Sentences with phrase «warming skeptics like»

Gore calls on his climate faithful to treat global warming skeptics like racists and homophobes

Gore calls on his climate faithful to treat global warming skeptics like racists and homophobes By Ben Geman Former vice president Al Gore on Monday called for making climate change «denial» a taboo in society.

Not exact matches

Hundreds of global warming skeptics are in Washington to hear attacks on mainstream climate science and responses to it, like renewable energy programs and federal initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Like others in the incoming administration, Mulvaney is also a skeptic on climate, referring to «baseless claims regarding global warming» on his 2010 election campaign website (archived here).

The meeting coincides with a gathering of climate change skeptics in New York City, who are debating topics like «Global warming: Was it ever a crisis?»

Define democracy however you like; I find your refusal to acknowledge the harm done by the fundamental dishonesty of the global warming skeptics to be not only puzzling, but deeply troubling.

For skeptics like myself, most of the warming being observed is due to natural events, not CO2 forcing.

Victor wrote @ 158: «For skeptics like myself, most of the warming being observed is due to natural events, not CO2 forcing.

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-.

OK - this is off topic and I know comments like this invoke just the hysteria I don't want to incite from skeptics, but are the weather patterns we are seeing in Iowa (intense precipitation) consistent with what one would expect from warming predictions?

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).

Long - time greens are painfully aware that the arguments of global warming skeptics are like zombies in a»70s B movie.

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.»

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.....

I find concerned liberals are loath to talk about how consistently wrong climate models have been or about the «pause» in global warming that has gone on for over fifteen years, while climate skeptics avoid discussion of things like ocean acidification and accelerated melting in Greenland and the Arctic.

There are of course ozone «skeptic» scientists just like there are global warming «skeptic» scientists, but the consensus and evidence are not in their favor.

The reason progressives constantly obscure the meaning of terms like skeptic, «global warming,» «AGW» (when you mean CAGW), is so you can convert your political opinions into «science,» and then falsely label your political opponents as anti-science.

There's no significant change in the understanding of climate change or global warming which continue to be valid expressions (while CAGW is just a concept invented by skeptics to use as they like and in a way that does not reflect main stream views).

That doesn't seem like it will solve this mainly because the «skeptics» left now are too self - invested and self - identifying with their view to be swayed by anything including a resumption of global warming and continued melting.

To date, those with mindsets like Gleick tried to ignore all the skeptics — WWUT and Climate Audit are still absent from CAGW sites like RealClimate and avoid engaging with competent skeptics or even competent luke warmers.

And then, like many «skeptics,» she turns around and hides behind the «skeptics» aren't monolithic argument, or «skeptics» aren't subject to groupthink arguments, even as she downplays the % of «skeptics» who flat out reject that there's any GHG effect or who make arguments that aren't logically consistent with the protestation that «we don't doubt that the climate is warming or that ACO2 contributes to that warming, we only question the magnitude of the contribution.»

Former Virginia state climatologist and global warming skeptic Pat Michaels («Hurricane Pat,» as we once fondly dubbed him) pops up in an email as someone that a scientist from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California would like to attack --- and not just in the latest issue of a peer - reviewed journal.

I am wondering how skeptics to AGW are rationalizing November 2013 being the warmest November on record and also how it looks like 2013 will be the warmest non-El niño year on record.

Declarations that skeptic climate scientists knowingly lie about the certainty of man - caused global warming as paid shills of the fossil fuel industry appear devastating...... but dig deep into the details, and all those claims look more like a «Keystone Kops - style» farce.

Other feedbacks like clouds, (poleward and deep) convection may alter that in positive or negative ways, but that is exactly what the current debate between skeptics and warmers is about.

A favorite argument among climate scientist «skeptics» like Christy, Spencer, and Lindzen is that «internal variability» can account for much or all of the global warming we've observed over the past century.

If 2014 really is the warmest year on record, then it's certainly wrong to say that global warming «stopped» back in 1998 — a favorite line of climate skeptics like Sen. James Inhofe (R - OK).

What I love most about «skeptics» is that they say that they don't doubt that ACO2 might warm the climate — they only have questions about the certainty related to the magnitude of the effect, but then they turn around and offer an argument like AK's that effectively argue that there is no scientific basis for reducing the uncertainties related to the magnitude of the effect.

