Sentences with phrase «which skeptic arguments»

This helps keep track of which skeptic arguments are being used.

If you press the Menu button while looking at a skeptic argument, you get the options to copy the URL, share the URL with others (which I encourage everyone to do), open it in a browser or report this argument so we can keep track of which skeptic arguments are the most popular.

Not exact matches

In response to a post by a Twitter user which said Musk should provide «some very strong arguments in a well written blog piece to win over the (myself included) skeptics,» the Tesla and SpaceX CEO wrote: «Movie on the subject coming soon...» Now, why hasn't anyone thought of that before?

Then, when the skeptic disbelieves in the space ship because of the Chad's poor argumentation and the invisible, undetectable nature of the space ship, Chad asks, «What investigation have you done to disbelieve in my invisible and undetectable spaceship which I can not offer any good arguments for?»

Thacker's «Viewpoint» piece spends more time questioning the motives (aka «sliming») skeptics by innuendo rather than discussing the substance of their arguments (which realclimate does better).

Another might be my earlier «climate class» suggestion, where true skeptics are confronted with the same type of arguments that are regularly produced here at RealClimate and which fall into the general category of «plenty, but way too late», rather than the commonplace «too little and too late».

For the past 3 years, I have been trying to figure out how to engage skeptics effectively in the context of # 3, which I think is a method that can be effective in countering the arguments of skeptics, while at the same time being consistent with our core research values.

What lags what might seem like a good debate to have and one that has to be answered to as the skeptics for good scientists to set up sites like this to argue the cause but come on the evidence is clear, it is not the SUN that has caused the current warming and we have a perfectly robust argument for stating that it is greenhouse gases (all of which has increased).

Robert, you are correct that there are many kinds of skeptics, specifically as many as there are steps in the AGW argument, which is a lot.

A few weeks ago Kevin Drum argued that global warming added 3 inches to Sandy's 14 - foot storm surge, which he said was an argument that totally refuted skeptics and justified massive government restrictions on energy consumption (or whatever).

I have a history with Andy Revkin's DotEarth, which is prone to provide fuel for sloppy thinking about weather and climate, as well as a hangout for the worst kind of clever - looking phony skeptic arguments.

My judgment is on which side of the argument has the experts that impress me more, and I'll let you in on some bad news — its not the skeptics.

For «skeptics» to make a convincing argument that humans are not causing global warming, they must both explain where this large greenhouse gas radiative forcing has gone, and find an even larger «natural» radiative forcing which nobody has yet identified.

«It is my experience which guides my firm support of the proposition that skeptics and those who have the courage to support them are actually helpful in getting the science right... They do not, as some improperly suggest, «obfuscate» the issue: They assist in clarifying it by challenging weaknesses in the «consensus» argument, and they compel necessary corrections,» he said.

The result was all the skeptic arguments and a paragraph rebuttal on a single page which I thought was a fairly useful and concise summary.

The argument to «learn what else drives climate» is a complete red herring, as if scientists are not already figuring out everything they can (which in turn is then being repeatedly re shaped to use to try to refute Climate Change by «skeptic» websites, as is everything), and is just used as another false refutation of, or confusion on, the basic assessment and risk range that the at this point fairly well known and well substantiated general concept of Climate Change represents.

The hacked e-mails, which were then used to support the arguments of global - warming skeptics, appeared to have been distributed through a server in the Siberian oil town of Tomsk, raising suspicion among some environmental activists of Russia's involvement in the leak....»

The phony skeptic argument is that cold is not part of the rollercoaster, which to me looks like obvious nonsense.

The excellent science and statistics blogger Tim Lambert has proposed a game called» global warming skeptic bingo,» in which all of the various discredited arguments that are repeatedly used to undermine the consensus view of human - caused climate change are arranged in a series of squares.

The use of labels such as «warmist» and «skeptic,» is symptomatic of the kind of heuristic in which the correct inference is identified by argumentum ad vericundium (argument from authority).

It's just a trivial possibility which Roger Sr. and other skeptics dismiss without argument — and seemingly don't even think of — when they claim that heat can't be gained by deep layers without there first occurring some commensurate net heat gain in the mixed layer.

Jon wrote a very interesting paper in which he argued that even if the skeptic narratives are correct, the old narratives I was telling wasn't an argument against climate action.

Girma, when I use the UAH sattelite - based temperature anomalies, which skeptics believe are more reliable than HadCrut anomalies, your argument disappears.

Skeptics, however, have told me the antitrust argument may not work because patents are, essentially, official monopolies granted by the government — which makes it hard to accuse a patent holder of being anticompetitive.