Sentences with phrase «warming deniers like»

Global - warming deniers like to complain that scientists base their predictions on faulty computer models.

Nevertheless, global warming deniers like to refer to the satellite data as the gold standard.

Not exact matches

It's like global warming — you will always find some global warming deniers out there who can quote some little piece of research they have found somewhere, some science junk, but the consensus is there.»

As for pundits the Merson types are like climate scientists who deny global warming is anthropgenic, not because they really believe it but because it gets them exposure in the media which they wouldn't get if they simply went along with the crowd.

Points 2 and 3 might lead to their not believing in global warming, but when faced by such an overwhelming majority of scientist who believe it, it seems (to me) almost like a conspiracy theory to deny it.

If you listen to global warming deniers, or even much of the public, it seems like there is some stack of scientific studies somewhere that refute anthropogenic — human - caused — climate change.

Climate - change - denying politicians like to point to the cold snaps as some sort of proof global warming is not happening.

For those who seek to curtail travel in a feeble attempt to fight global warming: Given the non-emergency that climate change has thus far proven to be and the real and dire crises that presently plague the planet, should we also deny transportation (by aid organizations and concerned citizens) to regions, like the Darfur or Sierra Leone, that require our immediate attention?

I like this little dig at the denier - sceptic - contrarians who appear to be tree ring obsessed: «It is intriguing to note that the removal of tree - ring data from the proxy dataset yields less, rather than greater, peak cooling during the 16th — 19th centuries for both CPS and EIV methods... contradicting the claim... that tree - ring data are prone to yielding a warm - biased «Little Ice Age» relative to reconstructions using other high - resolution climate proxy indicators.»

Different topic: we need some type of clearinghouse to announce when prominent or semi-prominent people deny global warming, so people like me will know to ask them if they'll put their money where their mouths are.

I'd like to see some blogging and discussion on the global warming denier networks.

Like those authors, the prominent deniers must have no evidence that falsifies global warming.

It sounds far more like Smith is doing whatever he can to unearth anything global warming deniers can use to sow more doubt.

With record temperatures the past seven months; with 2016 almost certainly going to be the hottest year globally on record (beating out 2015 and 2014); with the Great Barrier Reef sustaining massive (perhaps irreversible) damage due to global warming induced coral bleaching; and with Donald Trump bloviating about droughts and picking a global warming denier as his energy advisor, the sooner the deniers like Smith are out of power, the better our planet — the better all of us, every human on Earth — will be.

Some climate change deniers make statements like «carbon dioxide is harmless, you're breathing it now,» as if that somehow disproved the disturbing warming effects that scientists have found.

In any case, as much as I would like anthropogenic climate change / global warming / climate destabilization (or however you want to brand it) to be the grand conspiracy that deniers like to suggest it is, I have yet to read any credible, compelling evidence that stands up to a little investigation, including this blog post.

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.

Of course, in the highly charged arena of global - warming politics, a study like this is catnip for climate - change deniers.

Actually, it was Pulitzer - winner Ellen Goodman who famously wrote in 2007: «I would like to say we're at a point where global warming is impossible to deny.

The error margins are so wide you could even assume that the manmade cooling matches or exceeds the manmade warming (both from fossil fuels) which was what led to the ill - fated ice age scare in the 70's that modern pause - deniers also like to deny even happened.

Now I'm not denying that a plateau, or at least a slowdown in the rate of warming exists, but I'd like more evidence before I'll accept it started as long as 16 years ago.

When the global warming deniers and delayers at right wing think tanks like the Hoover Institute agree with your analysis, you should start to ask yourself whether you really know what you're talking about.

What about the fact the work Klinger relies upon to claim there's this vast conspiracy to deny global warming lists climate blogs like Climate Audit in that conspiracy?

While there are obvious prominent owners of right - leaning media, like Rupert Murdoch of Fox News and News Corporation who are climate change deniers or «doubters», the media in general in the United States and other key countries has suppressed or downplayed the story of global warming, delegating it to obscure web - only blogs or leaving it out entirely of their offerings.

The legislation's prominent defenders, like CAP's Joseph Romm, labeled green critics of the bill «global warming deniers» and told anyone who would listen that Waxman and Markey had pulled a fast one on the coal lobby.

Deniers just like to jump on statements like this to make the illogical conclusion that, since we can't observe the system perfectly, global warming is no longer a problem.

