Sentences with phrase «warmists only»

Warmists only get so hot under the collar so easily (pun intended), because they realise the AGW theory is complete bunk — as soon as someone mentions the models» problems and all their failed predictions the warmists start throwing their toys out of their pram.

She differs from the warmists only in her opinion of how much temperatures will rise, and what effect this will have.

As we can see, and as we might expect, sceptics and warmists only really disagree on matters relating to climate science.

Not exact matches

And not only is it an historical essay, it's one strongly characterized by unsubstantiated assertion — the central one, that «warmists» haven't bothered to examine the evidence, being easily falsified by, among other things, the existence and popularity of this very blog.

The only way, the last decade could not have been the «warmist ever», is if a cooling trend had set in over the whole decade, that was equal or greater than the previous warming decades trends.

Using the word» pause» makes you a Warmist role of toilet paper — you are doing the Warmist dirty job... Spooking the public that: the non-existent global warming is only having a» pause» until the Paris conference - > makes you a» Warmist gelding» — because they can not have any legitimate proof of something that doesn't exist — they are only exploiting Skeptic's ignorance — obsessed to be trendy; because contemporary the phony warming is fashionable...

Michael, you Warmist can only survive by misleading.

That is only twisted by the 101 % dishonest Warmist.

... the only thing ad hom attacks do is telegraph global warmists» intention to say something they know is deceiving.

The thing is, you and all the other warmists knew full well that reported surface temps only told part of the story.

But the Little Ice Age is not warmists» only antagonist.

Dr. Michael - Shawn Fletcher Based on data from a few carefully selected tree rings, dogmatic warmist scientists like to insist that the Medieval Warm Period really did not exist globally and was only a local North Atlantic phenomenon.

In the case of the climate system, though, and unfortunately for the Warmist hyperventilaters, the new state can only mean cooling, since we've already had warming.

Eugenicists and Warmists both to be eventually relegated to the ash heap of history we can only hope.

Without realistic altrernatives, skepticism will prevail and the only option left to the fanatical warmists is a Stalinesque strategy of exiling opponents.

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..

Unfortunately for the warmist Cult, people only need to look out their windows now to see that the CAGW scam was just that.

Only the Warmist mafia has a greenhouse with fishnet as a roof.

Only Warmists persist in believing otherwise.

Only a warmist would say something like this without even knowing the facts.

The combination leads to a diverse group in the commentary from morons (both warmist and skeptic) whose value is entertainment - only to the best and brightest who can discuss math, science, and engineering at the highest levels.

«multiple lines of evidence indicate that human influences have had an increasingly dominant effect on the climate warming observed since the mid-twentieth century» - a handful of papers a year that only most ardent warmists can find against the thousand of natural influence showing papers.

I fear the likes of Inhofe will only be content when a «warmist» climate scientist is physically hurt or worse.

Warmists will claim in the year 2100: Thanks to OUR good work, temperatures have kept below our 2.0 C aim at only 0.3 C... JS

And the fact that we've had this 15 year temperature stall out, and that the warmist adjusted 20th century temperature record appears to have had only mild (NOT hockey stick style!)

The only thing that's needed to make me a warmist is to validate the models for me.

Though it is comforting to see the confounding of the warmists with warming at a stop, it is also a little scarey, even should it only be something minor like the recent little ice age.

Generally the only time «warmists» talk about short term (e.g. decadal) trends in historical temperature series is when explaining why the «no significant warming since» argument is bogus (e.g. the escalator http://www.skepticalscience.com/going-down-the-up-escalator-part-1.html).

Instead, virtually every thread on WUWT that critiques a warmist paper lamaents its paywalled status and critiques only what is outside the paywall.

I've been waiting for them to become pro-nuke, and for the most part the only prominent warmist to promote nuclear power is Hansen, the rest have to either be idiots (to believe we can run a 1st world society on wind and solar), or they just hate humans (well everyone except their green friends), it's insanity.

Maybe you were only taught basic, basic, stuff because your instructors thought you had potential to be a Warmist — who appear to have little grasp of reality in many instances.

James, only biased warmists point to «Craptical Science» as a neutral unbiased scientific source for anything.

It can only be explained the alluring political siren call of the Marxist millenarian narrative, although it is doubtful most Warmists are even aware of the historical pedigree of their ideology.

And then, y ’ all generic warmists not only demand we accept The Greenhouse Effect doesn't break the 2nd Law, you don't even have a consistent internally coherent agreement of what The Greenhouse Effect is!

