Sentences with phrase «with denialist»

2) Steve Goddard, formerly associated with denialist blog Watt's Up With That, cast a blogvote for global warming having stopped in 2002, since there is a flat linear trend from that date to present.

What really annoys me with these denialist idiots is that we cant opt out of their stupidity.

Physics and chemistry have not been replaced with denialist wishes.

Read this with denialist disgust:

Tame fake science journals packed with denialist allies.

Are you fed up with sceptics and pseudo-scientists dominating blogs and news articles with their denialist propaganda?

> > This has to do with a denialist - leaning documentary being filmed by Martin Durkin for Channel 4 TV in Britain.

The problems with the denialist arguments is that they have more to do with logical fallacies than data (proxy or instrumental).

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

Blathering away with denialist talking points is how you lose respect around here, not by studying science.

Heartland isn't going to force teachers to inculcate children with denialist propaganda.

It's rather less constructive for climate scientists to spend their time engaging in endless rounds of nit - picking with denialists who are in the end unconvincable.

The book «Religion Explained» by Pascal Boyer does a good job of explaining this, but doesn't give a spam filtered for dealing with denialists.

[2] Huffington Post writer David Roberts has argued that Dr. Pielke has «been playing footsie with denialists and right - wing ideologues for years; they're his biggest fans.»

But if you think self - congratulatory remarks from Anthony, that say absolutely nothing about any discussion, about a later dinner thick with denialists and a scattering of bemused climate scientists is a breakthrough I guess I have to take your word for it.

Yes, trying to be humane with denialists is a lost cause.

We have enough issues with denialists when we use the right data, and that doesn't appear to be the right data.

Well, with denialists like Monckton going around preaching Hummer love, we'll probably be exceeding the IPCC's worst - case scenario.

Kenny's piece is classic wedge polemics.There is little point in arguing with these denialists / sceptics as they are not interested in evidence based on good science nor even in logic, note them then ignore them.

It is not the scientist's job to communicate with you, with politicians who have room temperature IQs or with the denialists who are bent on destroying the planet.

In conclusion, I believe that Jones» actions regarding the AR4 emails are simply indefensible and arguing with the denialists over the legal technicalities of FOIA law is simply giving them more ammunition.

Since Abbott has chosen to side with denialists I regard his stance as irresponsible.

Not exact matches

We must let denialists be heard, and respond with patience, vigilance and tireless rebuttal, says Michael Shermer

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

The happy band of denialists (presumably the gang of nine who advise Judge Alsup with their nonsense) have been «quietly but very busily investigating how much global warming we may cause, known as the «equilibrium - sensitivity» question.»

With the publication of the IPCC 4th Assessment report, the Nobel Peace Prize, and energy legislation near the top of the national legislative agenda, the «denialists» were becoming increasingly irrelevant (the Heartland Conference and NIPCC are not exactly household words).

I worry they could win, not just in Australia but across the world because the science and policy communities generally do not engage with belief related matters head on in mass media and denialists handle the media very well (look at the ex journalist Lord Nigel Lawson).

It's a notion that should be used with a little care, given the denialists» propensity for twisting fact.

You can be certain that various anti-science, anthropogenic global warming denialist web blogs and op ed writers (with no scientific background) will take this study and trumpet it from the hills, completely out of context in order to continue to be disingenuous and to purposely mislead people.

Allying with neither the do - nothing denialists, the geo - engineering technophiles, nor the orthodox environmentalists, King and Walker build a nuanced case for, above all, science - based judiciousness.

Bob Koss, Implications of impropriety with no evidence whatsoever is a favorite tool of science denialists and those with a nasty insult hobby.

If you want to see most if not all of the denialist arguments, Al Jazeera hosted a debate with the guest of honor being Richard Lintzen.

I found the notion that someone thinks it's profound that every two maxima are separated by a minimum to be pretty funny and on intellectual par with the vast majority of denialist arguments.

As for me, I threw out an idle suggestion that AGW denialists may be more aptly compared with HIV denialists than with flat - earthers.

But you are always left with a small group of denialist nutbars who are really stubborn.

Rather, your answer allows your denialist fallacies to be identified with some clarity.

In a tiresome repeat of past years, climate - science denialist site, Watts Up With That?

Skeptical Science has a long series of articles answering common denialist complaints about climate science, complete with lots of references.

Skeptical Science's list, with points assigned to individual AGW - denialist arguments, could be a place to start.

The last of these hosted Lomborg's visit to Britain, and has close links with the corporate - funded denialist organisation, the «International Policy Network».

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

It just gives denialists the political ammo to paint legitimate climate researchers with the alarmists / warmists brush.

You also were the one who provided the link to daisyworld «troll info» the summary of which I have already shared with others online confronting climate denialist trolls.

Having said all that, I think certain types of climate denialists should be banned from websites, if they are just spamming, or making outrageous claims with just pure lists of propaganda slogans, with nothing to back up their claims.

Publications, blog posts and media stories that try to pin all the blame on one factor should be viewed with some level of suspicion, whether they are written by climate scientists, journalists, or climate change denialists».

That's why people are so upset with her and insist on holding her to a higher standard than your typical science - illiterate denialist such as Montford, whose book she apparently believes to be a more reliable source of information on climate science than the work and statements of her peers...

On the Roberts i» view website he says this: «Not only do I agree with the view that denialists are irrational and largely can't be convinced.»

If nobody responds to denialists, it does create an impression with some politicians etc that the denialists could be right.

Any denialist nonsense that drags you out from under your bridge is going to be a laugh a minute, and so it is with the abet - turged «content of the essay» provided here @ 10 by the chain of shites; alleged journalist Christopher Booker who read a book four years ago and so is now expert in the psychology of «Groupthink», those Gentlemeen Who Prefer Fantasy and who masquerade as an Educational Charity...

In my opinion deal with climate denialists this way, especially in public forums where other people are watching.