Sentences with phrase «many alarmists claiming»

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.

Thus, they can claim to be making a conservative assessment because they refute the most extremist — and ridiculous — alarmist claims but keep the scare alive.

The last statement by the OFFICAL IPCC... Kinda puts Stefan Rahmstorf's latest Alarmist Claims book you peddle, in deep question.

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.

Alarmist claims made by the South African delegation at Buenos Aires in December 2004 and at the Midrand conference in October 2005 were all investigated and found to be groundless.

You repeat this on and on indefinitely and the coffee - cream mixture is always 97 % coffee and 3 % cream, so no, the human portion does not accumulate in the atmosphere like the climate alarmists claim so they can peddle their anti-humanity holy jihad against CO2.

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.

Yes it does have an effect but much smaller than the alarmists claim.

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».

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).

Real - world evidence demolishes virtually every alarmist claim.

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.

Personally, I remain unconvinced by the more alarmist claims, for the simple reason that if we get desperate we can convert coal into liquid fuels (as South Africa has done for decades).

I will stop insulting scientifically - minded people who ask for clear evidence supporting our alarmist claims by calling them «deniers».

Global warming alarmists claim that such incidences have nothing to do with a climate trend.

If further thinking about that chain of reasoning, and about iffy new alarmist claims, led it to conclude that the matter was doubtful, and it said so publicly, there was nothing guilty in doing so.

The man - made global warming narrative remained intact in the media in spite of various IPCC's alarmist claims being proven as false.

Humanity does influence local, regional, and even global climate, but not in the ways climate alarmists claim.

Each time I checked the alleged scientific sources for an alarmist claim, I found inconsistencies.

In conclusion, therefore, and all things considered, there would appear to be little support for the climate - alarmist claim that the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content will have severe negative impacts on the vast majority of the world's sea

He's vigorously promoting alarmist claims that (only when pressed) he admits are not «robust», meaning they're worthless, results that you immediately knew were «bogus» in your words... if that's not fraud, you'll have to tell me why not, and what might be, and what you call his actions.

The foundation of its ontology is wrong, the foundation of its physics is non-existent, thus, none of its alarmist claims which are directly based on that false ontology can be correct.

Many climate alarmists claim 97 percent or more climate scientists state carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels is causing global warming.

Very interesting but the Alarmists claim to have heard it all before.

Jim D If and when we have something resembling evidence that CO2 is the problem that alarmists claim it is, instead of just government - funded science / propaganda supporting the case for yet more taxes, then having those who produce CO2 would indeed make sense.

If ocean oscillations are as powerful a climate driver as the anti-CO2 alarmists claim then this graph suggests a simple story: that cold Pacific surface waters swallowed up a big gulp of warmth from 1940 - 1970, which the PDO then belched back up during its warm - phase in the 80s and 90s.

Global warming alarmists claim that extreme climate change is producing an increased frequency of severe weather events - new EU research proves that claim to be false

The conservatives believe and I am convinced that the policies they advocate would be very damaging and not deliver the benefits the CAGW alarmists they claim they would deliver.

As we've seen over the last couple of years, many of the more outlandish and alarmist claims in the IPCC reports have been based not on peer - reviewed science, but on «grey literature» — the propaganda sheets and press releases distributed by fanatical green NGOs (many of which are part - funded by the European Commission — but that's another story).

I've analyzed some of the most alarmist claims, and my skepticism about them hasn't changed.

In the mainstream, criticising a fellow climate scientist for making outrageous alarmist claims was often perceived as professional suicide.

This article simply shows that the usual alarmist claim of a «97 % consensus» is untrue.

It shows the dishonesty of the small group of climate sci - entists, desperate to preserve the gravy train of public funds generated by phoney climate alarmist claims.

Skepticism of alarmism is not a single view, because different people question different alarmist claims.

This is not only true in the health care and Obamacare policy arena, but is also a common denominator in their climate change alarmist claims.

What needs explaining is not who discovered what — the scientists or the «deniers» — but how alarmist claims about climate change always seem to precede the evidence, such that researchers believe the negative picture before the science has delivered a verdict.

What their is little scientific support for are all the alarmist claims about a tipping point and that the earths climate exists as a postive feedback loop.

I would think there goal should be to falsify the alarmists claims.

The three lead NIPCC authors — Craig Idso, Robert M. Carter, and S. Fred Singer — reveal how no survey or study shows a «consensus» on the most important scientific issues in the climate change debate, and how most scientists do not support the alarmist claims of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

In November, 2015, the three lead NIPCC authors — Craig Idso, Robert M. Carter, and S. Fred Singer — wrote a small book titled Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming: The NIPCC Report on Scientific Consensus revealing how no survey or study shows a «consensus» on the most important scientific issues in the climate change debate, and how most scientists do not support the alarmist claims of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

-- There is a lot of money to be made in the «green» industry — Alarmist claims brings more funding (supports many careers) and... — A lot of youth votes are to be won by politicians.

For example, alarmists claim that even if the air and oceans aren't warming as predicted, the warming is only being «masked,» or that we are just experiencing a «plateau» or a «pause» in warming — this often at the same time as they have asserted that warming was «accelerating.»

Ultimately the problem is that human experience of weather, particularly as one gets older (and in a position to influence the politics of this), naturally leads most people to dismiss the more alarmist claims.

Global warming alarmists claimed Arctic ice cap would be gone by now, but sea ice is 5 % above 35 year average

Climate alarmists claim the rises in OHC, SST and TLT anomaly data are overwhelming proof of anthropogenic global warming.

There is a lack of evidence to support their alarmist claims.

But because wind turbines are supported by their tribal enemies, they swallow and propagate utterly absurd alarmist claims.

The climate alarmists claim that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels is a very significant such distortion, but as explained in my book, Environmentalism Gone Mad, they have failed to prove their improbable case.

One of the reasons that climate skepticism is a disorganized mess is the tendency to counter alarmist claims, not with a factual rebuttal, but with a speculative counter-claim.