Sentences with phrase «by climate alarmists of»

For many years now, I — and many sceptics like me — have been accused by climate alarmists of being «in the pay of Big Oil».

Not exact matches

Ebell has fought against climate policies for years, and he often suggests that climate scientists are working to advance their careers by promoting alarmist research that exaggerates the pace of climbing temperatures.

Alarmists have drawn some support for increased claims of tropical storminess from a casual claim by Sir John Houghton of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a warmer world would have more evaporation, with latent heat providing more energy for disturbances.

I see another alarmist post from The Climate Action Tracker claims that temperatures are going to rise by 3C above pre-industrial levels by 2100AD, a ludicrous claim that requires.35 C / decade rate of increase.

Anyone interested in the present and recent RealClimate postings will likely want to visit the Wall Street Journal's OpinionJournal.com today, where there's a link to an op - ed by MIT's Richard Lindzen that's headlined this way: «FREE INQUIRY: Climate of Fear: Global - warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence.»

It is notable that while the climate alarmist movement is funded by billions of public funds and the skeptic side is funded by a few million at best and the alarmists are losing badly, the explanation is found in credibility.

Despite his evident lack of skill to evaluate the multiple lines of evidence accumulated by 2 centuries of climate science, DDS has made it clear he believes the lopsided consensus of working climate scientists is «alarmist».

Amid the constant alarmist bickering over the role of CO2 in our planet's continued shifting of climate whether caused or accelerated by human activity and similar hair splitting, the true threats to our status - quo go un-heralded as the siren of alarm numbs our sensibilities.

He withdrew any kind of bipartisan support for an ETS (and more)» «two years ago Canadians gave majority government to Stephen Harper's Conservatives, who were pledged to a sensible use of its resources, so Australians have now elected a government with a pragmatic attitude on global warming» «Led by Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, an attempt was made, by what can only be described as alarmists, to exploit these fires for the purposes of the global warming debate.

According to the latest panic attack from climate alarmists, the production of four major crops — maize, wheat, rice and soybeans — will fall by 23 percent by the 2050s thanks to global warming.

Note that the first few of the links below are to blog posts written by concerned climate scientists, whom the climate change denialists call «alarmists.»

«The GHG «theory» based on CO2 is a thermodynamic impossibility» Yes, the climate alarmists peddle their pseudoscience claiming that the ghe works by transferring heat / thermal energy from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface of the earth, more heat / thermal energy than is transferred by the Sun.

Political parties, scientific societies, whole sectors of the publicly funded MSM, all have being corrupted and doing their utmost to destroy freedom of expression and opinion by censoring when it clashes with their leader's and the climate alarmist adherents dogma and catastrophe fixated beliefs.

So, we can choose to believe a commenter on a political blog claiming people who understand that there is a broad, clear understanding of the primary driver of the observations are «alarmists», «climate cult ``, «duped doomsday climate cultist», «real deniers, of the science and empirical data»,» peddlers of CatastrophicAGW - by - CO2 ``,.

This of course includes the uncertainty, which seems neglected by most climate alarmists, who prefer to jack up both the level of certainty and the emotional content to gain the high impact publication and notoriety.

From the angry tone of your comment, I suspect that you accept the climate alarmists» propaganda that ocean warming is caused by «excess heat from ghgs».

It was a fringe theory throughout most of its history and the politically driven CatastrophicAGW - by - CO2 climate alarmism groupthink only became popular since the 1970s global cooling scare died out and the leftist globalists began to push their alarmist pseudoscience.

Isn't it interesting to see how the «weather» versus «climate» issue can be conveniently rolled out by the Alarmists whenever it suits their view of the world.

However, the several month long 1998 spike was seized on by alarmists as proof the climate was warming out of control.

In Spain, every renewable energy job the government's climate alarmist policies created was offset by two jobs lost in other sectors of the economy that were punished by soaring electricity prices.

The organization, which argues that the consequences of climate change have been exaggerated by alarmists, is also defending itself in a defamation lawsuit brought by a prominent climate scientist.

The important question to ask, I argue, is how such an intolerant culture was allowed to develop in powerful political and academic institutions, and why the alarmist case was preferred by policymakers, who continue to make use of the binary view of the climate debate.

Climate alarmists conveniently overlook evidence during the Holocene optimum where there were extended periods of temperatures exceeding the averages by 2 to 3 degrees Celsius above present temperatures.

Contrary to Stewart's claim that the world was united by scientific evidence in the early 1990s, even by 1995, there was still only the «suggestion», on the «balance of evidence», that there had been a «discernible human influence on global climate» — and that's in the Summary for Policymakers document, which has consistently been far more alarmist than the more technical parts of the report.