Steven, that would only be fair since warmists already have had their fun seeing skeptics squirm and disown thee efforts of Judy's own BEST team to produce a land surface record that incorporates many more stations, and implements better algorithms, in order to correct alleged warmist biases in the CRU record, only to discover that the CRU warming trend was biased low.

«Climate science» as it is used by warmists implies adherence to a set of beliefs: (1) Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations will warm the Earth's surface and atmosphere; (2) Human production of CO2 is producing significant increases in CO2 concentration; (3) The rate of rise of temperature in the 20th and 21st centuries is unprecedented compared to the rates of change of temperature in the previous two millennia and this can only be due to rising greenhouse gas concentrations; (4) The climate of the 19th century was ideal and may be taken as a standard to compare against any current climate; (5) global climate models, while still not perfect, are good enough to indicate that continued use of fossil fuels at projected rates in the 21st century will cause the CO2 concentration to rise to a high level by 2100 (possibly 700 to 900 ppm); (6) The global average temperature under this condition will rise more than 3 °C from the late 19th century ideal; (7) The negative impact on humanity of such a rise will be enormous; (8) The only alternative to such a disaster is to immediately and sharply reduce CO2 emissions (reducing emissions in 2050 by 80 % compared to today's rate) and continue further reductions after 2050; (9) Even with such draconian CO2 reductions, the CO2 concentration is likely to reach at least 450 to 500 ppm by 2100 resulting in significant damage to humanity; (10) Such reductions in CO2 emissions are technically feasible and economically affordable while providing adequate energy to a growing world population that is increasingly industrializing.

However, most warmists now understand that the militia makes a lot of unpleasant noises but only fires blanks.

In the final chapter «On The Way Forward», Morano writes climate sanity was restored to the United States with Trump's election, and that Trump is: «The warmists» worst nightmare: the first Republican presidential nominee who ever staked out a strongly science - supported skeptical position not only on climate change claims but also on the socalled «solutions».»

Those passages (e.g. describing themselves as anti-science or saying the wanted to stop science from being taught in classrooms) are so unlikely to have been written by Heartland / Bast that the only explanation other than fakery by Gleick or some other warmist is that someone from Heartland (or another skeptic) wrote it to set Gleick up (if so, Gleick was not very bright to fall for it because anyone with half a brain should know that Heartland would not talk about itself in such terms).

From there warmists can then show why the pause is apparent but not real, and we can show how the warming was likewise only apparent, and not 100 % «real» warming.

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.

By definition, you are biased not only because of this, but also because you and Mosher have declared yourself to be warmists / lukewarmers on multiple occasions.

I only mention this, because you and some other warmists pretend that if only we just do the right thing and «believe» in AGW, everything will be all right --- when the truth is that a country like ours stands to lose its prosperity, our children's futures and our standard of living for the foreseeable future --- all on the strength of the scientific conclusions that your AGW scientists have so little confidence in, that they're afraid to have them scrutinised and questioned by other scientists.

The only thing the warmists do not control is the future empirical data; they can torture the past data to «confess» (Ronald Coase).

«What they (the Democrats & warmists) are so afraid of is this: Trump is the first Republican Presidential nominee that has ever staked out a strongly science supported skeptical position not only on climate science claims, but also on the so - called «solutions».

Not that I think the world, on average, needs as much as 15ºC, but it it totally ridiculous that the Alarmists (and Warmists) are aghast at the supposed 0.8 ºC rise since 1880 they think they've measured (of which about 0.3 ºC is probably data bias and only about 0.2 ºC is due to human activity).

And it's hard to say how much of the confusion is wilful when some folks, in one breath tell you that it's crazy for «warmists» to think that only humans affect global climate, and in the next claim that an alleged «pause» in warming means that steadily - increasing CO2 levels «can't» be responsible — a claim that could only make sensse if CO2 * were * the only thing affecting the temps.

I fully suspect though, that the warmists will quickly dismiss this list and say that none of these are peer reviewed - as they feel that they are the only ones capable of being «peers».

Not only is the number of pro-warming articles falling through the floor, but there just aren't enough people willing to speak up for the warmist view to go around.

The primary reason to ignore chicken little forecasts of thermageddon is the warmists» unquestioned acceptance of WAGs as to past «global average temperatures», which is matched only by their blind belief in the projections of GCMs as to future GATs.