Sentences with phrase «when denialists»

Particularly not when those denialists whom you claim are «following suit» claim to have been awarded a Nobel Prize when they haven't.

I also remember making an argument, similar to Stephen's (# 3), when denialists would confront me with that cooling evidence as proof AGW wasn't real.

That is why I always laugh when denialists argue that the models are crap.

Keep to the intellectual high ground, even when denialists are in the gutter.

Finally, it always astounds me when denialists attack the models.

I didn't want to bother anyone here when a denialist kept harping on «there's no evidence of SLR acceleration,» citing http://www.sealevel.info/papers.html — into which I didn't even investigate bec my original point was that there had been some 8 ″ SLR over the past 100 years, which was a factor in making the effects of Sandy worse (among other CC impacted effects), citing http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/11/climate-change-didnt-cause-hurricane-sandy-it-sure-made-it-worse.

It may have been worth attempting to win you over 12 - 24 months ago when the denialist view still had some support in government, business and the general public, but that is no longer the case.

Not exact matches

«Question everything — but have the sense to know when your questions have been suitably answered, and don't become a denialist.»

It always kind of amazes me when people object to the label «denialist» for people who are so deeply in denial.

It makes sensitivity all the more difficult to define because you have to say «When» and it introduces more opportunities for denialists.

The book explains that consensus arises when there is a most convincing explanation for the conditions we see — this is often twisted and put on its head, and denialists think that the explanation follows the consensus, exposing ignorance about fundamental aspects of science.

«a shrinking number of denialists fly into a rage when it's mentioned»... «the political climate is changing....

Science in this state is rarely overturned, and when it is, the outcome isn't necessarily as radical as climate science denialists preach.

How can we believe the denialists when their funding comes from a group that have a captive market and can raise «taxes» without losing revenue (unlike governments)?

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.

When such games are played, how can one not call them denialists?

When it comes to the Atmospheric «Greenhouse Effect», some of the commenters on that blog are «disbelievers» (the term I prefer to the non-PC «denialist»).

In my own (previously denialist family) I told them a couple years ago, how are you going to explain to your kids where Santa lives when the arctic ice is gone?

But when there are folk involved in the process that do not see denial as a problem as well as folk who are more concerned with the entertainment factors than the denialist problem, an institutionally denialist outcome should be no surprise.

When I Google that expression I get an awful lot of denialist sites come up; nobody on the first page of hits looks like a climate scientist — unless for example you're counting Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, whose scientific qualifications end at O - level (if he even got an O - level); or perhaps Joanne Nova, who has more scientific qualification, but isn't a climate scientist unless a bachelor's degree in microbiology qualifies her as such?

In other words, we can and should note that we are probably hitting the 400 ppm barrier, but then later when we drop slightly below, temporarily, 400ppm, the climate science denialists will be all over that claiming that there is no global warming.

We'll see whether the denialists continue to like these data when the temps rebound.

Of course, I was not a big fan when a member of our government was posting inaccurate, misleading, and (so forth) denialist information!

Why do you continue to assert some 10 % of the people as «denialist fringe» of AGW, when even Andy states that firm skeptics are a number more like 20 % and that this information is taken from Al Gores «We» organization, which fails to count any of the undecided vast middle of their own non-committed 73 % as being skeptics?

When you denigrate scientificially uninformed religious people and announce that they are against global warming, you may actually antagonize them and cause them to become denialists.

It is when that person is Jim Cripwell, whose postings here make it clear that he's a denialist...» offsetting greenhouse gas warming» presumes one accepts greenhouse gas warming in the first place, after all.

It should tell you something when not one professional organization of scientists supports the denialist side.

When anyone threatens to compete for real estate on op ed pages and talk shows there is a huge push back, not just from the few denialists but from the entire public affairs apparatus that is pushing them.

You can not grasp simple issues, but feel free to call others denialists when they question aspects of climate science with all of its recognized complexities.

But when his delusional exercises continue to be accepted by Congress, mass media and denialists as science — well then, somebody else is joining the show.

Could anything be more out of date, backward - looking, or antiquated in spirit than the Carlin report's repackaging of yesterday's denialist illusions and pseudoscientific nonsense about climate — fantasies that have been shot down time and again, that don't have a melting Greenland glacier's chance in a warming climate when exposed to the light of reason, yet which have been presented to the world as if they were a brilliant refutation of the CO2 - global warming link by the sharpest analytical minds in the field of climatological research?

If we can only detect the anomalies when there is an obvious spike in the data, and the only people that make corrections are «denialist», doesn't that shed ANY doubt in your mind on the integrity of the process?

I think I may have posted this before but when I troll denialist blogs, I typically end up making the following argument: -------------------------------- So we are left with three possible conclusions:

«downscaling»: Lack of downscaling gives denialists one more weapon since Dr. Aiguo Dai's maps show my location as dry in 2008 when we had 3 floods instead of 1.

But the entrenched denialist, do - nothing opposition is still winning when it comes to writing the checks.

Ah, denialists try to play being skeptical about the near two hundred year body of literature that includes research into every posited alternative hypothesis, when the issue is really their paranoid conspiracy theory.

When warmists started calling sceptics denialists, I immediately knew that they're projecting — they were the ones who denied climate change.

NRK (Norway's BBC) has a bad habit of inviting denialists, but no climate scientists when debating global warming.

When you attack it, you are a denialist.

But, we asked, where is the middle ground when one of the political parties appears to be aligning itself in a denialist... Continue reading →

When they show the instruments of torture to the «denialists» you will change your tune.

I am not a big fan of Bill Nye's explanations, but he did OK here, plus who could go wrong when you have shouting Republican denialists scattered through your video.

Jim D: «Peters and Markey both were clearly not happy that Cruz had set up a panel of majority denialists in this day and age when the real debate has already moved on past these people.

When Mann has to defend his actions he'll have the opportunity to explain the frustration of the denialist BS and a few of those spotlights will settle on you know who and those behind him.

Which is somewhat vexing, as I can not apparently label someone a denialist even when there is clear evidence that they are following the denialist playbook, which is defined...

I can be tolerant of «true» skeptics but the word denialist is the way the rest SHOULD be described because they are in a state of denial when the accusations of fraud come out...

I get angry when I am called a denier or denialist, because I... don't... like... being associated with neo Nazis.

Yes, they were interesting (and educational) times, before Climategate I didn't think much about the reasons for the great big new taxes but when Climategate occurred I took an interest and since then have become a skeptic or denialist or whatever the current word is Perhaps what Politicisation has done in the name of science is demonstrate that there are inquiring and courageous scientific and other minds that do not close And where's Bulldust (I think he is Australian as I am) and the coiner of the phrase «Climategate» Happy anniversary everyone, thank you Anthony for a wonderful site

And in an unwitting exposé of the essential denialist fallacy, when Kevin says «the vast majority of climate scientists have no doubt...», Diane cuts him off with «the vast majority of people on earth believe in God, and they're all wrong».

He's not using the denialist line that baseload power can't include solar at all, but that you still require additional power when solar can't provide it.