Sentences with phrase «warming skeptics as»

The supposed «global cooling» consensus among scientists in the 1970s — frequently offered by global - warming skeptics as proof that climatologists can't make up their minds — is a myth, according to a survey of the scientific literature of the era....

Labeling global warming skeptics as climate change deniers by analogy to Holocaust deniers is evil itself.

The MWP is frequently cited by global warming skeptics as evidence that the consequences of global warming are not all negative, especially as they relate to agricultural production.

Not exact matches

The views of a visiting pope, respected by Catholics and many non-Catholics alike as a moral and spiritual leader of great prominence, will not make persons now unconcerned about global warming suddenly begin to grow concerned, nor even make skeptics of religious freedom begin to take its claims more seriously.

The Oklahoma senator has earned a reputation as one of the country's leading skeptics of global warming, and has called the theory «a hoax.»

Climate skeptics often make precisely this claim, citing the warming pause as evidence.

However, the gap between the calculated and measured warming is not due to systematic errors of the models, as the skeptics had suspected, but because there are always random fluctuations in Earth's climate.

For their part, though, global warming skeptics such as atmospheric physicist Fred Singer maintain that cold weather snaps are responsible for more human deaths than warm temperatures and heat waves.

As Pat Michaels, a climatologist and self - described global warming skeptic at the Cato Institute testified to Congress in July, certain studies of sensitivity published since 2011 find an average sensitivity of 2 degrees C.

As is typical when cold weather strikes, climate skeptics, including Donald Trump, pounced on the weather as proof that global warming is not happeninAs is typical when cold weather strikes, climate skeptics, including Donald Trump, pounced on the weather as proof that global warming is not happeninas proof that global warming is not happening.

U.S. geoscientists are accustomed to being used as a punching bag by climate change skeptics in Congress, who challenge the science of global warming.

This is an attitude that some sincere climate change «skeptics» (as opposed to ExxonMobil - funded deliberate frauds) exhibit: their so - called «skepticism» arises from an a priori sense that human activities can not possibly affect the Earth system in the way that the theory of anthropogenic global warming describes.

If they were a skeptic that claimed to have information — many of them do, many of them claim to «know» that future warming will be lower than the IPCC consensus — then it should be possible to find odds for a bet — as the post says.

Most skeptics believe not only that much / all of the recent warming is natural but that we should be warming as part of the ascent from the LIA.

This aspect of their work is rarely if ever mentioned by the authors themselves, and still less in citations of the work in skeptics» tracts such as that distributed with the «Global Warming Petition Project.»

ASU's longtime climate skeptic Robert C. Balling continues to reject conclusive scientific evidence that humans are the primary cause of global warming and was listed as a recipient of prospective payments in Heartland's leaked budget for work on their «Climate Change Reconsidered» reports.

In these high latitudes, temperatures are predicted to warm so fast and to such a degree so as to cause unprecedented melting of ice that even the most ardent of climate skeptics would be forced to concede the verity of global warming theory.

Climate - change skeptics have pointed to the emails as evidence that researchers were manipulating data to make global warming look more serious than it is.

Now, there's nothing wrong with making mistakes when pursuing an innovative observational method, but Spencer and Christy sat by for most of a decade allowing — indeed encouraging — the use of their data set as an icon for global warming skeptics.

The study is presented as a broadside on one of the central tenets of global warming, in a fashion echoing skeptics» coverage of the «hockey stick» issue.

This is an attitude that some sincere climate change «skeptics» (as opposed to ExxonMobil - funded deliberate frauds) exhibit: their so - called «skepticism» arises from an a priori sense that human activities can not possibly affect the Earth system in the way that the theory of anthropogenic global warming describes.

If they were a skeptic that claimed to have information — many of them do, many of them claim to «know» that future warming will be lower than the IPCC consensus — then it should be possible to find odds for a bet — as the post says.

The skeptics» press, especially as echoed in Crichton's State of Fear states that the Kilimanjaro retreat can have nothing to do with anthropogenic global warming, because it began in the 1880's, before any appreciable CO2 response is expected.

If you want to label me a skeptic or claim that I «argue against global warming,» then so be it, but I don't consider my position as such.

Most skeptics believe not only that much / all of the recent warming is natural but that we should be warming as part of the ascent from the LIA.

This is contributing to all of us going down the tubes together as a result of global warming skeptics and deniers who are playing around with the well known casino rule of «gambler's ruin» by always betting against the house.

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 observed CO2 increase in the world ocean disproves another popular #fakenews piece of the «climate skeptics»: namely that the CO2 increase in the atmosphere might have been caused by the outgassing of CO2 from the ocean as a result of the warming.

