Sentences with phrase «of alarmist scientists»

I truly believe that many of the alarmist scientists don't really believe the impending doom that they're spewing.

Either way, the opinions of these alarmist scientists is hardly news...

Skeptics of alarmist scientists have long been the target of harsh rhetoric from hostile climate alarmist parties, who often refer to scientists such as Spencer and Christy as «climate deniers», a thinly veiled reference to Holocaust deniers.

The IPCC, its assessment reports and summaries for policy makers, its cabal of alarmist scientists... they are party to the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on mankind.

Every time a food fight like this erupts, it is the behavior of the alarmist scientists and their defenders on blogs which does the most damage to their cause.

The predictions of alarmist scientists are frequently hysterical, and most often wrong, as was globally witnessed with the Hurricane Irene forecasts.

Hillary Clinton (who was then Secretary of State) demanded an investigation into it; a group of alarmist scientists wrote to President Obama demanding he launch a RICO prosecution of Exxon; two supposedly major journalistic exposes were published at Inside Climate News and theLA Times, then eagerly endorsed in such publications as Scientific American and the Guardian.

Hillary Clinton (who was then Secretary of State) demanded an investigation into it; a group of alarmist scientists wrote to President Obama demanding he launch a RICO prosecution of Exxon; two supposedly major journalistic exposes were published at Inside Climate News and the LA Times, then eagerly endorsed in such publications as Scientific American and the Guardian.

Not exact matches

RE: Just a little piecprsteve on the credibility of the authors of the study: Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, reports that real - world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.

Scientists and others who hope to inform the public or spur action have long struggled with how to convey the high stakes of global warming without making people feel helpless or fueling deniers by coming across as alarmist.

Ebell has fought against climate policies for years, and he often suggests that climate scientists are working to advance their careers by promoting alarmist research that exaggerates the pace of climbing temperatures.

While German politicians, alarmist scientists, activists, and media are staying super-glued stuck on stupid, i.e. remaining mired in the stupidity of dogmatism and closed - mindedness, the climate debate and controversy in Germany is, well, shall we say, heating the hell up.Mark the following time and place on your calender: Wednesday, 25 May 2011, 10 pm.

After all, the scientists that Rapp calls «an in - group of alarmists» represent, in fact, mainstream science.

Alarmist site that 98 % of climate scientist believe in climate change.

It's telling, though, that some of the scientists closest to the research don't share the alarmist views of TNR opponents.

Craig, I tend to dismiss those who people call alarmists or deniers, because their views tend to be outside the views of most scientists; however I did listen to the entire video.

All those scientist who think Hansen is being too alarmist have not put forward convincing arguments, as far as I know, why his reasoned suspicion of the risks of faster changes than the current scientific consensus allows for are not justified.

that looks bad, the alarmists refuse public debate... that looks bad, the alarmists predictions are routinely failures... that looks bad, the alarmists use their influence to deny publication of contrary science... that looks bad, the alarmists do whatever they can to destroy the careers of scientists that research alternate explanations for climatic temp changes..

In any case, you are free to ignore «alarmist» propaganda and pay attention only to the refereed publications of climate scientists, whose skepticism of unfounded hypotheses can be relied on.

, a consensus branded «alarmist» by Dan H who considers the IPCC as being unrepresentitive of most scientists.

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.

«Climate scientists are all a bunch of alarmists who lie about the situation and destroy data».

Then it ends by quoting Winston Churchill in a way that's meant to group the furthest - out global - warming alarmist with the likes of RC and other responsible scientists: «A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.»

Anyone interested in the present and recent RealClimate postings will likely want to visit the Wall Street Journal's OpinionJournal.com today, where there's a link to an op - ed by MIT's Richard Lindzen that's headlined this way: «FREE INQUIRY: Climate of Fear: Global - warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence.»

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».

Scientists don't have to work as hard on debunking «alarmist» errors because not that many of those make it into the research literature.

Did any scientists say «don't worry about the global dimming alarmists, the CO2 we are pumping will take care of the problem»?

We can eliminate Lovelock, because most scientists think he is one of the few who fits the «alarmist» tag, and he's a little outside his specialty.

