Sentences with phrase «about alarmist climate science»

I am grateful when people take the time to comment and, yes, criticize, but I also think this writer oversells the certainty we should feel about alarmist climate science and its conclusions.

Not exact matches

The complete failure of climate alarmist science in just about every field it has forced it's way into is becoming increasingly obvious and the totality of avoidable costs, individually for the poor, as well as socially, politically and economically for society that climate alarmist science has imposed on our global and national societies is horrendous and only now is just beginning to be totaled up.

but hey, alarmists do not need empirical data, or evidence, because it is not about science, facts, CO2., or logic, it's not even about the climate, — it's all about the money!

But bottom line as you suggest: «A skeptic should talk about the vested career interests of [alarmist] climate scientists only if asked to EXPLAIN why [alarmist] climate science is shoddy.

A skeptic should talk about the vested career interests of [alarmist] climate scientists only if asked to EXPLAIN why [alarmist] climate science is shoddy.

(1) undescribed «documents collected by the [committee];» (2) «documents provided by Dr. Mann...»; (3) the committee's preliminary report; (4) a May British House of Commons whitewash of Climategate; (5) a recent letter published in Science magazine deploring climate skepticism from 255 climate alarmists; (6) a document about the National Science Foundation peer review process; (7) the Department of Energy Guide to Financial Assistance; (8) information on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's peer review process; (9) information regarding the percentage of NSF proposals funded; and (10) Mann's curriculum vitae.

Moreover, as I've argued here previously, the emphasis, or hope that science can conclusively answer the debate about global warming almost concedes to the alarmist / precautionary perspective that, if «climate change is happening», then so the policies are justified.

What needs explaining is not who discovered what — the scientists or the «deniers» — but how alarmist claims about climate change always seem to precede the evidence, such that researchers believe the negative picture before the science has delivered a verdict.

I've always been agnostic about [climate change]... I don't completely dismiss the more dire warnings but I instinctively feel that some of the claims are exaggerated... I don't accept all of the alarmist conclusions... You can never be absolutely certain that all the science is in.

Says the Leftist bedwetter who regards the specious alarmist drivel of Abrahams and Nutticelli of the Guardian as absolute authority on just about everything to do with climate «science»...

I don't think you do justice to the work of people like McIntyre and how their interaction with the hockey team and alarmist blogs such as Real Climate was instrumental in raising serious questions about the quality of the science underlying the dogma.

Real climate claims to be about presenting the science, but they do show aplenty that they are leftwing, alarmist, unduely friendly and credulous towards environmentalist activists and paranoid about industry.

I wrote something like 3000 words of indignation about climate alarmists corrupting the very definition of science by declaring their work «settled», answering difficult scientific questions with the equivalent of voting, and telling everyone the way to be pro-science is to listen to self - designated authorities and shut up.