Sentences with phrase «warming skeptics under»

The only real hoax here is that van der Linden is throwing global warming skeptics under the bus with conspiracy theorists who believe that nasa faked the moon landing, the government holds aliens hostage in Area 51, and the Boston Marathon bombings were an inside job.

Not exact matches

Therefore, IMHO, it would be closer to the truth to call WUWT a «skeptic» site that calls into question exactly how much the mean temperature has increased since the advent of the thermometer record in the late 1880's, how much of that is due to human activities and how much to natural cycles not under our control, what dangers rising temperatures may pose to human life and civilization, and what technologically and politically doable actions may be taken to reduce human - caused warming, and our dependence on foreign sources of fossil energy.

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.

But there is a consistent theme to all of them: Davies is cited just for the accusation that illicit funding has gone to skeptic climate scientists and organizations skeptical of catastrophic human - induced global warming; when will he finally provide actual evidence proving the funding was done under arrangements where all parties agreed on what, when, where, and how the lies would be spread??

Ross Gelbspan, as a self - described reporter who was angered by the discovery of skeptic climate scientists being «paid sort of under the table by the coal industry» to spread «false information,» has had entire second career promoting the idea that we could be making better headway in stopping man - caused global warming it it weren't for the industry funded coordinated misinformation campaign.

So again — seems to me that debates about the magnitude of sensitivity are consistent with skepticism (as opposed to «skepticism»), and debates about the physics of AGW are consistent with skepticism (as opposed to «skepticism» — and despite the attempts of some to throw those who doubt basic AGW physics under a bus)-- but to say that you don't doubt the basic physics yet assert that global warming has stopped is either illogical or the view of a «skeptic» (as opposed to a skeptic).

In the past few months, climate scientists speaking out about the dangers of global warming have come under increased assault, largely because of climate skeptics voicing concerns over the information contained within certain scientists» email messages.

There's ego there, there's scathing criticism of climate change skeptics, and there's a growing sense of themselves being under siege by vitriolic personal attacks, by global warming denialism, by harassment, by frivolous Freedom of Information Act requests, and so forth.

If your position is that global warming skeptic scientists operate under guidance from industries opposing CO2 regulation, are you prepared to provide specific proof of improper payments to those scientists, and specific proof of faults in the scientists» resulting reports that are obvious indications of industry - guided science errors?

Apparently in the same manner that he glommed onto the notion that skeptic climate scientists are paid illicit industry money under instructions to «reposition global warming as theory rather than fact», it seems he didn't check the veracity of the more recently repeated «3000 IPCC scientists» figure.

Basic point being, these are people collectively operate in the realm of «climate change sociology» under the unsupportable premise that man - caused global warming is settled science, thus it is up to them to explain to the rest of us what's wrong with the mindset of skeptic climate scientists....

I did not say that Abelson was necessarily a global warming skeptic, though many web sites seem anxious to debunk the idea (or at least so I found out in the last couple of days), my point was that under his editorship Science was open to publishing articles whose findings were not supportive of the theory.

The skeptic arguments seem to all reside under a claim that the signature is not unique, not that it is unique to something other than GHG warming.

Al Gore and his followers have tried to prevent this «immersion» from happening by steering the public into believing skeptic scientists were paid to lie, and they found their best success with that tactic under the guidance of Ross Gelbspan and his exploitation of the «reposition global warming» phrase as a sinister «big coal & oil» industry directive.