Sentences with phrase «alarmist views of»

Yet there are no obvious gains, even if one accepts the alarmist views of global warming.

It's telling, though, that some of the scientists closest to the research don't share the alarmist views of TNR opponents.

Two years ago, Asness and an AQR colleague raised hackles with a research paper that argued that the global temperature trends over the last 125 years do not, on their own, support an alarmist view of global warming.

Clearly, many supposedly conservative or skeptical groups not only fail to challenge the alarmist view of climate change, they even endorse significant parts of alarmism and often go so far as to support the very political actions that Brulle most greatly desires.

Finally, there are the well - meaning individuals who believe that in accepting the alarmist view of climate change, they are displaying intelligence and virtue.

«There are the numerous well meaning individuals who have allowed propagandists to convince them that in accepting the alarmist view of anthropogenic climate change, they are displaying intelligence and virtue For them, their psychic welfare is at stake... For those committed...

Embracing an alarmist view of the future, the President claimed CO2 - induced climate change will lead to «submerged countries,» «abandoned cities,» «fields that no longer grow,» «political disruptions» and «more floods.»

Embracing an alarmist view of the future, the President claimed CO

Not exact matches

I think God may act to destroy whole populations in order to contain the demonic problem (personal view; The problem of demons is much more greater and serious than we would like to admit, and I say this at the risk of being branded an alarmist).

Craig, I tend to dismiss those who people call alarmists or deniers, because their views tend to be outside the views of most scientists; however I did listen to the entire video.

So I take it that the consensus view is that according to our best current scientific understanding, there is no possibility whatsoever of any catastrophic consequences of anthropogenic global warming; therefore to use the word «catastrophic» is irresponsible alarmism;, and therefore the deniers are actually quite right to accuse anyone who suggests that such outcomes are possible of being an irresponsible alarmist.

Most of the writing here at The New York Times takes a similar tone on the issue, the alarmist view that somehow what is happening now is without natural precedent or should be cause of for shock or surprise and that of course, we humans are the root of all evil and are causing the warming and / or can prevent it or stop it.

Unfortunately, alarmists prevent this when they take evangelical views, words and actions regarding this particular issue often citing their own set of «facts» which five minutes study can debunk, geological history can debunk, solar cycles can debunk, temperature history can debunk, «ocean conveyer» history can debunk, etc... the cry «We have ten years or were all going to die» (or equivalent) is not helpful and simply creates a mob - mentality based on fear.

Isn't it interesting to see how the «weather» versus «climate» issue can be conveniently rolled out by the Alarmists whenever it suits their view of the world.

The important question to ask, I argue, is how such an intolerant culture was allowed to develop in powerful political and academic institutions, and why the alarmist case was preferred by policymakers, who continue to make use of the binary view of the climate debate.

I found a number of discrepancies, which are written up in the paper, and do much (in my view) to support Professor Tol's claim that the report's alarmist tone was largely groundless.

By the way, does anyone out there still believe that the Climate Commission isn't just a mouthpiece for trumpeting Labor government policy, staffed as it is by a team of alarmists with not one single person in the clique to challenge the orthodoxy or put a contrary view?

The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change has been vigorously attacked by some environmentalists and global warming alarmists who view it as a threat to their claim of a «consensus» in favor of their extreme views.

A huge problem is that many qualified scientists and others are skeptic of the Consensus Science, but they work for Alarmist Media or Government Agencies or Schools, that would get rid of them in a minute if they express their Skeptic Views.

I have a lot of sympathy for that view as the alarmists have failed to answer a lot of pertinent questions about their hypothesis, or provided at the very least shaky and questionable workarounds to them in order to keep their wagon rolling.

The invalid alarmist hypotheses, the more valid replacements for them, and the general views of alarmist and skeptic scientists towards them are as follows:

The honesty and openness characterized by Steve, Judy, NIc and many others in this debate, viewed in the light of the tactics of the alarmists has made me a skeptic.

Doesn't the fact that many AGW alarmists also oppose nuclear power suggest they view climate change not as a problem to be solved, but as a tool in service of another agenda?

You might not believe this but from our point of view the cherry - picking is mostly on the alarmist side.

May 3, 2004 CHC held a congressional and media briefing entitled «Impacts of Global Warming: Why the Alarmist View is Wrong» on Capitol Hill.

«As I see it, Jim's views were at the alarmist end of the spectrum of scientific opinion, so frankly I see him largely as just coming back into the fold of mainstream thinking,» Mann wrote in an email to LiveScience.

