Sentences with phrase «alarmist here»

I know I'm sounding quite alarmist here, but there's a reason for it: Our home is truly one of the last places where we can expect our family to be safe in this increasingly - violent, unstable world.

Who is being alarmist here?

Aren't the newspapers being a bit alarmist here?

I'll credit most of the rest of the alarmists here with at least that.

Planet Earth's record, or the propaganda emitted by the handful of climate alarmists here?

are the true Alarmists here.

My question is to the alarmists here.

But Frank has something so few of the regular alarmists here have, and that is the stink of authenticity.

Not exact matches

Will the Secretary of State say a little more about why he thinks that the regulatory environment here will be superior to that of the United States, thereby disproving many of the alarmist stories that are circulating?»

«Here's a news flash: The most prominent alarmists are liberal white males.

To The Horror Of Global Warming Alarmists, Global Cooling Is Here.

In summary, I would emphasise that the scientists and the actual papers discussed here and in the BBC documentary were not «alarmist», however there is a clear danger that when these results get translated into media reports (and headlines) that scientifically unsupportable claims can be made.

There's more of the quote here: «I am afraid that global warming alarmists are tyring to kill the freedom of people and prosperity,» Klaus reportedly told the reporter in the report reported in newspapers worldwide that day.

Here's just one recent (ish) «alarmist» example:

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.

The almost complete and abject failure of the climate alarmists and their models to actually correctly predict anything at all relating to the global climate after some 25 years of research if we take Hansen's infamous Congressional meeting in 1988 as the starting point for climate alarmist research, has been well documented in numerous places including here..

Robinson, Robinson & Soon, in their cogent 2007 published research paper found here, provided empirical evidence that invalidates AGW alarmists hypotheses.

Here is what I actually said: ``... the climate alarmists maintain that Africa is already experiencing natural disasters — principally floods, droughts, malaria and other diseases, arising from unnatural global warming, and that these are causing increases in poverty, malnutrition, disease and environmental damage.

We have here 5 STRIKES on the climate models, which are the source of most of the alarmist statements we hear about climate change.

Then there are the previous Cook episodes that expose the level of global warming alarmist «science» B.S. - see here, here, here and here.

The skeptics here at WUWT (myself included) often hammer the dishonest alarmists over their willful ignoring of thermometer measurement precision in temperature records who then try and proclaim «highest - ever» alarmism, when the differences are being proclaimed to hundredths of a degree.

Here is one example of a science - based response to the Rosie O'Donnell (a famous climate alarmist, by the way) and her claim that burning jet fuel can't melt steel so therefore the WTC had to have been destroyed by demolition charges set by Dick Cheney, or something like that.

Some weeks ago I reported here on how Hans - Joachim Schellnhuber, the alarmist director of the Potsdam Institute, appeared on a leading German talk show together with Swiss meteorologist Jörg Kachelmann and others to discuss climate change and the rash of storms that had hit the Atlantic and North Sea.

Here climate alarmists claim that human - caused emissions of CO2 results in this, but the best available science says that there is not.

The point here is that Alarmists and Deniers are more like each other, and neither is really open to reason or new data.

I do not know how many times I've read on this here very blog about how the «alarmists» are «squashing» or «censoring» «dissenting opinion» or some such tripe.

The problem here is that Gleick and many contributors to the more alarmist blogs (DeSmog particularly) appear to believe their self - constructed narrative of the «skeptic / denier» has to be true.

Some of the crap written here, an ETS and selling out to the UN is just as alarmist as the warmist rubbish.

But, here we are, 17 years later — still no global warming — and, climate alarmists are more certain than ever.

-LSB-...] reason this is overly compressed can be found here (where we uncompress the timeline and discover very important details the man - made warming alarmist -LSB-...]

There is a lovely irony about the climate discourse in here, and a yawning dilemma for the alarmist narrative.

If the alarmists were right, none of us would be able to live here any more.

And you wonder why many people here think that the default position of the Alarmist Tendency is to obfuscate, mislead and generally be disingenuous.......

What that means is I've found people who are reasonable on the «alarmist» side in the past, but I'm not seeing them around here anymore.

I'm getting into politics a little here, but AFAIK the vast majority of the «action» proposed by alarmists is tantamount to imposing a Marxist agenda on the world.

UPDATE: Dr. Judith Curry's transcript of her verbal testimaony is online here: http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/25/congressional-hearing-on-policy-relevant-climate-issues-in-context/ Skeptics outnumber alarmists at House of Representatives session today Subcommittee on Environment Hearing — Policy Relevant Climate Issues in Context Subcommittee on Environment 2318 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Apr 25, 2013 10:00 am Policy Relevant Climate Issues in...

Actually, Travesty Kev» has more recently teamed - up with others to update their cartoon in glorious colour and new numbers, (versus IPCC 2007), and perhaps the most convenient source to see it is here at alarmist Chris Colose «s discontinued -LRB-?)

The necessary changes in hypotheses proposed here are devastating to alarmist climate «science.»

Anthony is to be Congratulated on a wonderful coup to get an alarmist paper published here.

Rose's main point is the 16 - year temperature plateau, denied only by the crankiest of the alarmist cranks here.

When so many CAGW alarmists are so dishonest, like you and several other regular bloggers here, why would any rational person trust any of your scaremongering beliefs?

It underscores the «precautionary principle» that SHOULD be applied here: Climate alarmists must prove, with clear and convincing evidence, that we face an imminent manmade climate disaster, and that their «solutions» will avert that disaster, without creating even bigger problems — before any such prescriptions are implemented.

As the resident expert on losing the debate, and the most ideological commenter here by far, I should remind joelshore that the only reason alarmist scientists are colluding to exclude skeptics [and they certainly are, as shown in the Climategate emails], is due to the immense amounts of taxpayer loot handed out.

Here's an example of the persecution complex now being encouraged by some on the alarmist end of the AGW side.

Here we have spellbinder of AGW dorkism, an editor of a paper is doing his best impression of Cincinnatus returning to his plow after blowing his foot off among his Alarmist peers and letting a sliver of dissent in the public door.

There is an aspect here to take heart from — as a result of the content thus reviewed from AR5, many alarmists simply will not know which way to jump.

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.

At a climate alarmist site I sometimes comment at, another person has said (full context here) Heartland pays me to «side - step, deflect, distract, obfuscate, and deny the truth» (that person being someone who — unless I've missed it somewhere — who has yet to dispute a solitary detail I have here at GelbspanFiles or in any of my online articles).

(Or «Global Production of Alarmist Story - Lines Past Peak» or «Gloom - Mine Reserves Increasing According to Demand» or «New Scientist in Search of Renewable Sources Of Gloomy Stories» or [INSERT OWN HEADLINE HERE]-RRB-

My dear Mr. Black, given the way historical, measured temperatures are forced to dance up and down at the whim of whichever climate alarmist happens to be manipulating them today, the only logical impossibility around here is that any scientific knowledge might ever be gleaned from the resulting «evidence».