Sentences with phrase «which warmists»

In short, the administration needs to keep the prospect of CO2 litigation chaos alive in order to sustain the «greenhouse protection racket» — the strategy of regulatory extortion — on which warmists increasingly rely to promote their agenda.

You get that by correcting Sagan's incorrect aerosol optical physics which the warmists use to claim increased cloud albedo is hiding CO2 - AGW.

That's the point which warmists ignore.

You go on and on about CO2 storage heat, which is actually is quite similar to CO2 is TRAPPING heat which warmists, media and ecoloonies say many times.

In email 435, Cook proposed to Briffa that they try to summarize what was actually known about 1000 - year reconstructions, complaining that Bradley's «air of papal infallibility is really quite nauseating at times» — a point on which both warmist and skeptic could agree.

Not exact matches

That hoary old one, which should probably be called «Old Shep» about «warmists» wanting «to preserve existing arrangements of economic advantage of developed nations by keeping people of developing nations poor and without access to low cost energy» has been repeatedly euthanased by those of your side who insist that mitigation is a plot driven by guilt - ridden first - world liberals who want to transfer industry and thus wealth from the first world to the third and who accordingly want to give China, India and Brazil a free pass on emissions targets.

Yes, Andy, you are right about one point: Journalists should point out that there are some climate issues in which there is general agreement between warmists and skeptics.

Joe - dallas: so why would possitive feedbacks react differently than before which is what the warmists are predicting.

My assumption that neither you nor anyone else can provide a rigorous definition of the surface which is in line with other Warmist dogma.

Dr. Curry: Thanks for the clarification regarding the out - of - date quote from the peak of your «warmist» phase, to which I was replying.

Or you could believe the Warmists, and surround yourself with CO2, which should magically warm you up by 33C if you stand in direct sunlight, somewhat less if the surrounding air temperature is say, -85 C.

Professor Schneider was one of the leading «coolists» in the 70's, but of course he «saw the light» and became a leading «warmist», which I suppose proves that he is a true scientist.

David — obviously the warmists want to discuss pH and not propaganda, which the word acidification is.

RSS4.0 is TTT, which is a warmist's attempt to fudge the data..

This is way too high when compared with the historic data (0.8 degrees being the reasonable maximum, which is why this figure is used by the warmists).

It may read a little like a visit to a sausage factory, but in fact it's an inside peek at UEA's kitchen as it churns out the thin gruel which somehow is sustaining Lolwot's warmist pals.

Setting aside the President's style, which is just about all we in Australia learn about the President from our own mainstream media, Mr Trump is not combatting the global warmists so much as simply ignoring them.

He presents himself as someone who is fighting a battle to reveal «truth» and «secrets» which «warmists» want hidden to protect their vested interests.

First, this use of science (which is often presented as an appeal to «nature») may be related to warmists tendency to appeal to misanthropism — that is the ideology of nature as more pure than man.

In addition to your pool table analogy, you ought to incorporate the warmists» body - weight = Calorie - consumption assumed analogy into your paper, because it is a better fit to the way they are thinking, and enables you to point out its subtle flaw: the human body can't increase its metabolism rate (via a higher body temperature) to keep its weight down, but the climate system can increase its convection rate; i.e., the rate at which it sheds heat.

There is not necessarily correlation between them, obviously, and Warmists tend to jump from alarmism about one, to predictions of doom about another, depending on which particular straw man suits their current situation.

You seem to be making some obscure Warmist point, which is beyond my understanding.

I see you have introduced the Warmist inconstant constant, to accompany the Warmist Arrhenius logarithmic CO2 law which doesn't actually exist.

Therefore, the exception, which I stated merely for completeness, does not apply in this case; there is no relevant «logical» argument against the warmist case.

However warmists counter that more el Ninos are simply the mechanism by which CAGW takes place.

Mann - made warmists say this does not disprove AGW, it is just a freak event temporarily hiding the undeniable, unprecedented, unrelenting global warming which is due to man burning fossil fuels and we need loads of nuclear NOW.

