Sentences with phrase «warming propaganda on»

Finally, you ask, «Is Paul likely to suggest that all global warming propaganda on school curricula comes with a «balancing» message from climate sceptics?»

Is Paul likely to suggest that all global warming propaganda on school curricula comes with a «balancing» message from climate sceptics?

Not exact matches

It's clear this is already happening and we can expect more op - eds in major newspapers from the likes of George Will, more full - page adverts from industry - funded propaganda mills masquerading as «conservative» think tanks, and more comments posted on every blog where global warming is discussed, denouncing the «vast liberal hoax» of anthropogenic global warming, because, you know, it's been proved that the earth isn't warming, and if it is, it has nothing to do with fossil fuels.

«Since its creation in 2006 the site has done nothing but post poorly researched propaganda with a clear intent to smear respected scientists, policy analysts or groups who dare oppose an alarmist position on global warming.

«I like Carter's emphasis on the crucial difference between global warming (which is part of normal scientific discourse) and «dangerous anthropogenic global warming» (which is ideological propaganda).

As reported in the Washington Post and revealed by Heartland's internal document leak, Heartland packages its scientifically untenable material on global warming into books and propaganda curricula for distribution to children and young people across the United States.

I watched the shows with friends who are both «believers» & «sceptics» and surprisingly the «believers» commented that both shows, in different ways, were hardly concealed propaganda pieces in support of the so called consensus on manmade global warming.

No good can come from increasing any pollution to no end, but there is clearly room for honest debate before we create more havoc based on the current evidence or propaganda for CO2 caused global warming.

What they are practicing is not science, it is propaganda based on an unsupportable catastrophic AGW agenda designed to convince the public that a rise in a tiny trace gas comprising only 0.00038 of the atmosphere will cause runaway global warming and climate catastrophe.

So those 40 years are OK to put in the MBH cooking pot to raise Little Ice Age averages but not OK to show on a propaganda graph selling anthropogenic global warming.

Meanwhile, let's change the subject so the real problem of creating an economy that is going to suffer unimaginably from governmental controls on energy in America because we are so cocksure of global warming because we have succeeded brainwashing enough people with bad science and propaganda that it is probably now inevitable.

It should be interesting to watch as real science turns on these misguided few and grinds their phony advocate propaganda science up, based on observations which have begun to show, and I believe will continue to show, their erroneous overprediction of future warming.

Every trick, lie and deceitful attempt by vested interests to delay action on global warming is exposed, along with the tactics of their well - oiled propaganda machine, including the same unscrupulous scientists, handed down from Big Tobacco to Big Carbon.

The denial propaganda machine has been spreading the idea that global warming has «paused» or is on «hiatus».

For all intents and purposes, the two phenomena are unrelated, since the scourge of air pollution relates to the presence of dangerous fine particulate matter in the air while global warming propaganda focuses on carbon dioxide emissions.

Senator James Inhofe, ranking Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee, has gone a step beyond promoting his long - notorious global warming denialist propaganda.

The participants in the countermovement have attacked climate models, paleoclimatic data on which warming trends are based, modern temperature records, mainstream scientists who have claimed there is an urgent need to act, and manufactured bogus non-peer-reviewed climate science claims which they have then widely publicized in books and pamphlets, and then widely circulated the publications to journalists and politicians, tactics which have succeeded in getting the disinformation propaganda widely distributed by friendly media.

When considering this type of literature one must not forget the immense financial clout of the global warming movement that spends more than three billion dollars in the US alone on climate research, lobbying, and propaganda.

ANTICIPATING the negative impact the «beast from the east» might have on the global warming narrative, the mainstream media has gone into full propaganda mode churning out numerous reports dismissing the sub-zero extremes on... you guessed it, «global warming»!

Not only does this contradict all the doomladen climate models cited in the IPCC's various reports — none of them predicted the so - called «Pause» — but it also means that not one of the kids in school being fed climate propaganda by their on - message teachers has ever personally lived during a time of global warming.

The top French weatherman who was sacked from his state broadcaster for speaking inconvenient truths about the non-existence of «man - made - global - warming» has taken exquisite revenge on the alarmist establishment: now he's got a new job broadcasting from the Kremlin's propaganda arm, pouring

But it should be emphasized that, although his points on the anti-intellectualism of creation science and lousy civics knowledge are sound, when he surrounds that with misdirection and literally unsupportable talking points about the global warming issue, his message looks less like one of genuine concern and more like a subtle excuse to validate global warming propaganda.

One would think, based on all the global warming anti-CO2 propaganda, that a huge cut in emissions would have a significant and worthwhile impact - it ain't so, though.

Despite avalanches of money being spent on research to find evidence of rapid man - made warming, despite even more spent on propaganda and marketing and subsidising renewable energy, the public remains unconvinced.

Of course there was no official press release, and in retrospect it was obvious the propaganda and late release of the data was to saturate the media with stories so that they would not pick up on the story that global warming had come to an end (at least for that month).

Surely as the decade goes on it will be more evident that global warming is nonsense so why not allow the bet to show how views are changing based on what is being measured rather than the propaganda of the IPCC.

Dismissing the risks of global warming as «baseless and undisguised propaganda,» a John Birch Society blogger has pronounced that evidence for climate change is «shoddy,» and that, on the basis of Bjorn Lomborg's (thoroughly discredited) analysis, «a little warming wouldn't be such a bad thing after all.»

How is it that the conclusions of climate scientists can be called into question as a result of supposedly dubious statistical techniques, but the long history of nonsense from the skeptics, (such as the Robinson et al paper that accompanied the politically motivated Oregon Petition, the corporate funded propaganda campaigns of the Global Climate Coalition, and the recent urban myth that Martian «global warming» disproves a human influence on earthly climate) tells us nothing about the integrity of the skeptic theory of climate?

CLIMATE HUSTLE is a groundbreaking new documentary that leads viewers on a fact - finding and often - hilarious journey through the propaganda - laced world of global warming claims.

From ClimateScienceWatch: «Senator James Inhofe, ranking Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee, has gone a step beyond promoting his long - notorious global warming denialist propaganda.