When
alarmist language is used about our sea levels and local topographic data says otherwise and anybody who disputes it is called a denier then something has gone terribly wrong.
Mal Adapted @ 40 When
alarmist language is used about our sea levels and local topographic data says otherwise and anybody who disputes it is called a denier then something has gone terribly wrong.
Not exact matches
The crux of the problem with the «skeptics» versus «
alarmists» or the «progressists / progressives» versus «traditionalists» debates
is that the latter agree to
use the
language of the firsts and they do it without a stutter (mostly not knowing that they say or behave like the first ones wanted them to do!).
They asked whether
using alarmist language to describe the future of climate change
is an effective way to develop public awareness of the risks that exist.
Admittedly they
are helped by the tendency of some people in politics and the media (and in discussions on the internet of course) to
use dramatic,
alarmist even,
language when faced with relatively mundane issues but I don't see any realistic or responsible alternative to telling it how it
is.
I do not think it
is a good strategy to become so afraid of
being called \
alarmist \ that we cease to
use the
language as it
was intended and as it has always
been used.