Climate change observations so far do not support alarmism, CCL's obvious goal to lobby government for more mitigation on
the basis of the alarmism is something I totally (and obviously) reject.
Not exact matches
The news media stigmatize radiation as a much greater risk than it is,
based on the biology
of what ionizing radiation can do to human health, in many many ways, and it that overall
alarmism influences the way people respond to this threat.
Climate
alarmism is not
based on empirical observation; rather, it is entirely predicated on computer models that are manipulated to generate predictions
of significant global warming as a result
of increased concentrations
of CO2.
Interesting that I so often read this kind
of alarmism at «skeptical» climate blogs, but never see an evidence -
based approach to quantifying this supposed loss
of freedom.
The addition
of an esteemed Norwegian climate scientist to the London -
based GWPF will help bring some sobriety back to a science that has all too often been immersed in
alarmism.
It appears likely that this is because the CIC does not believe there should be any real debate on climate science or any other science -
based issue coming before EPA and that the SAB should only hear the views
of those who closely support the tenets
of those who are willing to overthrow science -
based environmental regulation in favor
of climate
alarmism and environmental extremism.
Better than most works on the subject, which tend to assume too much knowledge on the part
of the reader, Steele's very readable book makes clear the workings
of natural weather and climate processes, in turn making clear the extent to which global warming
alarmism is
based on opportunistic hype and the relentless pursuit
of a political — not a scientific — agenda.
Indeed — there is a beautiful irony in «skeptics» who argue against mitigation policies — on the
basis of «
alarmism» about the costs
of mitigation.
This exhibition, much as climate - change
alarmism, simply isn't about science; it's about establishing a
basis — an ethic — for the management
of public life.
That every effort to make those connections since the dawn
of AGW
alarmism has failed spectacularly (Somalia got dry instead
of wet, the Sahel got wet instead
of dry *, ACE and hurricane frequency fell instead
of rising, etc., etc.) means that there is no empirical
base whatsoever for that next step.
In contrast with this clear and unjustified
alarmism from supposedly respectable scientists in the pro-AGW camp, JQ has pilloried Lindzen
based on a second - hand account
of what was probably a throwaway remark.
Co-authored by Drs. Craig Idso and Fred Singer, with editing assistance from another 30 expert scientists from 16 countries, Climate Change Reconsidered provides a comprehensive refutation
of IPCC global warming
alarmism,
based on summary discussion
of relevant and recent scientific publications.
Based on the official university whitewashes
of Climategate thus far in support
of such corruption
of science for political ends, the odds must be that they will surely find something, somewhere to pin on Wegman, to punish him for failing to validate the Hockey Stick, the poster child
of alarmism.
««Sen. Inhofe Delivers Major Speech on the Science
of Climate Change «Catastrophic global warming
alarmism not
based on objective science» Part 1,» U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, July 28, 2003.
«After a Tumultuos Year, 2016 Appears to Hold Out Hope for the Demise
of Climate
Alarmism How the Developed World Wastes $ 1.5 Trillion PER YEAR on the
Basis of Useless Models»
Compiled by Dr Ole Humlum, Professor
of Physical Geography at the University Centre in Svalbard (Norway), the new climate survey is in sharp contrast to the habitual
alarmism of other reports that are mainly
based on computer modelling and climate predictions.
The principal
basis of climate change
alarmism has always been that positive feedback mechanisms will produce «runaway climate change».
The scientific
basis for the entire global warming
alarmism is an hypothesis that the increase
of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere from the burning
of fossil fuels and other human activities is producing a greatly increased greenhouse effect through a process called «radiative forcing» in - which the CO2 greatly magnifies the greenhouse warming
of the water vapor.
The truth about Judith Curry, as I see it, is that she has a strong attraction for political dialogue, and refuses to see that the public debate over climate is fundamentally at odds with good science, as is the IPCC - sponsored «consensus»
of climate
alarmism, or in her case,
of climate political - worryism (she seems deeply attached to helping bring about «reasonable» and «responsible» climate policies — whereas my view is that any and all such climate policies, now, are necessarily
based upon incompetent, false science, are entirely the wrong thing to try to impose upon the people
of the world, and need to be summarily thrown out, before one can even begin to have a dispassionate, competent scientific dialogue — as opposed to the political debate now being served up — on the state
of climate science.).
«Denying the world's poor the very
basis on which Britain and much
of Europe became wealthy — largely due to cheap coal, oil and gas — amounts to an inhumane and atrocious attempt by green activists to sacrifice the needs
of the world's poor on the altar
of climate
alarmism.»
It describes its goal as to «raise awareness
of the costs and implications
of policies
based on global warming
alarmism by conducting a multi-faceted campaign to peel away grassroots political support for carbon restrictions, while simultaneously promoting market -
based policies that preserve individual liberty, economic opportunity, and environmental quality.»