The relationship of Patrick J. Michaels to the event: Speaker The Impacts of Global Warming: Why the Alarmist View is Wrong http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=632 Congressional and Media Briefing held at the Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.C. Sponsored by the Cooler Heads Coalition The relationship of Patrick J. Michaels to the event: Speaker

Skepticism of alarmism is not a single view, because different people question different alarmist claims.

In retrospect this is a little ironic — for it is guilty of the very crime it accuses the «alarmists» of perpetrating — unsupported, biased views of climate change science which distort any kind of balanced analysis being undertaken by focusing exclusively on the suggested polarity of existing climate change debate — «scientists» v deniers.

My view is that in the face of very ignorant journalistic nonsense, too many scientists are failing to maintain their research objectivity and argue against alarmist or foolish interpretations (such as the obvious alarmist tone of AIT) I see good scientists lining up ideologically rather than methodologically, and find this painful to watch.

But, those of us who worry that the more extreme views may become fodder for preemptive dismissal by the alarmists have a responsibility to make sure the fringe doesn't take over the forum and paint us all in the same shade.

We just deconstructed a single faulty paper on peak oil to get emotional reactions evocative of CAGW alarmists, except largely inverted by proponent / opponent since inconsistent with that same world view.

It is an absurd meme that apparently has become a strawman by skeptics, not a view held by even the wildest of alarmists.

I've been saying for a long time that the policy debate has from the alarmist point of view, already been lost.

The alarmists already have a large number of official reports, so it will be important to finally see the opposition views laid out officially.

Like other alarmists in the climate debate, Brown is satisfied with repeating the sound bites and self - serving pseudoscience of those at the extreme end of the scientific debate, and dismisses the extensive research that contradicts that view.

This study — Why Models Run Hot — infuriated the alarmist establishment, first because it was unusually popular (receiving over 10,000 views — thousands more than most scientific papers get) and second because it made a mockery of their cherished computer models.

Because of this very affiliation, they were suddenly viewed as «essential», «unfirable» etc. — it would be wrong even if the IPCC didn't have the alarmist bias.

This edition has been revised and reformulated with a new chapter template of short chapter introductions, study questions at... View Details Global Warming - Alarmists, Skeptics and Deniers: A Geoscientist Looks at the Science of Climate Change by G. Dedrick Robinson (Author), Gene D. Robinson III (Author) Global Warming - Alarmists, Skeptics & Deniers: A Geoscientist looks at the Science of Climate Change, brings a unique geological perspective to this politically charged issue, a perspective that has been ignored far too long.

But please, stick to verifiable facts — and leave the prevaricating Wikipedia entries out of it; they have major credibility problems — as do RealClimate, Eli Rabett, Tamino, and the rest of the alarmist sites which, unlike this site, arbitrarily delete comments by opposing points of view.

-LSB-...] of anthropogenic global warming, Michelle Malkin: The global warming scandal of the century, Sister Toldjah: Global warming alarmists exposed, The Other McCain: Lies damned lies, and climate change, Riehl World View: Climate science fraud -LSB-...]

Initially, I liked the idea of our societies becoming more environmentally cognizant, but then I became weary of the alarmist view after I studied the «hockey schtick».

You will be used to push Moore's view that America is the source of all evil in the world, as well as the usual crazy alarmist scenarios (runaway greenhouse, etc).

Steeped in dogma and ideology, insisting your view is infallible, you are the quintessence of alarmist climate science.

Typing in thermal inertia W / m2 into google gives you these two links: http://www.sciscoop.com/story/2005/4/29/64527/5456 (I'd class Hansen as an alarmist) http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/05/16/determining-climate-sensitivity-from-volcanoes-observations-vs-models/ (I don't like the word skeptical, it's tainted by association with the low hanging fruit that Coby is so busy refuting, but anyway this site is biased like real climate but towards a more positive, less alarmist point of view) http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/04/10/dialing-in-your-own-climate/ Anyway, Patrick Michaels also comes up with 0.5 C in the pipeline from thermal inertia.

Instead of publicly expressing their views, a group of parliamentarians said skeptics should parrot the imploding official narrative: The notion that global warming, which even leading alarmists admit has been on «pause» for 17 years in defiance of every UN climate model, is caused by human activities and requires planetary carbon taxes and more government control.

The institute is influential and is famous for being staffed with scientists who are homogenously alarmist and at times zealously intolerant of dissenting views.

The entire memo sounds pretty alarmist, but also not entirely out of character with the current administration's views.