Steeped in dogma and ideology, insisting your view is infallible, you are the quintessence
of alarmist climate science.
«Where the 2016 Presidential Election May Come Out on Climate A Devastating Reassessment
of Alarmist Climate Science»
The Swedish professor tells the BAZ that he became a skeptic
of alarmist climate science early on because «the [UN] IPCC always depicted the facts on the subject falsely» and «grossly exaggerated the risks of sea level rise» and that the IPCC «excessively relied on shaky computer models instead of field research.»
«A Devastating Reassessment
of Alarmist Climate Science Two Examples of the Enormous Real Costs of «Green» Power»
Not exact matches
Rudolf Kipp
of the
Science Skeptical site has a post on the latest
climate predictions of Hans - Joachim Schellnhuber, the Director of the alarmist Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research
climate predictions
of Hans - Joachim Schellnhuber, the Director
of the
alarmist Potsdam Institute for
Climate Impact Research
Climate Impact Research (PIK).
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».
CO2
Science misrepresents Doran's study as a «major blow to the CO2 - induced global warming hypothesis... many a
climate alarmist jumped on the global warming bandwagon... however, the bottom began to fall out
of the poorly constructed bandwagon, as the evidentiary glue that held it together began to weaken.»
The first group
of authors tries to label the
climate science community as an army
of influential catastrophists,
alarmists, and profiteers — glossing over the reality that the vast body
of climate science and
climate policy analysis is, as in any field, full
of gradations (not to mention that there's not much evidence
of substantial influence).
The
Climate Alarmists» Gross Perversion of the Word Clean Carlin Economics & Science Alan Carlin 20 July 2017 Climate alarmists have gone to endless efforts to gain public
Alarmists» Gross Perversion
of the Word Clean Carlin Economics &
Science Alan Carlin 20 July 2017
Climate alarmists have gone to endless efforts to gain public
alarmists have gone to endless efforts to gain public -LSB-...]
Not a single one
of you
climate alarmists have been able to refute the
science that I have posted.
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 ``,.
The complete failure
of climate alarmist science in just about every field it has forced it's way into is becoming increasingly obvious and the totality
of avoidable costs, individually for the poor, as well as socially, politically and economically for society that
climate alarmist science has imposed on our global and national societies is horrendous and only now is just beginning to be totaled up.
Addendum; Everything I see in
climate alarmist science is, after 25 years when one would think after the hundreds
of billions spent on
climate research there would be huge benefits already appearing, is always sometime in the future as in the excellent «future will do this or that» examples just above.
Your and all your other fellow
climate alarmists provide evidence that these observations
of eminent scientists is correct, because none
of you can cite any peer reviewed
science that empirically falsifies the null
climate hypothesis
of natural variability still being the primary cause
of climate change, or cite any peer reviewed
science that empirically shows that anthropogenic CO2 has been the primary cause
of the late 20th century
climate warming.
In the wake
of accusations that skeptical
climate scientists are peddling misleading research, a top scientist from the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology has this to say: the government has spent billions funding
climate science promoting an
alarmist political agenda.
IMO, it shows the stupidity
of the
climate science establishment, the IPCC, the environmental NGOs and the mass
of climate alarmists for proposing and advocating economically irrational (mostly ideologically driven) policies to mitigate
climate change.
Alarmists used their predictions
of climate catastrophe to demand that the world transform its energy and economic systems, slash fossil fuel use, and accept lower living standards, in response to the politically manufactured
science.
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.
Here
climate alarmists claim that human - caused emissions
of CO2 results in this, but the best available
science says that there is not.
For many years,
climate alarmists have refused to debate the
science of their position, declaring that the «
science is settled.»
At the same time that it accuses the public
of falling for pseudo-scientific showmanship and believing the safe, soothing messages they want to hear, the film presents a caricature
of climate science — one that comforts the choir
of climate - change
alarmists and ignores serious scientific concerns.
He seems to have distinguished himself in the field
of computer
science, before he went astray trying to be a hero to the
climate alarmists.
«This volume provides the scientific balance that is missing from the overly
alarmist reports from the IPCC, which are highly selective in their review
of climate science,» the authors write.
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.
But bottom line as you suggest: «A skeptic should talk about the vested career interests
of [
alarmist]
climate scientists only if asked to EXPLAIN why [
alarmist]
climate science is shoddy.
A skeptic should talk about the vested career interests
of [
alarmist]
climate scientists only if asked to EXPLAIN why [
alarmist]
climate science is shoddy.
