Sentences with phrase «peers as alarmist»

Not exact matches

Wellness Mama, I love and use your site for reference on many things, but when you write stuff like this (alarmist and lacking in scientific evidence, which should be peer - reviewed as well) you lose credibility.

But you can NOT support your claims with empirical data, because just as I pointed out, and you have failed to refute, there isn't a single peer reviewed paper that empirically shows that anthropogenic CO2 was the primary cause of the late 20th century warming like your climate alarmist religion claims.

As to «Americans freezing in the dark», thanks to the EPA, we'll keep that in mind next time we hear how climate scientists are «alarmists» for producing peer - reviewed, independently verifiable science.

Consistent with this axiom, climate change alarmists, who believe that humans are destroying the Earth and its atmosphere, can not suspend their belief even as the peer - reviewed science to the contrary mounts.

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).

As a prominent climate alarmist scientist determined recently in a peer reviewed paper:

No wonder that, as predicted above, Dr. Lindzen has come under vicious attack by the climate alarmists, who will do anything to distract from the truth of Dr. Lindzen's fascinating [peer - reviewed] paper.

Maybe if the AGW proponents stopped calling those skeptical of their hypotheses «deniers», and did something about the continued tenure of those who engaged in unscientific practises such as data bending, opaque statistical massaging and weighting, email deletion, undermining the peer review process and subverting journal editor's independence, then the big bad nasty «deniers» might stop using the «Alarmist» tag and highlighting climategate.

If you are not utterly * shocked * by the shoddy science involved and you attack rather than inform, with the same old alarmist talking points about peer review (as if Climategate never revealed corruption of peer review), then I laugh at you since you are quickening your own demise as a person on record forever as being a dupe who couldn't see through what is rapidly becoming a laughing stock.

Although such arguments continue to rage, there is no doubt that there is a significant body of scientific opinion (as well as published peer - reviewed literature [5]-RRB- that is sceptical of the alarmist claims by green activists about the effect of carbon dioxide emissions on the climate.

In a peer - reviewed study, scientists have determined that global warming is not the culprit - AGW alarmists are blue as a result.

Of course there's the scandal that just broke regarding the «gold standard of peer reviewed science» that climate alarmists always reference, who's data is used as the basis for many other climate studies, as well as IPCC reports, and even US EPA guidelines - The Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, UK.

Even as Copenhagen looms, broadcast news ignores e-mails suggesting warming alarmists «manipulated» data, conspired to destroy information and thwarted peer reviews