That fact
makes alarmist scenarios ever more implausible.
Not exact matches
Paul D... As a part - time
alarmist I would answer that with a little bit of extrapolation added to some warnings of climate scientists I guess the worst case
scenario at least includes the total collapse of the WAIS, creating tsunamis at least all over the Pacific rim, the subsequent sea level rise of c. 7m will destroy most of the remaining harbours, communication centers near coasts, next up would be the melting of the collapsed ice in the southern ocean altering the climate of the entire southern hemisphere,
making it near - impossible to guess what areas are good for similar agriculture as before, leading to massive movements of people.
The system faces bankruptcy, but talk of reform always stirs up
alarmist scenarios in which seniors will be
made to surrender some of their benefits.
(More cynically, even if we «do nothing» about the crisis de jour and nothing happens said
alarmists may have the gall to claim that by «raising awareness of the problem» they still somehow managed to avert it - «and you can
make the check out to...») Even worse,
alarmists project out that terrible things will happen if we don't take IMMEDIATE (and highly expensive) action to avert the crisis by assuming the worst - case
scenario.
Whatever their reasons, many if not most leading
alarmist scientists, like Jones, preferred the approach
made notorious by the late Stephen Schneider to get public support: «We have to offer up scary
scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements, and
make little mention of any doubts we might have.»