This aspect of their work is rarely if ever mentioned by the authors themselves, and still less in citations of the work in skeptics» tracts such as that distributed with the «Global Warming Petition Project.»

Given that skeptics, taken as a whole, put forward a nearly infinite variety of often conflicting and contradictory beliefs regarding global warming and climate science, exactly what is a climate scientist supposed to agree with?

To present all «skeptics» as those who question any warming is incorrect.

Carson's choice to deliberately increase her use of uncertainty in «Silent Spring» came as a bit of surprise since in the well documented cases of tobacco, acid rain, and global warming, it was the skeptic's strategy to amplify doubt, not the scientist's.

As a «rate this comment» feature, you should have a thermometer graphic, that ranges on the scale of frigid (denier) to cold (skeptic) to warm (believer) to hot (alarmist).

Your list of credible global warming skeptics ends the argument as far as I'm concerned: a politician (Klaus), an industry propagandist (Moore), and a businessman (Coleman).

What lags what might seem like a good debate to have and one that has to be answered to as the skeptics for good scientists to set up sites like this to argue the cause but come on the evidence is clear, it is not the SUN that has caused the current warming and we have a perfectly robust argument for stating that it is greenhouse gases (all of which has increased).

So three periods of no global warming since 1957 and the overall conclusion, using the correct skeptic logic + statistics, is that the world of 2012 is as warm is the world in the 1950's.

In my previous blog post, I showed how one anonymous op - ed writer tried to casually drop the «reposition global warming as theory rather than fact» phrase into his piece to insinuate skeptic climate scientists received illicit industry money in exchange for the promise to lie to the public.

Wordy as the letter is, it could be boiled down much like Al Gore's 2006 movie or the collective lot of the entire catastrophic man - caused global warming into a 3 - part talking point: «the science is settled» / skeptics are industry - funded & orchestrated liars» / «reporters may ignore skeptics because of the prior two reasons.»

The majority of internet references I initially found credited the accusation to ex-Boston Globe reporter / book author / «Pulitzer - winner» Ross Gelbspan, and his «discovery» that the fossil fuel industry was paying skeptic scientists «under the table» to «reposition global warming as theory rather than fact» — according to a leaked coal association memo he supposedly found.

In reality there is a huge diversity of opinion within the skeptic side, like: it's cooling; it's warming (but not as much as GISSTemp says); whatever the temperature is doing, it's caused by cosmic rays, or PDO, or sunspots, or recovery from the LIA...; CO2 is a greenhouse gas (but the feedbacks are negative); CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.....

A bombshell report from the German publication «ScienceBlogs» reveals that renowned geophysicist and former socialist party leader Dr Claude Allegre --- France's most outspoken global warming skeptic — may be considered as the next French Environment Minister in President Nicolas Sarkozy's administration.

Are the U.S. winter extremes proof that global warming isn't happening or is even a hoax, as some skeptics suggest?

Yes, the notion that scientists tow the global warming line in exchange for fame and money seems to ignore the many benefits of being a published climate scientist who tows the «skeptic» line, or even seems to sympathize with some of their talking points — who are valuable, as market theory would predict, because they are very scarce.

This is very important because if it is low, as some climate «skeptics» argue, then the planet will warm slowly and we will have more time to react and adapt.

A lot of the disagreements between the skeptics are as big, or bigger than, their disagreement with the warmers!

As I've said on several occasions here and elsewhere, the major problem with global warming believers» enslavement to the «reposition global warming as theory rather than fact» phrase is that it is not in any way proof of an arrangement between between skeptics and industry officials involving payments made for false climate assessmentAs I've said on several occasions here and elsewhere, the major problem with global warming believers» enslavement to the «reposition global warming as theory rather than fact» phrase is that it is not in any way proof of an arrangement between between skeptics and industry officials involving payments made for false climate assessmentas theory rather than fact» phrase is that it is not in any way proof of an arrangement between between skeptics and industry officials involving payments made for false climate assessments.

But what is surprising is that notorious global warming denier S. Fred Singer was described at a skeptic conference today as a Nobel prize winner, a flat out lie.

Skeptic scientists and speakers such as Tom Harris have been quite consistent on saying that what little global warming we've seen over the last century is not conclusively proven in IPCC climate assessments.

And wouldn't those talking points pack a fatal punch with reporters if you could say a Pulitzer winning investigative reporter discovered a leaked coal industry memo which was proof for skeptic climate scientists being paid to «reposition global warming as theory rather than fact.»

And that reality has been demonstrated over and over again, most recently in the work of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, led by Dr. Richard Muller, who began his comprehensive assessment as an avowed climate skeptic and ended it convinced by the clear evidence that global warming is happening and is caused by human activity.This conclusion is emphatically shared by the best and brightest of the global scientific community, including our own National Academy of Sciences.