The NY Times and Al Gore will not like this, but it is better to fight it out on the basis
of the
alarmists» invalid
science rather than the moral wisdom
of their alleged attempt to «save the world» from imaginary global warming /
climate change due to human - caused CO2 emissions.
Whether or not there is evidence to support Trenberth's idea, the idea itself violates the fundamental assumption
of all
Alarmists, namely, that
climate science is correct to use a «radiation - only» theory
of warming.
The
climate alarmists have exploited the public's understandable lack
of knowledge concerning
climate science to argue that the developed countries (but usually not less developed countries) should give up some or preferably all fossil fuel use in order to avoid alleged catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW).
Alarmist climate science is a textbook example
of groupthink in action.
NCSE isn't composed
of scientists or
science teachers; it's an activist group devoted, in part, to expounding global warming
alarmists» dogma: Humans are causing
climate change; the results will be catastrophic; and governments must force people to use less energy and live simpler to prevent future disasters.
Every time
climate science has another crack at misanthropy the cool headed skeptics in the scientific community become more determined to show the world just how much
of a laughingstock they are, in my opinion, the «Man Made Global Warming»
alarmists are kicking a sleeping giant!
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.
Writing at Townhall, Wojick calls for a «Red Team critique»
of the upcoming
Climate Science Special Report (CSSR), which Wojick describes as «an extremely alarmist rendition of what is supposedly happening with Earth's climate.
Climate Science Special Report (CSSR), which Wojick describes as «an extremely
alarmist rendition
of what is supposedly happening with Earth's
climate.
climate.»
Denialism's Alarmism's predetermined conclusions are,
of course, utterly at odds with scientific rationality... and this is why
Climate Etc committed denialists
alarmists are implacably hostile to all forms
of science.
The importance
of this new study is that the authors very carefully specified reasonable simultaneous functional relationships between the most important
climate science variables including the critical (in terms
of alarmist science) possible dual relationships between CO2 and global temperatures and then allowed the available data to determine the importance
of each variable.
He identifies the chronology that skeptic
science was addressing the «pause» well before the
alarmists and characterises all that prior skeptic
science as «seepage», akin to pollution
of climate alarmist science.
«December 2017: Warming /
Climate Doomsdayer
Alarmist Rhetoric Heats Up As Globe Freezes Main Review: 2017 Empirical Evidence
of Catastrophic Global Warming Per The Gold - Standard
Science»
Betts is using Lewandowsky's typical animus towards
climate skeptical
science as a cover to build an alt - history
of climate alarmist science.
Even if the
alarmist interpretation
of climate science is weakening, it won't end environmental alarmism and the shoddy thinking that underpins government policy.
The long term cooling trend
of the Holocene since the Climatic Optimum (aka the Holocene Optimum) was an established fact even before
alarmist lame brains tried to hijack
climate science and turn it into a cult.
As it turns out, these
alarmists were pushing (and still are) a unicorn - type
of science, based on fantasy
climate change scenarios, which almost all have failed to happen.
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.»
(1) undescribed «documents collected by the [committee];» (2) «documents provided by Dr. Mann...»; (3) the committee's preliminary report; (4) a May British House
of Commons whitewash
of Climategate; (5) a recent letter published in
Science magazine deploring
climate skepticism from 255
climate alarmists; (6) a document about the National
Science Foundation peer review process; (7) the Department
of Energy Guide to Financial Assistance; (8) information on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's peer review process; (9) information regarding the percentage
of NSF proposals funded; and (10) Mann's curriculum vitae.
Most
of the original
climate science alarmists so strayed.
I myself have proposed that they tackle the soon to be released
Climate Science Special Report (CSSR), which is part
of the latest, and highly
alarmist, National
Climate Assessment (NCA).
In retrospect this is a little ironic — for it is guilty
of the very crime it accuses the «
alarmists»
of perpetrating — unsupported, biased views
of climate change
science which distort any kind
of balanced analysis being undertaken by focusing exclusively on the suggested polarity
of existing
climate change debate — «scientists» v deniers.
Apart from the more obvious eco-waffle, however, the biggest problem for hopes
of a
climate agreement are the many contested
alarmist interpretations
of «the
science».
The 2013 report by the Nongovernmental International Panel on
Climate Change (NIPCC) provides the scientific balance that is missing from the overly alarmists reports of the United Nations» Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which are highly selective in their review of climate s
Climate Change (NIPCC) provides the scientific balance that is missing from the overly
alarmists reports
of the United Nations» Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC), which are highly selective in their review of climate s
Climate Change (IPCC), which are highly selective in their review
of climate s
climate science.