active in the anti-global warming action campaign since 2008.

The departure is in Willis» head, refusal to accept basic science is why the denialists fail to understand the evidence of Global Warming.]

With the IPCC increasingly in the spotlight, the denialists can trivialize the entire environmental crisis simply by casting doubt on the scientific consensus on global warming.

Actually Fielding's use of that graph is quite informative of how denialist arguments are framed — the selected bit of a selected graph (and don't mention the fastest warming region on the planet being left out of that data set), or the complete passing over of short term variability vs longer term trends, or the other measures and indicators of climate change from ocean heat content and sea levels to changes in ice sheets and minimum sea ice levels, or the passing over of issues like lag time between emissions and effects on temperatures... etc..

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.

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.

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:

Like the tobacco lobbyists who spent years denying the links between smoking and cancer, global warming denialists don't have to win the debate — they simply have to confuse the public indefinitely to successfully undermine any political action which might hit the interests of their backers in the fossil fuel industries

The use of the word «denialist» has the connotations of those who do not believe in the Holocaust and is intended to denigrate those who disagree with the belief that man is responsible for the earth warming.

I note that the word «denialist» is used to describe people who have an alternative view to that of man made climate change and the «Comment Policy» forbids the use of other words which offend those who believe in man made global warming.

For years, the more dimwitted of the climate denialists have been yammering on about a pause in global warming.

They even use a variant of the old «global warming ended in 1998» rubbish that has been doing the rounds in denialist circles for some time with the following comment:

2) Steve Goddard, formerly associated with denialist blog Watt's Up With That, cast a blogvote for global warming having stopped in 2002, since there is a flat linear trend from that date to present.

1) Pat Michaels, a well - known denialist, wrote an online article for Forbes.com entitled «Why Hasn't The Earth Warmed In Nearly 15 Years?»

Consider some of the arguments that are proposed and promoted by well - qualified scientists in the denialist camp: Global warming stopped in 1998.

I told a denialist to name one climate scientist (publishing in top peer - review journals within the past 5 years) who disagreed that anthropogenic global warming was happening.

Lynn Vincentnathan 17 August 2010 at 3:06 PM «I told a denialist to name one climate scientist (publishing in top peer - review journals within the past 5 years) who disagreed that anthropogenic global warming was happening.»

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.

You can be certain that various anti-science, anthropogenic global warming denialist web blogs and op ed writers (with no scientific background) will take this study and trumpet it from the hills, completely out of context in order to continue to be disingenuous and to purposely mislead people.

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

In scientific contexts, the denialist can deny a cause (carbon dioxide does not cause global warming), an effect (the Earth is not warming), the association between the two (CO2 levels are rising and the Earth is warming, but not because of the carbon dioxide), the direction of the cause - and - effect relationship (carbon dioxide concentrations are increasing because the earth is warming) or the identification of the cause - and - effect relationship (other factors than greenhouse gases are causing the Earth to warm).

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».

Toni Massari @ 201, You get responses up - thread that pretty - much go not further than call your referenced piece in Forbes «To The Horror Of Global Warming Alarmists, Global Cooling Is Here» out - of - date (from 2013) and denialist clap - trap.

It's a truism that whenever I write about the solid fact that the Earth is warming up, that post will get comments that make it clear that denialists — and please read that link before commenting on my use of the word — are like religious zealots, writing the same tired long - debunked arguments that are usually debunked in the very post they're commenting on.