Sentences with phrase «as alarmists say»

It's not rising anywhere near as quickly as alarmists say it is.

It is true that, as the alarmists say, since 1961 the average level of TSI has been approximately level if one averages out the peaks and troughs from solar cycles 19 through to 23.

When Foley says, «it won't be so bad as the alarmists say,» he is implicitly committing his audience and their descendants to massive, coordinated action.

Not exact matches

That's definitely what the film was saying... As much as I might like to laugh at alarmist - types, a cover of this very magazine from 1999 suggests that we were equally worried about... well, presumably, Darth Maul's makeuAs much as I might like to laugh at alarmist - types, a cover of this very magazine from 1999 suggests that we were equally worried about... well, presumably, Darth Maul's makeuas I might like to laugh at alarmist - types, a cover of this very magazine from 1999 suggests that we were equally worried about... well, presumably, Darth Maul's makeup?

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.

I think it is time to say that you have to be a bit alarmist to be a real conservative... as in, preserve the good that we've got, before it is too late.

As people say «follow the money» or in this case, «follow the money and the social policy and who wants the power» and one can see, if they wipe away the veil of fear the alarmists are stoking, that this is more about power and politics than about climate.

I hope not to ever get so biased as to misread what alarmist scientists say and start attacking them personally based on my own mistake.

In an interview with InsideClimate News, Taylor said the material would act as «a nice counterweight» to material with «an overtly political and alarmist message in regards to climate change.»

Foley and others in the «reasonable middle» say that climate impacts won't be as bad as «alarmists» claim.

Not the same as saying the skeptical side should be the first to reach out and communicate / collaborate with the alarmist side.

The bad news is that as more is understood about global warming, and as we compare what has happened to what was predicted by the average models (from the actual science, not from popular sensationalized media), the earlier scientific predictions have turned out to be too conservative, not as you say «too alarmist».

«I've seen Al Gore's film twice, but I've also read Michael Crichton's State of Fear, which makes a compelling case on the other side,» says Hug, referring to the controversial 2004 novel in which Crichton — using scientific arguments that were hotly challenged by critics — ridiculed the global - warming consensus as the work of conspiratorial alarmists.

«We should be growing more trees and using more wood,» says Moore, but the global warming alarmists refer to the forests as «carbon stocks» that must not be used.

The fact that the alarmists said so first should be a major emotional support for them as they begin to face the truth.

I know NOAA says the decade saw warming of.2 °C, but it's fairly obvious that this number was a result of some major «adjustments» to the models, given that, as noted in the blog above, everyone, including major climate alarmists like Phil Jones and Tim Flannery, had accepted that the planet did not warm, on average, for the decade.

Says the Leftist bedwetter who regards the specious alarmist drivel of Abrahams and Nutticelli of the Guardian as absolute authority on just about everything to do with climate «science»...

It is, in my opinion, the one thing that has kept this argument aloft for as long as it has been, because every time there is any kind of change in climate the alarmists say, «See?

As has been said before, the Alarmists» behavior does more to harm their own cause than the skeptics ever have.

It's all as it was in those happy carefree days of 2009 and before, BC (yes, Before Cli **** ga **) as we call it now, when the MSM would happily «highlight the most alarmist aspects and downplay any mention of uncertainty» (Zorita), when no doubts were allowed, or should I say expressed, about the holy trilogy of WG1, 2, and 3 — how certain it was that the well - accepted theory of ghg effect, and the impacts thereof, would lead to a Copenhagen / Kyoto utopia of global cooperation, and that the IPCC was cool (whoops, «the request for more research about the social dynamics of the IPCC, of positive feedbacks as described by Judith, is meaningful for me» (von Storch).)

When climate scientists talk about worst case scenarios, he says, «often times they are portrayed as alarmist.

So while I greatly appreciate your counter measure to push back on the alarmists» non-science, I would prefer to be seen as an average Joe sharing his perspective and that you question every thing I say and scrutinize it thoroughly.

The people living in those territories would not be encouraged to know he once said, «Climate alarmists are once again predicting the end of the world as we know it.

They say that «uncertainty» is important, but then argue as if anyone who argues that it is worthwhile to take action (or consider taking action) in response to a risk of damage from ACO2 in the face of uncertainty, is an «alarmist» or being ruled by a «phobia» or a «progressive» who is «incapable of critical thinking.»

And I assume the Sierra Club would issue a public retraction if confronted with the facts that the data are precisely as I described that over the last 18 years there has been no significant warming and indeed that is why global warming alarmists invented the term «the pause» to explain what they called the pause in global warming because the data demonstrate what you just said, that the Earth is cooking and warming, is not back up by the data.

«In the current political climate [where climate change is often denied],» said Sivan Kartha, a senior scientist with the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI), «even a vague and demonstrably incorrect perception of the IPCC as biased toward the «alarmist» direction is quite distracting and unhelpful.»

«And, as I think Senator Inhofe — I was talking to him last week — as I think is he will say in his recorded comments, the reason we know we're winning the debate, the actual political and scientific debate, is because all that the alarmists have is trying to silence us.

Critics say that some aspects of the projected effects are «alarmist», such as the impact on conflict and migration caused by climate change.

AC at 61 said: Regarding this Barrow matter: have any of you alarmists bothered to look at the «in - situ data» on NOAA's site as opposed to the «flask»?

Sigh, Doug, there are three sides in the AGW debate; I believe Alarmists and Denialists are both driven by politics, the mainstream, which includes you and I, as you say, is based on the physical science.

As more and more scientists defect from the crumbling alarmist bandwagon, however, critics say the hysterical shrieking and dangerous rhetoric from politicians only serve to further illustrate the accelerating collapse of what many climate experts refer to as the «global - warming hoax.&raquAs more and more scientists defect from the crumbling alarmist bandwagon, however, critics say the hysterical shrieking and dangerous rhetoric from politicians only serve to further illustrate the accelerating collapse of what many climate experts refer to as the «global - warming hoax.&raquas the «global - warming hoax.»

As a scientist, he says, he has seen no evidence to support the extravagant claims of the alarmists that CO2 levels are impacting climate, and, in fact, the CO2 levels have historically been much higher, with no evidence of harm, but much evidence of benefit.

Instead of backing down in the face of controversy, alarmist headlines and the demands of several provinces for more flexibility, the country's top court said its new framework, under a 2016 ruling known as Jordan, now governs how judges should assess the Charter guarantee to a trial within a reasonable time.