(By the way, it is not at all unusual for
mainstream alarmist scientists to use this same feedback formula as a useful though imperfect abstraction, for example in Gerard H. Roe and Marcia B. Baker, «Why Is Climate Sensitivity So Unpredictable?»
Not exact matches
After all, the
scientists that Rapp calls «an in - group of
alarmists» represent, in fact,
mainstream science.
Regarding the issue of whether some «
mainstream»
scientists are «
alarmist» in their discussions of global warming, it is well to remember that, in any controversy, scientific or otherwise, there will be extremists at both ends of the spectrum.
I think
mainstream climate
scientists like Dr. Judith should play a major role... I just don't trust the
alarmist wing one bit.
After all, with little to no funding, virtually barred from science journals, unable to access the mountains of grant money enjoyed by the
alarmists, and almost completely ignored by the
mainstream media, somehow we've gotten our skeptic ideation to actually seep into the minds of
scientists.
Assessments can not be
alarmist, but they must henceforth push
scientists beyond their comfort zones in framing conclusions that will adequately inform decision - makers about the full range of potential risk — particularly those decision - makers who worry about how to adapt and / or how to
mainstream climate risk into their other decisions.
In the
mainstream, criticising a fellow climate
scientist for making outrageous
alarmist claims was often perceived as professional suicide.
Let's break down the
alarmist - activist - Leftist -
scientists» primary line of defense, helpfully parroted by the formerly
mainstream media: That «they've stolen personal emails.»
Government - funded
scientists, the Green's anti-CO2 activists and the
mainstream media -
alarmists have all claimed that the current drought being suffered by the US west coast is the extreme climate change Americans have never experienced before.
After all, the
scientists that Rapp calls «an in - group of
alarmists» represent, in fact,
mainstream science.
That is three times as much as the rise measured in the 20th century and within the
mainstream projections that skeptical
scientists had in years past criticized as
alarmist.