Sentences with phrase «whether skeptic climate»

in which I was a participant discussing whether skeptic climate scientist Dr S Fred Singer had any grounds for launching a libel / slander lawsuit against people accusing him of being a «liar for hire».

Not exact matches

With climate skeptic Donald Trump moving into the White House next year, critics in Canada are asking whether policies to cut carbon pollution here are now too expensive.

Climate skeptics pounced on this change as proof that earlier estimates had been overblown, while some climate bloggers questioned whether the IPCC had lowballed its estimates to avoid confrontation with skClimate skeptics pounced on this change as proof that earlier estimates had been overblown, while some climate bloggers questioned whether the IPCC had lowballed its estimates to avoid confrontation with skclimate bloggers questioned whether the IPCC had lowballed its estimates to avoid confrontation with skeptics.

With the world converging in Paris later this year to hammer out a climate agreement, nuclear energy proponents like China and skeptics like Germany are keeping a close eye on France to see whether the French experiment will vindicate their approaches to energy.

In 1998, Tony Lupo boasted that climate skeptics outnumbered the consensus view that global warming is happening and caused by people, proclaiming, «there is no scientific consensus whether global warming is a fact and is occurring.»

Who cares whether «Climate Skeptics Seize on Cold Spell» or whatever anti-scientific thing they do?

don't forget: it was a a group of sophisticated ny'ers who voted that the skeptics (lindzen, crichton, etc.) won the intelligence squared debate last april about whether climate was a «crisis.»

Also, the brief period I spent scanning abstracts [no time this week to read papers] indicates a difference of opinion suggesting whether there is a correlation between clouds and CRF (including a no by Balling and Cerveny Theoretical and Applied Climatology 75:3 - 4 pp. 225 - 231 — which may be a good indicator as there was a skeptic flurry last year over connecting CRF to climate as another try at natural causes being responsible for recent climate change).

The e-mails, attributed to prominent American and British climate researchers, include discussions of scientific data and whether it should be released, exchanges about how best to combat the arguments of skeptics, and casual comments — in some cases derisive — about specific people known for their skeptical views.

Skeptics don't deny that climate related changes are being observed; what is at issue is the attribution of the changes and whether or not they are dangerous.

The divide between advocates and skeptics over whether to do something about climate change is widening, with both sides growing more certain of their convictions.

However much you may hate it as having no basis in reality, at least it's a model that (a) I offer an explanation, whether climate skeptics like it is a separate question, and (b) it fits the data moderately well.

One wonders, had such questions been included, whether conservatives would have still have shown slightly greater scientific literacy overall and if some of the harder - line skeptics of climate change would have been classified as highly scientifically literate.

That is what I see being exchanged, ubiquitously in the climate wars, whether it be «realists» saying that they have a privileged view into what science says, or «skeptics» saying that they have a privileged view of what science says, without either side stopping to pay serious consideration to that long list of criteria I feel are necessary.

What if the climate experts conducted an actual experiment that would prove whether the global warming skeptics were right or wrong about world - wide warming being overstated?

along with a tougher question on whether the core people of this clique actually believed that skeptic climate scientists had been corrupted by industry payments.

Climate skeptic scientists have long questioned whether the effects of relatively minor (compared to other CO2 sources and sinks) human - caused emissions of CO2 have more than a minor effect on global temperatures and some have even questioned whether the UN and USEPA have even gotten the causation backwards (i.e., because on balance global temperatures affect atmospheric CO2 levels).

Now, we're left wondering whether Gansler is a deliberate participant or an inadvertent dupe in the spread of elemental misinformation stemming from the same small clique of people associated with the 20 year + character assassination efforts aimed at skeptic climate scientists.

It is NOT about whether or no «skeptics» have used «bad practices» (i.e. «hide the decline» methods) to support their various objections to the «official» IPCC «mainstream position» on climate change.

Even committed climate activists (and they are legion on Twitter), understand that accusations of murder — whether in connection to climate skeptics or fossil fuel companies — are over-the-top.

I assume that most people, when they talk of «climate change,» are referring to AGW, so I don't agree that it is «usually a stunt» whether it is used by «skeptics» or by «realists.»

As far as I am familiar with Lewandowsky's work, which isn't very far, it seems to me that it shows that there is some association of conspiratorial ideation and climate «skepticism,» but fails to address in a scientific manner the question of whether it predominates, relatively in «skeptics» as compared to «realists.»

they might dare to question whether his entire accusation narrative against skeptic climate scientists has any merit

If skeptics within the climate science community are starved of funding how would we know if they have a strong case or whether the so - called consensus is merely an artifact of them getting all the research grants?

An elemental question begs to be corroborated in more than one way for sheer fairness: When the main pushers of the idea that the «reposition global warming» phrase insinuate it is proof of an industry - led disinformation effort employing crooked skeptic climate scientists — Naomi Oreskes saying it indicates a plot to supply «alternative facts,» Gelbspan saying it is a crime against humanity, and Al Gore implying it is a cynical oil company effort — are they truly oblivious to the necessity of corroborating whether or not that phrase and the memo subset it came from actually had widespread corrupting influence, or did they push this «evidence» with malice knowing it was worthless?

Whether we are climate activists or climate skeptics surely we can agree that this isn't how democratic government is supposed to work.

It includes his bit about fake letter - writers, his inconsistencies about whether he prompted a male or female Attorney General to question skeptic scientists attending a 1995 government hearing, the plausibility problem of that AG tipping him — a private citizen at that time — about the impending appearance of skeptic climate scientists there — plus more than a dozen other major problems.

Start dissecting their narratives, comparing them side - by - side while looking for physical evidence corroborating Ross Gelbspan's «industry corruption» accusation against skeptic climate scientists, and a very different picture becomes clear: these people's narratives don't line up right, they collectively have no evidence backing up their accusation, and this prompts serious questions of whether core leaders of the global warming movement are totally oblivious to this situation, or if they knew their narratives had no merit from the start.

Quoting Dr. Morton: «Skeptics have used this continuing plateau to question whether CO2 is the primary driver of climate, so if temperatures begin to rise again, we can expect many claims of vindication by those who have concluded human activity dominates.»

Rapes and rape threats are reprehensible, whether perpetrated by a PSU coach or by climate «skeptics».

Whether he's taking on climate skeptics or vouching for a cap - and - dividend system, Hansen is as outspoken a scientist as they come.

Human beings — whether they be climate skeptics or climate activists — are motivated by many things.