Sentences with phrase «warmist side»

Now I know wikipedia is frowned on as a reference but when it comes to global warming their distinct bias is always on the warmist side so if you find something in wikipedia that is contrary to warmist dogma you can bet your bottom dollar it's a painful admission.

John — A friendly word of advice — I hope you're wearing your asbestos undies because this subject has brought out the cognitive dissonance on the warmist side of the dance floor.

As we have previously established, advocacy groups on the Warmist side of the argument have spent a lot of money on their propaganda.

Insisting that basic physics does not work at all is a non-starter, which will hand victory in the debate to the Warmist side by default.

Like many on the warmist side he is making propaganda.

On the US scale I must be strongly on the warmist side, but perhaps not so certainly here or in EU more generally.

I sense it is no longer fashionable or cool to be a scientist on the warmist side.

Perhaps the reaction of the Warmist side is just too much believing in their own hysteria?

Not exact matches

That hoary old one, which should probably be called «Old Shep» about «warmists» wanting «to preserve existing arrangements of economic advantage of developed nations by keeping people of developing nations poor and without access to low cost energy» has been repeatedly euthanased by those of your side who insist that mitigation is a plot driven by guilt - ridden first - world liberals who want to transfer industry and thus wealth from the first world to the third and who accordingly want to give China, India and Brazil a free pass on emissions targets.

I learned a long time ago that when you challenge a warmist or a denier (or even mention those words; — RRB - the fur starts flying and EITHER side will accuse you of being one of those guys on the other side.

I ask this question because I find definitive answers to these questions sorely lacking on the «warmist» side of this conversation, though they are arguably more important than the nonsense that consumes 99.9 % of the promotion of the AGW theory and its political ramifications.

Battling from the same side as the warmists leads to hair - splitting and this is why the democrats held their own.

The one by Goddard had no place at that hearing but I suppose politically it would have been impossible to contradict Cruz unless you did the same of warmist material and unless you knew in advance what was going to be highlighted by way of a chart I guess no side wanted to give the other an advantage by admitting the science was dubious.

Whenever the media has tried to give a hearing to the skeptical side, it has been battered by protests from its readership (e.g., PBS's interview of Anthon *), accusations of providing «false balance» (because consensus) and technical letters demanding in effect that the recipient disprove this or that aspect of the warmist case, something no media producer is ready or able to do.

Used to be described as: running with one leg on each side of a barbwire fence experts... Or; only half of his brains is on the front end... They are experts on» ifs and maybes» same as the Warmist..

Vaughn, instead of an EXTREME Warmist; you are starting to sound as a Fake Skeptic (as inbedded Warmist in the Skeptic's camp) What did they do to you; did they promise you more rip - off money — or are you starting to run with one leg on each side of a barbed wire fence... will get even more painful!!!

Fuller makes it clear that Warmists happily do wrong and their side goes along with the humbug for years.

but obviously our side is just as negligent in reading it as the warmists are.

Also, the name given to either side of the debate be it warmist, denier, skeptic or whatever is somewhat irrelavent.

5) If such interrogations go ahead, do you agree that they should include interrogations / cross examination of climate scientists from both the «skeptical» (e.g., Christy, Spencer, Lindzen) and the «warmist» sides?

The notion that one's concerns are inconsequential unless they've been written up in a proper scientific paper and published in a peer - reviewed journal comes from the warmist / activist / alarmist side of the fence.

The attempt to deny that the other side exists is not exclusive to the «warmist» side of the debate.

With these people on your side how can the warmist be losing the climate adjustment battle and the hearts of minds of the fuel poverty peons.

There'd be a copy editing & peer review service to vet our side's books prior to publication, since any flubs will be seized on by warmists to discredit the entire work, as happened to Plimer's book.

On your side, you have unverifiable assertions, supported by quasi-religious Warmist handwaving and fervour.

It doesn't matter what side of the debate you are on, warmist or skeptic, the maths is just not there!!

So, from a PR and marketing perspective, «our side» could have driven a bus through several fundamental, warmist arguments during this hearing...... but we didn't (or at least we could have probably done a better job than was done).

Rob, I'll accept the risk of a Krakatoa scale eruption, and double your stake on the «warmist» side of the bet (There might be a confused other Rob Huneycutt who I just contacted via Facebook.)

Of course the grand irony is that most liberal warmists are absolutely convinced that they're on the side of the angels.

Someone on the skeptic side who displays the blogging characteristics that you do would not see the light of day on warmist blogs.

Whatever «side» you are on and whether the scientist concerned being vilified is a sceptic or a warmist this sort of bullying should be condemned.

The number one reason I got suspicious when I first got interested in this debate as a warmist 4 or so years ago, was the sheer nastiness of what then was my side.

Its bad enough when sceptic attacks a warmist and vice versa, but when someone is attacked by their own «side» for stepping out of line something extraordinary is happening.

As one Warmist activist recently admitted, «the sceptics have more knowledgeable folks on their side»!!!!

Why is it that on all sides, sceptics and here the warmists, we see fighting about prominent figureheads (may it be the irresistable Mr. Gore, or the ever charming Mr. Monckton).

nothing less than an assault intellectual liberty I want to hear from the warmists here at CE pick a side this letter to Georgia Tech has no defense

Give me a white board and 30 minutes to go through that and I'll swing far more warmists to the skeptic side than days and days and days of refining co2 models down to photon by photon accuracy.