Unfortunately the study needs to be taken with a hefty pinch of salt because it's based on «complex climate models» and emanates from Germany's fanatically warmist Potsdam Institute, which is ideologically committed to «proving» that CO2 is a significant driver of «climate change» even when most real - world evidence suggests it's not.

This line of attack on skeptics has been very successful for the warmists in the past, which is why they constantly recur to it.

So if we start arguing about this then we are tacitly implying a concession that the warmists are right about CO2, which I don't think they are.

Insisting that basic physics does not work at all is a non-starter, which will hand victory in the debate to the Warmist side by default.

Once again the desperate Warmist attempt to introduce irrelevant and misleading analogies in place of non existent experimental verification of an effect which does not exist.

Dessler himself is a big warmist and expresses his bias this way: «Everything shows that the climate models are probably getting the water vapor feedback right, which means that unless we reduce emissions, it is going to get much, much warmer on our planet by the end of the century.,» That was in 2009.

She therefore wishes to present a wider range of CS than would be considered likely by most climate scientists, but she sees the problem that a wide rage opens up the real possibility of genuine catastrophic levels of change which would put her in the warmist of warmist camps.

It is the confluence of Green «Save The Planet» demagoguery with Marxist socio - economic prophecy, that preaches free markets must inevitably self - destruct and beyond which lies a socialist utopia that has brought us to this point in the climate debate where no warmist will publicly debate the science, yet they still hold fanatically their millenarian faith.

Secular Warmist / Skeptics believers on the street, which are 80 % of the people; would like to know the truth — unfortunately the media get their informations from the Fundamentalist in both camps.

Personally, I dodn't findy Curry's «style» to be all that different from her «warmist opponents» (if by which we mean other climate scientists blogging and op - ed - ing, most of whom, oddly enough, differ with her).

Anthony is always looking for good articles and would, I am sure, particularly welcome one from a warmist viewpoint which can be examined by sceptics.

Joshua — Kindly supply a link to one of your comments on a well - know warmist site which demonstrates your commitment to evenhandedness in this deabate.

For the warmists, it was not a new discovery that led to their downfall of their house of cards... but the persistent investigation of its foundations — which were found to be wanting.

This route of consideration entails the inference of what we'll call each respective warmist's primary and secondary gain motivating his allegiance to this objectively insupportable (and factually unsupported) damnfool contention about the adverse effects of anthropogenic atmospheric carbon dioxide and — much more importantly — the political measures being pushed by each such statist sumbeech in order to allegedly ameliorate the tissue - of - lies «externalities» nonsensically asserted to be associated with the complete combustion of petrochemical fuels upon which all of industrial civilization depends for its function.

What most definitely is scandalous is the vile hypocrisy of Soon's harrassment by the warmist establishment, which receives billions every year from the US government, left - wing charities, and billionaire activists like Tom Steyer and George Soros to prop up their bankrupt cause by promoting exactly the kind of junk science which Soon (and similarly principled scientists) have made it their business to shred.

One clue which hasn't been explored, to my knowledge, is the fact that the whole debate between warmists and sceptics is almost entirely limited to the English - speaking world.

My second observation is that warmists familiar with the Greenland Viking / LIA story will tell you that these were local phenomena, which is why Mannian hockey sticks are so important to their argument.

One notes that the warmists have no mechanism by which CO2 causes localised weather anomalies.

> [H] onor is a trait which is lacking throughout this debate, at many blogs --» warmist», «lukewarm» and «denailist» alike.

No, honor is a trait which is lacking throughout this debate, at many blogs — «warmist», «lukewarm» and «denailist» alike.

I frequently ask warmists to identify which of the about 100 GCMs is the one that is based upon setlled science and the correct physics of the Earth's climate system and its response to CO2?

After a decade in which sane commentators have been angered and frustrated by the purblind adherence to the warmist superstition by followers of the Al Gore cult — prominent among them our own esteemed First Minister and President for Life Designate — the whole climate change scam has finally degenerated into a joke, provoking widespread derision.

You don't want to give the warmists «issues» with which to attack you with, no matter how small or irrelevant.

The authors cite temperature and other climate data that are at odds with the computer modeling upon which the global warming theory is founded — and show that myriad claims by warmists are either false or misleading.