Scientists usually end up saying denier because they only really hear about those denying CO2 is a GHG and that the earth is warming, and they don't like skeptic (because they are themselves skeptical) and other terms haven't stuck.

Dr Tamsin Edwards: «Scientists usually end up saying denier because they only really hear about those denying CO2 is a GHG and that the earth is warming, and they don't like skeptic (because they are themselves skeptical) and other terms haven't stuck.

The latter provides the Guardian with a handy alibi (see, global warming deniers are free to express themselves) which allows Monbiot to ignore substantive criticism and concentrate on Savonarola - like moralising.

Some of them deny it is even warming, others claim anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is a hoax, others claim that there is some magical negative feedback that will result in virtually no warming, others like Lewis cherry pick literature to delude themselves into thinking that climate sensitivity is low, while others are convinced that an ice age is imminent;)

Climate science deniers are very fond of showing extremely deceptive temperature graphs: They plot the data starting in 1998, when temperatures were higher than average, so it looks like the world hasn't gotten much warmer since then, and talk about the global warming «pause.»

AGW skeptics are Holocaust deniers, children will never know what snow is, rivers will run red and «oceans will begin to boil, Earth will be like Venus, global warming is not a Left vs. right issue and, unlike our ancestors, we will be led to survival by high priests in green robes with computer models chanting anti-energy and anti-food slogans....

Those who won't sign up to establishment propaganda for profit of the climate Nastis are hounded out of their jobs by the greenshirts like the Piltdown Mann Ortleiter, keen to defend his warm period denying collage of disparate data sets, carefully modified and joined together to create an apparently contiguous but actually fabricated forgery.

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

«It looks like it is «open season» on anyone who deviates even slightly from the consensus,» Curry says of the global warming jihad, noting that an explicit call to wage such a war against «deniers» can be found, not coincidentally, at barackobama.com.

I am certainly seeing global warming deniers and others taking this information and running with it (like here, for example, or here, and on Benny Peiser's CCNet on March 7, 2007, though I don't have a link for that).

While there are some people who deny that the world has been warming for centuries (there are many people with fringe beliefs, like astrology), I don't see that they have any significant influence in the news media or Washington.

Unfortunately those big shots who write reports like the AR5 either do not understand this or simply did not bother to read the scribblings of a denier, and still keep babbling about Arctic warming caused by human actions.

There is no reasonalbe explanation for why anyone would deny Earth's climate is the result of the holistic process we call nature and certainly no non-political explanation other than superstition or ignorance why and federal climatist would believe that a monophysical element like CO2 with properties as we observe on Earth could ever possible explain global warming — especially when we know that the Sun is the only independent variable that nominally explains both global warming and cooling.

But there was a time a few years ago when you couldn't open your news feed without being told global warming had stopped by some conservative columnist, climate science denier or one of those people who spend their waking hours writing comments on stories like this.

This should dampen the enthusiasm of deniers like Ted Cruz who have relied on satellite data from RSS to dispute global warming.

Pindyck sounds like a «global warming denier.»

The person denying this just looks dumber than a fifth grader and makes it impossible to move on to the bits of the global warming story that aren't well established facts like whether clouds have a net warming effect due to them being an effective insulator at night or a net cooling effect due them shading the ground underneath during the day.

A lot of deniers seem to think climate models are looking for something to fit to warming — these straw men see the Keeling curve, say, «Hey, that looks like it!»

Clinton said that the single most important thing an American can do right now is to make it unacceptable to be a climate change denier — and that the GOP's global warming denial makes us «look like a joke» in the international community.

There shouldn't be much doubt that global warming skeptics and deniers will latch onto the Pachauri story like they did with the hacked emails from IPCC scientists.

But IF you say the word, NUCLEAR, these same climate warming believer's will behave just like the denier's do.

In fact, all the Center's work to fight global warming — from petitioning and litigating for warming - threatened species to enforcing key laws like the California Environmental Quality Act to opposing too - low national fuel economy standards — have played an enormous role in putting climate change on the political map, making it that much harder for those who would deny it to suppress the truth.

And btw, still waiting to hear why the stratosphere is cooling when it should be warming according to deniers like you.

RSS: — 0.03 Okay, now we can see that RSS is not like the others in that it shows less warming, making it a favorite of climate change deniers.