Sentences with phrase «alarmist scientists like»

Not exact matches

When alarmists charged that the polar bear was being hunted to extinction, the outcry sent scientists like Lee Miller and Jack Lentfer (below) off across the ice on a rewarding research trail

Then it ends by quoting Winston Churchill in a way that's meant to group the furthest - out global - warming alarmist with the likes of RC and other responsible scientists: «A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.»

I would actually cite things like Near Earth Asteroid research and Supervolcano research as far stronger examples, but even in this case it is the journalism that is «alarmist», far more so than any of the scientists.

It repeatedly called IPCC and climate scientists «alarmists», and the article smelled like just more far right claptrap.

«Global warming believers are like a hysterical «cult»: MIT scientist compares «climate alarmists» to religious fanatics,» Daily Mail Online, January 22, 2015.

Often deniers portray themselves as reasoned, cautious, and conservative scientists, while the real scientists working in the field are described with emotionally charged adjectives like «alarmists,» «warmists,» and the like to weaken the public's respect for their work and to fool journalists about who's who.

I think mainstream climate scientists like Dr. Judith should play a major role... I just don't trust the alarmist wing one bit.

If the climate alarmists were more honest and scientist like I might believe them.

Like many other conference speakers and attendees, Secretary - General Ban cited the recent droughts, floods, and Tropical Storm Sandy as proof of the dire consequences of man - made global warming, even though many studies and scientists (including scientists who usually fall into the climate alarmist category) have stated that there is no evidence to support claims that «extreme weather» has been increasing in frequency and / or magnitude in recent years, or that extreme events (hurricanes, droughts, heat waves, etc.) have anything to do with increased CO2 levels.

Whatever their reasons, many if not most leading alarmist scientists, like Jones, preferred the approach made notorious by the late Stephen Schneider to get public support: «We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.»

It is they who will have to shoulder a multi-trillion dollar burden of changing from a fossil - fueled civilization that Suzuki and his like - minded alarmist - scientist flock proposes and demands.

Every time a food fight like this erupts, it is the behavior of the alarmist scientists and their defenders on blogs which does the most damage to their cause.

No one likes to feel railroaded by the «Trust me, I'm a scientist» approach, which is why the alarmists come across so badly and unbelievably to anyone who dares to question their «science».

Like so many alarmists, any climate scientist who has suggested CO2 warming has been detrimental to wildlife becomes «Precious» to Miesler.

It's understandable to take that position when alarmists are telling you things like don't have more kids and extreme things like that, but at the same time just because scientists were wrong about global freezing in the 70s doesn't mean the current climate change issue isn't worth giving serious thought.

However, railing against scientists as «alarmists» or religious fanatics merely for pointing out the consequences of their research hardly seems like the attitude of an open mind.

The IPCC makes any scientists who warns of more extreme risks look like a mad alarmist, and also provides false reassurance to most climate scientists that there work is being listened to by working through the IPCC channel.

At least, this is what alarmist climate scientists like Hansen want the public to believe.

But the nature of the debate has been the skeptical side publicizing good summaries of known science like Eschenbach's recent piece here on coral reefs that show the emperor has no clothes, and the only coherent response we get from alarmists is that «Kajillions of scientists disagree so you must be wrong».

That something like 90 % of academic scientists are liberals, hence alarmists, explains a lot here.

Like I see, if there's * anyone * who gets irked with (real) alarmists, it's real scientists and responsible environmentalists, for exactly the reasons you note.