Sentences with phrase «alarmist claims about»

«I am very proud to report that The Heartland Institute has spent millions of dollars over the past ten years supporting scientific research that contradicts alarmist claims about climate change,» Bast said in his reply, adding that all the requested information could easily be found on The Heartland Institute's websites.

What their is little scientific support for are all the alarmist claims about a tipping point and that the earths climate exists as a postive feedback loop.

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.

Instead, Bourre lapses into unsubstantiated and alarmist claims about the safety of our food supply, saying: «It's extraordinarily good luck, something almost miraculous, that we're been able to survive the toxic substances present in our food as a result of contamination, plant sprays, and medications used on farm animals,» he maintains.

Not exact matches

Claims from alarmists that Francis was about to «rock» the Church, and repudiate the legacy of his predecessors, now look dated and overhyped.

However keen you may be to demonstrate my arguments are misleading, I am afraid to report I am simply a scientist who feels stongly about protecting our natural environment, and who agrees global warming is a potential risk, but yet who remains unconvinced by the generally alarmist claims that the end of the world is nigh.

There is compelling evidence that the atmosphere's rising CO2 content - which alarmists consider to be the chief culprit behind all of their concerns about the future of the biosphere (via the indirect threats they claim it poses as a result of CO2 - induced climate change)- is most likely the primary cause of the observed greening trends.

It complained about «alarmists» who (the letter claimed) refuse to acknowledge benefits of climate change.

As a result, Brulle insisted, the public is uncertain about the alarmist claim that man - made carbon dioxide emissions are causing severe climate change, and the government in turn has failed to enact the kind of restrictions on emissions Brulle favors.

In fact, shortly before warmists began hyping NASA's dubious claims about the month of August, one of Obama's own senior officials wrote a piece in the Wall Street Journal debunking myriad myths held dear by alarmists.

If further thinking about that chain of reasoning, and about iffy new alarmist claims, led it to conclude that the matter was doubtful, and it said so publicly, there was nothing guilty in doing so.

In addition, having been to Glacier National Park in the 1990s and having read in the National Park Service Brochure that there weren't any glaciers in this area during the Medieval Warming Period and then reading Alarmist stories about how these glaciers «will be lost forever» made me cynical about their claims.

I've analyzed some of the most alarmist claims, and my skepticism about them hasn't changed.

(More cynically, even if we «do nothing» about the crisis de jour and nothing happens said alarmists may have the gall to claim that by «raising awareness of the problem» they still somehow managed to avert it - «and you can make the check out to...») Even worse, alarmists project out that terrible things will happen if we don't take IMMEDIATE (and highly expensive) action to avert the crisis by assuming the worst - case scenario.

By the way, that's something that seems conspicuously absent among the more rabid alarmists who claim to have got it just about all figured out.

In November, 2015, the three lead NIPCC authors — Craig Idso, Robert M. Carter, and S. Fred Singer — wrote a small book titled Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming: The NIPCC Report on Scientific Consensus revealing how no survey or study shows a «consensus» on the most important scientific issues in the climate change debate, and how most scientists do not support the alarmist claims of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

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.

After the EF is revoked, the dam of fakery will break and a herd of scientists may become happy to admit long harbored doubts about the extravagant claims of alarmists.

Although such arguments continue to rage, there is no doubt that there is a significant body of scientific opinion (as well as published peer - reviewed literature [5]-RRB- that is sceptical of the alarmist claims by green activists about the effect of carbon dioxide emissions on the climate.

Quite a few of these studies were completed before alarmists made their initial claims about anthropogenic warming.

Both climate - change deniers and climate - change alarmists are wrong on their claims about the implications of this [Northern Hemisphere] winter and how they interpret the behaviour of the earth's climatic system over the past 2000 years.

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.

This morning I found two emails in my inbox about an alarmist blog post that claims Big Jump in Ocean Warming, in response to the NODC's recent quarterly update of their Ocean Heat Content data.