Sentences with phrase «alarmist views on»

As has been the case with other attempts to vilify, intimidate and silence experts who disagree with alarmist views on global warming and climate change, Kaine presented an argument rife with logical fallacies — appeals to emotion, straw men, ridicule, oversimplification and misrepresentation.

He and his coconspirators are so desperate to discredit anyone who disagrees with their alarmist views on man - made global warming that they are willing to lie, steal, and even defraud their own friends and allies in the media.»

Not exact matches

Two years ago, Asness and an AQR colleague raised hackles with a research paper that argued that the global temperature trends over the last 125 years do not, on their own, support an alarmist view of global warming.

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.

Unfortunately, alarmists prevent this when they take evangelical views, words and actions regarding this particular issue often citing their own set of «facts» which five minutes study can debunk, geological history can debunk, solar cycles can debunk, temperature history can debunk, «ocean conveyer» history can debunk, etc... the cry «We have ten years or were all going to die» (or equivalent) is not helpful and simply creates a mob - mentality based on fear.

USCAN and CAN - I operate full - time programs to influence global policy on climate change with alarmist views.

The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change has been vigorously attacked by some environmentalists and global warming alarmists who view it as a threat to their claim of a «consensus» in favor of their extreme views.

You might not believe this but from our point of view the cherry - picking is mostly on the alarmist side.

May 3, 2004 CHC held a congressional and media briefing entitled «Impacts of Global Warming: Why the Alarmist View is Wrong» on Capitol Hill.

If I was willing to change my views to ingratiate myself with a funding source I would by now be on the global warming alarmist bandwagon.»

In retrospect this is a little ironic — for it is guilty of the very crime it accuses the «alarmists» of perpetrating — unsupported, biased views of climate change science which distort any kind of balanced analysis being undertaken by focusing exclusively on the suggested polarity of existing climate change debate — «scientists» v deniers.

We just deconstructed a single faulty paper on peak oil to get emotional reactions evocative of CAGW alarmists, except largely inverted by proponent / opponent since inconsistent with that same world view.

Myron Ebell spoke on BBC Radio 4, calling Sir David King «an «alarmist with ridiculous views who knows nothing about climate change.»

He's blogging on it, and with a rather clear intent to counter what he considers extreme or alarmist views.

I think we can accept that peoples political position influences their views on AGW, there seems to be a high correlation between conservative politics and having a denialist perspective, and also between liberal politics and having an alarmist perspective, but why?

Instead of publicly expressing their views, a group of parliamentarians said skeptics should parrot the imploding official narrative: The notion that global warming, which even leading alarmists admit has been on «pause» for 17 years in defiance of every UN climate model, is caused by human activities and requires planetary carbon taxes and more government control.