Here is one example of a science - based response to the Rosie O'Donnell (a famous climate alarmist, by the way) and her claim that burning jet fuel can't melt steel so therefore the WTC had to have been destroyed by demolition charges set by Dick Cheney, or something like that.

Icy Silence from Climate Alarmists «Global land temperatures have plummeted by one degree Celsius since the middle of this year — the biggest and steepest fall on record.»

By the way, does anyone out there still believe that the Climate Commission isn't just a mouthpiece for trumpeting Labor government policy, staffed as it is by a team of alarmists with not one single person in the clique to challenge the orthodoxy or put a contrary vieBy the way, does anyone out there still believe that the Climate Commission isn't just a mouthpiece for trumpeting Labor government policy, staffed as it is by a team of alarmists with not one single person in the clique to challenge the orthodoxy or put a contrary vieby a team of alarmists with not one single person in the clique to challenge the orthodoxy or put a contrary view?

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.

The Austrian meteorologist Dominik Jung found the same winter cooling throughout the Alps, which should comfort the managers of the various sky resorts who have been continuously told by the climate alarmists that sky resorts have no future due to climate warming.

In the case of climate change, people are doubting that the alarmist position is supported by the science, and tending to believe that the experts are exaggerating the risk.

For example, understanding that global warming is not a proven science and that there is no circumstantial evidence for global warming alarmism — which is why we see goats like political charlatans like Al Gore showing debunked graphs like the «hockey stick» to scare the folks — and, not understanding that climate change the usual thing not the unusual thing and that the climate change we observed can be explained by natural causes is the only thing that really separates we the people from superstitious and ignorant government - funded schoolteachers on the issue of global warming... that and the fact that global warming alarmists do not believe in the scientific method nor most of the principles upon which the country was founded.

The climate alarmists have immediately tried to blame carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted by humans, of course.

What the climate alarmists are basically arguing is that decisions on energy use and production should be determined by government on the basis of their preferences.

A considerable portion of the research has been done by volunteers rather than the few and much maligned (by climate alarmists) paid professionals, but it is free for the asking, so why not?

As heat waves move across the U.S. from the northeast to the southwest and in much of western Europe, climate alarmists are responding predictably by blaming hot temperatures not on true meteorological causes but on the nebulous bogeyman of «climate change.»

The great risk is that although the current approach to climate taken by the Trump EPA may slow the alarmist agenda as long as it remains in office, no real changes will be made to the EF, and future administrations may simply resume and even the Obama Administration's alarmist agenda at the expense of the future of US economic well being.

The post was moved by comments around this particularly alarmist headline, which epitomised the Independent's coverage of the climate story.

From New Zealand comes another example of climate alarmists «adjusting» temperatures upward to claim global warming that isn't, in fact, occurring, as shown by Joanne Nova «s excellent blog.

Alarmists accept far more science, it's skeptics by and large who seek to shutdown funding for climate science and deny things like the surface records and the use of climate models.

As Earth descends into an 80 - year, sun - spotless Dalton or Maunder Minimum reinforced by a confluence of deep - ocean magmatism with long - term cyclical reversals, climate - change alarmists will have much to answer for.

Richard Betts tries to say Lewandowsky's wrong but instead of easily winning his argument by posting 100s of links to different pre-2013 climate alarmist papers about the «pause» he only links 1.

«The Idea of Renewable Energy Is Reported to Have Originated with the Nazis; at Least They Were Wise Enough to Reject It The Real Potential Climate Problem Is Caused by the Climate Alarmists Themselves»

Climate alarmists have long insisted that global temperatures are primarily determined by human - caused emissions of CO2 and that natural forces play little or no role.

As we learn further down this is based on a yet another study by parti - pris alarmists ramping up the climate change scare narrative using dodgy computer modeled projections of what might happen if all their parameters are correct (which they aren't).

Their lack of understanding of the other essential skills has been demonstrated repeatedly by the alarmists (including the advocacy climate scientists) who post on Climatclimate scientists) who post on ClimateClimate Etc..

Despite these trivial sea level rise over the past century and a bit, moonbat councils on the east coast of Australia are still tying up waterfront properties in miles of green tape, justified by predictions of massive sea level rises by climate alarmists, and property values have plummeted as a result:

Planet Earth's record, or the propaganda emitted by the handful of climate alarmists here?

Not all criticism of the «alarmist» climate change narrative is misinformation funded by the fossil fuel lobby.

As a recent study from the University of Bristol documented, climate scientists have been so distracted and intimidated by the relentless campaign against them that they tend to avoid any statements that might get them labeled «alarmists,» retreating into a world of charts and data.

Republican Lamar Smith, chairman of the committee, opened the hearing by saying «alarmist predictions amount to nothing more than wild guesses» and that «much of climate science today seems to be based more on exaggerations, personal agendas and questionable predictions than on the scientific methods.»