Lindzen would apparently dismiss her, and the hundreds of scientists whose work she bases her assessment on, as irresponsible «alarmists».

I would actually cite things like Near Earth Asteroid research and Supervolcano research as far stronger examples, but even in this case it is the journalism that is «alarmist», far more so than any of the scientists.

... Climate of Fear — Global - warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence.

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.

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.

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.

As I read further, from the context, he appears to be referring to a specific question about extreme weather — yet his rhetoric seems to be aimed at implying a broader conclusion about the intellectual clarity, and motives, of the scientists he calls «alarmists.»

Note that the first few of the links below are to blog posts written by concerned climate scientists, whom the climate change denialists call «alarmists.»

Just recently a «scientist» at the German hyper alarmist PIK «found out» that the (temporary) loss of sea ice in the arctic leads to increased ocean heat loss to the atmosphere resulting in more snow elsewhere.

Bob Tisdale says: January 10, 2011 at 3:05 pm Manfred says: «Just recently a «scientist» at the German hyper alarmist PIK «found out» that the (temporary) loss of sea ice in the arctic leads to increased ocean heat loss to the atmosphere resulting in more snow elsewhere.

At GelbspanFiles.com, my main focus is to amass a collection of information which shows myriad problems with the accusation that skeptic climate scientists are paid industry money to lie and spread misinformation, and myriad problems with the people surrounding that accusation, including one of the main promulgators of alleged «core evidence» proving it, global alarmist book author Ross Gelbspan.

Have you ever called the so - called scientists who hide data, fake hockey sticks, the so - called administrators of science who tried to dismiss Climategate with fake inquiries, and the so - called scientists whose reaction to Climategate and alarmist fraud in general, is deafening silence?

I have extensively read scientist Mike Hulme's presentation of climate change as PNS, but do you know of any other alarmist or sceptic scientists calling it as PNS?

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.

Observe how the global warming alarmists, scientists and politicians alike, are gradually preparing their exit routes, after decades of false scaremongering and fraudulent misappropriation of scarce global resources on a fabricated, non-existent crisis.

A small group of scientists and lobby groups and alarmists perhaps are staring to come across to the public as no better than those proclaiming the «Rapure» today, and the comparison between CAGW and this are being made.

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.

The organization, which argues that the consequences of climate change have been exaggerated by alarmists, is also defending itself in a defamation lawsuit brought by a prominent climate scientist.

* There is too much conflicting evidence about climate change to know whether it is actually happening * Current climate change is part of a pattern that has been going on for millions of years * Climate change is just a natural fluctuation in Earth's temperatures * Even if we do experience some consequences from climate change, we will be able to cope with them * The effects of climate change are likely to be catastrophic * The evidence for climate change is unreliable * There are a lot of very different theories about climate change and little agreement about which is right * Scientists have in the past changed their results to make climate change appear worse than it is * Scientists have hidden research that shows climate change is not serious * Climate change is a scam * Social / behavioural scepticism measures * Climate change is so complicated, that there is very little politicians can do about it * There is no point in me doing anything about climate change because no - one else is * The actions of a single person doesn't make any difference in tackling climate change * People are too selfish to do anything about climate change * Not much will be done about climate change, because it is not in human nature to respond to problems that won't happen for many years * It is already too late to do anything about climate change * The media is often too alarmist about climate change * Environmentalists do their best to emphasise the worst possible effects of climate change * Climate change has now become a bit of an outdated issue * Whether it is important or not, on a day - to - day basis I am bored of hearing about climate change

Of course, the corporation's new policy on who is allowed to appear opposite scientists only applies to when the scientist is not criticical of alarmist positions, so they could have picked anyone they want to face off with JudOf course, the corporation's new policy on who is allowed to appear opposite scientists only applies to when the scientist is not criticical of alarmist positions, so they could have picked anyone they want to face off with Judof alarmist positions, so they could have picked anyone they want to face off with Judy.

«I was one of those scientists — and of course bore my share of ridicule for daring to make such an alarmist prediction.»

What I have to continue to ask alarmists is why 97 % carries weight when it comes to numbers of scientists, but not when 97 % / yr CO2 emissions are natural.