Keep quiet and they could be criticised for not raising the alarm; yet if they tell us about the worst prognostications in the calmest of voices, they will surely be
accused of alarmism.
That is to say, pressure from skeptics and contrarians and the risk of being
accused of alarmism may have caused scientists to understate their results.
Not exact matches
In an interesting paper that appeared in the journal Global Environmental Change, a group
of scholars, including Naomi Oreskes, a historian
of science at Harvard, and Michael Oppenheimer, a geoscientist at Princeton, note that so - called climate skeptics frequently
accuse climate scientists
of «
alarmism» and «overreacting to evidence
of human impacts on the climate system.»
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.
A Guardian journalist... A guardian environmental journalist... is
accusing someone
of alarmism?
I like how you
accuse one group
of alarmism, and then go on immediately to blithely dismiss all manner
of regulation as attempts «to destroy the economy».
Since leaving Greenpeace in 1986, Moore repeatedly
accuses the environmental organization
of unscientific
alarmism.
One
of the ironies in the public «debate» — I use scare quotes since what is transpiring is not a true debate, but rather a competition between an organized disinformation campaign to deny the reality
of climate change, and a counter effort to provide a more realistic picture — is that the IPCC is constantly
accused of «
alarmism,» and is consciously, intentionally, and consistently conservative in their claims.
that's the stuff that gets
accused of being
alarmism by the complacent contrarian.