Sentences with phrase «claim of the alarmists»

The trick of these «communicators» is, of course, to avoid all clarity and definition, assume that the claims of the alarmists and warmists are true just like the sky is blue... then congratulate skeptics on their skepticism.

He's a journalist so his writing style is much easier to follow than some of the other recent books on climate, but for me the clincher is the book is broken into two parts — the first half demolishes the catastrophe claims of the alarmists, and the second looks at the real agenda, which few of the other climate books have gotten into.

And the open - minded skeptic must be prepared to question not only the claims of alarmists, but those of other skeptics also.

After the EF is revoked, the dam of fakery will break and a herd of scientists may become happy to admit long harbored doubts about the extravagant claims of alarmists.

Global warming «skeptics» — scientists and others who question whether the scientific debate is truly settled and ask for real data to support the claims of the alarmists — are frequently attacked in the press, by politicians (including President Barack Obama), and on countless blogs and Web sites.

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.

Not exact matches

Even more devastating is Connelly's demolition of the claim to moral high ground that the overpopulation alarmists made.

Despite the «science is settled» and «consensus» claims of the global - warming alarmists, the fear of catastrophic consequences from rising temperatures has been driven not so much by good science as by computer models and adroit publicity fed to a compliant media.

Claims from alarmists that Francis was about to «rock» the Church, and repudiate the legacy of his predecessors, now look dated and overhyped.

The FDA issued a ban on the use of BPA in baby bottles in 2012, however, alarmists are claiming that other chemicals in plastic are just as harmful as BPA, but there is no scientific evidence to back this up.

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.

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 will say this, there are a handful of alarmists that claim fruit is, essentially, the devil.

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.

Alarmists have claimed for years that sea level, because of anthropogenic warming, is rising, with ominous consequences.

Which is why I can say that your claim that the carbon market ballooning to $ 10tr amounts to that much being taken out of the economy (and I think I found your wonderful sources for that...) is nonsensical and intended to be alarmist.

However keen you may be to demonstrate my arguments are misleading, I am afraid to report I am simply a scientist who feels stongly about protecting our natural environment, and who agrees global warming is a potential risk, but yet who remains unconvinced by the generally alarmist claims that the end of the world is nigh.

The only people saying that «alarmists» claim that the «science is settled» are right wing think tanks, like Cato, SEPP, and Friends of Science, and industry funded politicians like Inhofe.

It is extremely hard to find genuine climate scientists who ARE alarmist; wheras it is of course easy to find «skeptics» who claim that all AGW research is alarmist, and that this is essential for funding.

In spite of his rather mild (in comparison to many sceptics» claims) position, Lomborg was the subject of more vitriol from the alarmist propaganda machine than perhaps any other climate - sceptic / denier / realist figure.

«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.

Not even the alarmist peddlers of the CO2 pseudoscience claims that climate warming prior to ~ 1950 was primarily due to humans.

Dr. Berry makes it so easy to understand that all of the atmospheric increase in CO2 is not due to humans like the climate alarmists claim.

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 ``,.

But you can NOT support your claims with empirical data, because just as I pointed out, and you have failed to refute, there isn't a single peer reviewed paper that empirically shows that anthropogenic CO2 was the primary cause of the late 20th century warming like your climate alarmist religion claims.

The 47,000 wildfires last year may seem like a very large number — and it certainly gives global warming alarmists like Brown plenty of fodder for misleading global warming claims — but the 47,000 wildfires was less than half the average number of wildfires that occurred each year in the 1960s and 1970s.

I found a number of discrepancies, which are written up in the paper, and do much (in my view) to support Professor Tol's claim that the report's alarmist tone was largely groundless.

The «puzzling» facts triggered the predictable alarmist tactic of attacking the data and claiming the heat was hiding in the really deep ocean.

Even though President Obama and other global - warming alarmists warn of a looming climate apocalypse, they avoid giving a metric to prove their claims.

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.

Claims made by sceptics that the effects of the current ENO as it enters a negative episode, since last year, yielded temperature anomalies much lower than in recent years (in fact, very much average at near zero), have been waved away by alarmists claiming that they are the result of «natural variability».

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.

There is compelling evidence that the atmosphere's rising CO2 content - which alarmists consider to be the chief culprit behind all of their concerns about the future of the biosphere (via the indirect threats they claim it poses as a result of CO2 - induced climate change)- is most likely the primary cause of the observed greening trends.

And it casts into strong relief the bad faith of the alarmists who claim that this melting is a certain «indicator» of AGW.

In other words, «Forecast the Facts» was originally conceived as a front group controlled by far - left advocacy groups to hide behind while attacking meteorologists, who surveys show tend to be very skeptical of the claims of global warming alarmists.

In the ensuing report we present a meta - analysis of the peer - reviewed scientific literature, examining how the productivities of Earth's plants have responded to the 20th and now 21st century rise in global temperature and atmospheric CO2, a rise that climate alarmists claim is unprecedented over thousands of years (temperature) to millions of years (CO2 concentration).

The Data Clearly Reveals Modern Temp Changes To Be Normal — «Unfortunately for all alarmists, the real data reveals the bogosity of their claims»

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.

James Taylor of the Heartland Institute penned a Forbes article where he claimed that Christy's findings «refute frequent assertions by global warming alarmists that global warming is adversely affecting Sierra Nevada snowfall and snowpack.»

It complained about «alarmists» who (the letter claimed) refuse to acknowledge benefits of climate change.

Here climate alarmists claim that human - caused emissions of CO2 results in this, but the best available science says that there is not.

As a result, Brulle insisted, the public is uncertain about the alarmist claim that man - made carbon dioxide emissions are causing severe climate change, and the government in turn has failed to enact the kind of restrictions on emissions Brulle favors.

where I chastised a recent alarmist report making claims the rainforests of the world are disappearing, which will increase CO2.

Should scientific skeptics of AGW be required prove the negative of all of the claims of global warming alarmists?

When the world's real scientists, engineers and mathematicians focused their attention on the AGW alarmists arguments, they discovered dodgy math, unfounded and hyped claims, deleted data that disproves their theories, a biased and manipulated peer review process and a lot of propaganda thrown on top.

Alarmists Praise Climate Depot's Morano: «His special ability is to argue super-fast, spewing out questionable claims, a kind of howitzer of climate «skepticism.»

Earlier last year, following an article reviewing 6 (also alarmist) books on the environment including Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, Nicholas Stern's report, and George Monbiot's Heat, we discovered that, inconveniently, May had taken a few liberties with the facts himself, citing a single study, referenced in the Stern Report to make the claim that» 15 — 40 per cent of species «were vulnerable to extinction at just 2 degrees of warming, and that oil companies were responsible for a conspiracy to spread misinformation, and prevent action on climate change.

After the dismal failure of their Kyoto Treaty to achieve this end, the alarmists have tried a second approach called the Paris accord or «treaty,» and flouted the US Constitution by claiming that the «treaty» is not really a treaty.

If we're going to use agencies of the federal government to investigate and even prosecute «climate deniers», for making «false and misleading claims» then let's damn well do the same for «climate alarmists», who do the same thing all the time.

In fact, shortly before warmists began hyping NASA's dubious claims about the month of August, one of Obama's own senior officials wrote a piece in the Wall Street Journal debunking myriad myths held dear by alarmists.