Sentences with phrase «what denialists»

All the smears in the Soviet media about them remind me of what the denialists say about Dr. Mann, Dr. Jones and other climate scientists.

Didactylos, you call yourself a realist in this debate, isn't that what denialists call themselves in the climate debate...?

The second part is what the denialists are absolutely opposed to because it puts the highest probability at 100 %.

Conclusion By circling the earth 15 times per day, for years on end, observing constantly, the GRACE satellites * can * do see plainly what some denialists claim is impossible to see at all: gravitational shifts from melting ice - caps.

First, this topic belongs on Forced Responses, so if you want to reply please do so there... I responded to alphagruis here because the lack of quantitative / scientific / design / engineering he and others exhibit is consistent with what the Denialists do.

What the denialists fear (perhaps more than death itself, or the undermining of life - supports for a large chunk of biota) is the loss of freedom and the collapse of wealth.

That is not what the denialists are doing.

You see, this is what is interesting and what no denialist of any rank, privilege or position is able, and more importantly, willing to do: exhibit how the entire breadth and depth of climate science is wrong.

What denialist caused the creation of over 20 very different climate models if the science is settled?

That's what the denialist & luddite view is dedicated to make you think — when you see charts with the up - to - 10 % of the U.S. grid that is renewables.

Not exact matches

You are what I would call, a delusional denialist.

You know where the denialists would go with it, and that's what would REALLY be damaging to science.

To me this is obvious, but I've learned to include this sort of disclaimer to make it marginally more difficult for dodgers, denialists, and dudgeon demons to avoid actual thought in favor of straw man arguments and other mischaracterizations of what I've actually said.

I'm sure I'll be shaking my head in horror upon the first post that challenges ALL these institutions from SCIENCE AND SPACE but Jesus, what more do non believer's, denialists need to get the point we need to act NOW?

Instead you have now labeled me as a suspected «yet another denialist» based on no information what so ever.

Of course he does not believe what he is writing — he is one of those industry - paid denialists that show up on Dot Earth to confuse the uninitiate.

Scientists have been way too passive and way too accomodating to statements made by liars for hire, dishonest ideologues, and those denialist cheerleaders who tell the ditto - heads what to think and say.

And you know what makes denialists boil over with rage, as you have repeatedly done?

But this is why J Cook is important, because he promotes awareness of how deceitful climate denialists are, rather than just talking only about the science flaws in what they say.

Go to WUWT discussion of the Arctic collapse to see what contorted hoops of willful misinterpretation the denialists are jumping through, in a desparate attempt to deny reality.

What an echo chamber of talking heads who never admit that their denialist ideas could be wrong, and they never put any probability of correctness beside them.

The link is the usual denialist chaff invoking PDO and citing the Oregon Petition and what ever to explain Alaska's temperature rise and to claim the raise is not out of the ordinary.

The worst of the denialists are saying essentially... don't believe your doctor when he says the condition of your eyes is what is causing your blindness.

And I have no illusions about most of the denialist characters that appear, they are as stubborn as god knows what.

if you really are on the fence or a denialist that isn't dangerous, whatever that means... I cant tell what you are trying to say.

It's exactly what I've started doing (without the scientific expertise), and I've noticed others as well relentlessly responding to denialist b.s., pretty much as Sean describes.

(Disclaimer: I am coaching this from a denialist perspective because that is what they will do with it.

Sorry, I may be too much of an old - school here, but what worries me about these guidelines is that they can as well completely apply to whatever content (denialist, whatever) people put in.

Its a tough one for me, because while I hate what climate denialists say, I value peoples rights to an opinion — even a crappy one.

I like these attribution studies mention in this post, but the denialists seem forever stuck out on the long tail of «anything's possible in a non-ACC world, it's all within what's natural.»

What I do nt understand is why denialists take this position.

However, I have no doubt that anything comparable to what you mention but going the «other way» would set the denialist blogosphere ablaze...

What's next for the denialists?

However, two are from journalists (I'm not sure what a discussion of ocean warming below 2000m has to do with the price of cheese, mind), one a quote from a piece written by a NASA employee interviewing a climatologist, and KKTung is some sort of misguided mathmatics professor and very denialist in his approach to AGW.

# 125 MARodger: «However, two are from journalists (I'm not sure what a discussion of ocean warming below 2000m has to do with the price of cheese, mind), one a quote from a piece written by a NASA employee interviewing a climatologist, and KKTung is some sort of misguided mathmatics professor and very denialist in his approach to AGW.

Yet again, with the denialist advocates, what is more interesting than what they tell you is what they omit.

By the way, if you guys really believe that, as an expert told you, «newspapers essentially never use op ed space for op eds directly rebutting other op eds,» then maybe it'd be better to offer to engage the denialists» larger themes anyway: their junk science, their tarring of you all as «alarmists,» their idea that what's genuinely alarming is really only the concoction of a «science - journalism complex.»

What the graph does show is signs of acceleration 1993 - 2007 but then there are a couple of large negative steps 2007 - 10 turning the graph into something a denialist could easily claim showed deceleration.

I can assure you that what keeps this denialist going is exchanging thoughts with «denialists» like you.

Lindzen is telling the denialists in the new congress exactly what they want to hear.

You really have to be careful what you say these days or you're an instant denialist prop.

I love Tjader's post because it's exactly what I'm talking about: us «denialists» use logic and reason to defend our positions while warmers like Ms. Tjader use their hearts to think, which to my knowledge are organs which completely lack neurons needed for thought.

[I'm using what's soon to be known as Dot Earth Defender, a comment filter (requires Firefox and Greasemonkey add - on) to ignore denialist disinformation in DotEarth comments.]

Keeping true to what the scientific evidence shows is essential, breaching that rule would mean descending into the denialist's mire.

* A common tactic of denialists is to provide a link and hope you don't click on it, as the denialist base often does not — credulously believing what they read because it comports with their ideology.

I have no idea what you are referring to, except perhaps that the rote regurgitation of long - since and many - times - over debunked denialist nonsense is mercifully (and no doubt laboriously) deleted by the RC moderators — unlike every other open blog on the Internet where any attempt to discuss the science of anthropogenic global warming is quickly drowned out by a torrent of pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, blatant falsehoods, and hate speech against climate scientists.

What if the contrived logic of ideology is «blinding» denialists and naysayers to the virtual mountains of good scientific evidence of global warming?

The reality is that rejection is exactly what Fuller wanted from his visit here, since being a «victim» of «powerful liberal elites» is a badge of honor in the Ditto - Head market where he peddles his denialist propaganda.

How I would love for just one reporter to ask Mr. Inhofe (or any other denialist) «Please, what level of evidence would you accept as substantial enough that human caused climate change is real?»

We find this to be well - argued and in line with what we have been saying about global warming denialist interventions to manipulate the communication of climate change research.