Sentences with phrase «of an alarmist thing»

When people say action on climate will destroy the economy, that's kind of an alarmist thing, without a lot of evidence.

Not exact matches

While the alarmists provide the impression of scientific integrity through peer - reviewed publications, the naysayers often lack the credentials of alamarists but the important thing is data, not credentials.

They're not alarmists that blow little things up into big ones, nor do they try to play down the importance of things.

The IPCC predictions are serious enough without some of the alarmist tendencies to overstate things about runaway greenhouse effect or oceans rising multiple feet.

Thanks to RealClimate for helping the rest of us understand climate, but doesn't it make sense to be «alarmist» when alarming things keep happening «ahead of schedule?»

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.

We need to not be alarmist about the potential of this alarm, but realize that it is something to be alarmed about if we let this «little» global warming thing go too far... on top of the other reasonably alarming things that are already going on, such as hitting thermal limits for crops, etc..

Consensus Alarmist Climate Theory and Models based on Alarmist Theory is the only thing that shows anything likely to go out of bounds.

And few of the things that were revealed in the emails about alarmist scientific practices and resistance to replication came as much as a surprise to those of us who have been following climate issues for a while.

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.

This divergence in the alarmist camp is now going to create a dilemma for all those liberal media outlets — from the BBC to the Guardian to the LA Times — which reported on NOAA's «death of the pause» study as if it were a reliable and credible thing.

If we're going to use agencies of the federal government to investigate and even prosecute «climate deniers», for making «false and misleading claims» then let's damn well do the same for «climate alarmists», who do the same thing all the time.

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

I then started looking at the issue and I made the mistake of asking a question about error bars on an alarmist blog and wow, I got immediately accused of all kinds of horrible things including being in the pay of big oil, a reaction that utterly shocked me.

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.

A bunch of alarmist holdovers from the Obama era released a report insisting that climate change is still just about the worst thing ever.

(And is that example, in the scheme of things, not all that alarmist or dumb?)

CFACT Truth Squad member Paul Driessen, in a piece entitled, «Triple Threat: UN, EPA and Congress,» warns that even without Kyoto - imposed CO2 reductions, the federal Environmental Protection Agency's proposed regulations of CO2 and other emissions, and the Interior Department's use of the Endangered Species Act to lock up millions of acres of forest and oil and natural gas reserves, can accomplish much the same thing as the climate alarmists attempted at Copenhagen, Cancun, Doha, and other climate conferences.

And I concluded that in JCH's opinion * none * of the things that I had listed above — all genuinely advanced as inevitable consequences of a small rise in GAT by the alarmists — were likely plausible outcomes.

(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.

Its pretty clear they want alarmist posts and that the site is leftish in orientation (you just have to look at the issues you can check off that interest you — lots of things like «societal entrepreneurship» but nothing on individual liberty or checks on government power).

Chris Hitchens was really at heart one us he was a humanist always forward looking optomistic loved the triump of the human spirit (not a miserbalist control freaking climate alarmist) But mainly he loved all things Ameican (ecept the Clintons) He was this famous scruffy agnostic rather right centred carrassmatic interlectual a great writer and thinker (unlike his his great sibling interlectual rival his brother Peter without the scruffy or the agnostic) Peter and Chris were exactly like that other great brotherly partnership Niles and Frazer Underneath all that interlectual pomposity there was some mad vibe going on between them Imagine them smashing each other with sherry glasses over a discussion about Europe or something

It is the Alarmists» equivalent of this: A complete list of things caused by Global Warming http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

It is, in my opinion, the one thing that has kept this argument aloft for as long as it has been, because every time there is any kind of change in climate the alarmists say, «See?

One of the things that threw me down the dark path of skepticism, aporiac1960, was the tendency of alarmists to withhold pertinent information.

If you spend some time actually reading the blog entries on this site, you will find, as I did, that the site authors are concerned with (amongst other things) exposing the use of bad science by people looking to get press headlines and make alarmist points.

And they — and the world goes mad in front of environmental problems and alarmist scares and things like that.

In saying these things I know that there is a good chance that the aggressive voices of the denialists, along with our environment minister Malcolm Turnbull, will attack me for being alarmist.

I saw nothing new in what dbstealey wrote in his several posts, but was glad to be reminded of some things and to read different ways of expressing facts to one who is laboring under the delusion of massive propaganda by the alarmist side.

While the alarmists provide the impression of scientific integrity through peer - reviewed publications, the naysayers often lack the credentials of alamarists but the important thing is data, not credentials.

So the reasoned argument that AGW alarmists proffer is that you pay attention to the big ugly face of CO2 projected on the big screen and ignore the reality of the Wizard standing there manipulating the appearance of things from behind the curtain.

And this is one of the things I think climate sceptics and alarmists unfortunately have in common.