How exactly are you proving your point when you admit (emphasis mine)... «yes, the temperature moved FIRST» and you make hidden conciliatory statements like... «for the MAJORITY of that time» and then you freely admit... «CO2 did not trigger the warmings» and then you rely on the lamest of hollow arguments... «according to climate THEORY and model EXPERIMENTS» and then you stumble back to close with complete opinion and conjecture... «we may well» and «The likely candidates» Anyone with a brain will read your post and laugh - it's pathetic and you've actually done nothing but strengthen the skeptics argument.

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.

Like you I am a global warming skeptic and am so glad to finally have someone as President who thinks the way I do but globally the people have been brainwashed into thinking that Global Warming is the biggest threat to humanity there has evewarming skeptic and am so glad to finally have someone as President who thinks the way I do but globally the people have been brainwashed into thinking that Global Warming is the biggest threat to humanity there has eveWarming is the biggest threat to humanity there has ever been.

Those who don't want to be seen to be swivel - eyed lunatics associate with Nigel Lawson's Global Warming Policy Foundation and critics like Roger Pielke Jr. (which is why Pielke hated being named by Foreign Policy as a top «skeptic»).

Thanks for illustrating one of the key markers of the fake skeptic - perfectly happy to sieze on terms like «not statistically significant» when applied to things that you think work in your favour, like «no warming for x years», but completely ignoring them when it would work against you.

It seems like IGES's effort to get Obama to prosecute global warming skeptics has completely backfired in the two weeks since their letter to the administration was published online.

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.

Personal attacks on «skeptics» like me began as evidence failed to support the claim that human CO2 was causing global warming and we persisted in saying so.

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....

«And then you add in the media, with people like Leonardo DiCaprio and Laurie David telling kids if you're a global warming skeptic, you are not cool.

«And then you add in the media, with people like Leonardo DiCaprio and Laurie David telling kids if you're a global warming skeptic, you are not cool,» said Morano.

Watch the global warming issue zooming by in a superficial manner and all the horrific claims — increasingly extreme weather events, imperiled polar bear populations, skeptics who are paid to lie about the truth of all of this — sound like they are true.

Steven Goddard has amassed massive amounts of graphs and data evidence of fraud with GISS, NOAA, BOM ect., No one actually cares or is even looking at this study, Hopefully it is because no one cares about global warming anymore except a few warmist fanatics and skeptics etc... Only serious legal action funded by a wealthy skeptic or the like will actually make anyone notice that is the sad fact I'm afraid.

Intelligent skeptics like Judith Curry or Robert LIndzen or could name dozens of actual scientists who believe like I do that there was warming in the 80s and 90s and man has added some (in parts per milllion) of CO2 to the atmosphere but should we be alarmed and call CO2 a pollutant - NO.

Climate change skeptics like James Taylor, environmental policy fellow at the Heartland Institute, a conservative think tank, said the pushback in schools and legislatures reflected public frustration at being told «only one side of the global warming debate — the scientifically controversial theory that humans are creating a global warming crisis.»

Alarmists want to fight the war over whether the greenhouse gas effect of CO2 is true and whether the world has seen warming over the last century, both propositions that skeptics like myself accept.

A skeptic allows for the IPCC summaries being accurate, just needing more evidence while not committing to either side, while a denialist is almost certain that they are not true, with statements like it is unlikely mostly us causing the warming.

Do you have evidence to disprove that expressions like «the supposed 20th century warming» appear only in comments from self - described climate - change skeptics, which are in fact contrarians?

I'm sure they'd love to run around arresting skeptics, AKA those of us who «pollute» the idea of anthropogenic global warming and don't like the Federal Government's continuous power grab and carbon tax attempts.

It's truer to say that assertions like yours («the supposed 20th century warming») appear only in comments from self - described climate - change skeptics.

[Response: Spoken like a «true skeptic»:) But the issue is Curry's claim that «There is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasn't stopped.»

Then certainly, you have expressed concerns about global - warming «skeptic» papers like McLean / de Freitas / Carter 2009, Soon / Baliunas 2003, etc., etc. that were published in spite of the fact that they contained errors that an undergraduate would be dinged for at any respected university...