Sentences with phrase «people as alarmists»

and they label people as alarmists.

Not exact matches

I'm not an alarmist about the future as «Her» presents it, but I do believe more and more people would prefer to have a relationship with a compliant piece of technology than deal with the complications, needs and emotions of a real human being.

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.

Some oils have caused seizures in children and extreme caution should be used (this article from a naturopathic pediatrician explains more and gives some case studies — since people have commented, I want to mention that I do think her post is overly alarmist but she makes some good points as well).

8) Excerpt from Peter Asmus book «Introduction to Energy in California» (University of California Press, 2009): «Remember when people who spoke of cigarettes causing cancer were derided as being alarmist nuts?

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 peoplAs 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 peoplas before, leading to massive movements of people.

However, when people use the term «catastrophic anthropogenic global warming» they are not referring to any real science but are attempting to paint anyone who talks about the science as an alarmist.

You might think it helps «up the ante», but it doesn't — it just allows people who don't want to think that there is any problem the opportunity to paint all statements as alarmist nonsense.

In many IPCC discussions I have noticed a strange asymmetry: people were very concerned about possibly erring on the high side (e.g., the upper bound of sea level rise possibly being criticised as «alarmist»), and not very concerned about erring on the low side (or some even regarding this as a virtue of being «cautious»).

As people say «follow the money» or in this case, «follow the money and the social policy and who wants the power» and one can see, if they wipe away the veil of fear the alarmists are stoking, that this is more about power and politics than about climate.

Similar events have occurred before as some tried to point out, but the propaganda of the IPCC and the alarmists want people to believe they are beyond extreme and thus unnatural.

IMO, global warming alarmists (as well as GMO and nuclear alarmists) are a subset of people who either haven't looked at the issue because they assume someone else has, or haven't scrutinized it because they don't want it scrutinized.

By the way, does anyone out there still believe that the Climate Commission isn't just a mouthpiece for trumpeting Labor government policy, staffed as it is by a team of alarmists with not one single person in the clique to challenge the orthodoxy or put a contrary view?

Alarmist characterise people as «climate refugees» if they move from one place to another due to climatic effects and think this is appalling.

Some people see alarmist theory as a kind of Rube Goldberg Machine, that, no matter how carefully thought out, is just too weak at too many points to rely on.

I always suspected Stefan and Murh weren't real people, just inventions of you or one of the other alarmist truebelievers, who you make spout a lot of drivel, as you try and discredit we sinners guilty of climate blasphemy.

At this point alarmists need to bite the nuclear bullet like Hansen finally and grudgingly suggests as the amercan people wont go back to horse and buggy.

I propose that we see the alarmists as good people with some primitive distorted world view.

If it is retracted, and the IPCC admits that it unscientifically based its conclusion on one article in one journal, not only would this undermine its own credibility as a scientific organization, but it would remove one of the great threats alarmists like Nobel Laureate Al Gore use to scare people into believing this myth.

I was very skeptical of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (though not the possibility of some AGW) from the moment I heard about it as a major political movement, because it «smelled» to much like the Alarmist «Population Bomb» and «Peek Oil» movements, and was being pushed by many of the same kind of people.

People such as Hansen line their pockets with alarmist cash while making pronouncements that are false.

Therefore, 15 or 20 years from now, if things continue as usual, professional climate alarmists will be able to quote mostly from people holding the appropriate degree to peddle their wares.

The problem for the Guardian is that, when you divide and polarise the debate as it does, when the alarmist story you tell turns out to be nonsense, you force people with the sense or intuition to see it as nonsense to the other, opposing camp.

I've come to the conclusion that the paper acts as an excellent carrot, which when combined with the terrible example of Mann's floundering to defend the indefensible (as the stick) may tempt some people to row back from some silly alarmist positions they've taken on global warming.

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.

Along with the sheer unpleasantness of the moderators at Real Climate and other alarmist blogs, the Guardian's practice of summarily banning anyone who does not follow exactly the party line as laid down by the Klimatariat has driven more people to become sceptics than any deep study of the science ever has.

As you have personally experienced, vicious slander seems to be the default response to anyone raising a question at a lot of alarmist blogs and from people like Michael Mann.

I don't think you do justice to the work of people like McIntyre and how their interaction with the hockey team and alarmist blogs such as Real Climate was instrumental in raising serious questions about the quality of the science underlying the dogma.

The people living in those territories would not be encouraged to know he once said, «Climate alarmists are once again predicting the end of the world as we know it.

As for the terms «alarmist» and «faithful», they are appropriate for some people.

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.

Alarmist: A person who needlessly alarms or attempts to alarm others, as by inventing or spreading false or exaggerated rumors of impending danger or catastrophe.

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.

We can always do well with researching alternatives such as solar; but the alarmists are causing people to not have a family because they don't want another «carbon footprint.»

I'm sure a lot of people from the alarmist camp will be outraged at my use of incompetence as a description, but what else adequately describes the dogged defense of patent nonsense.

As Myron observed, «The vilification of me and several other climate realists during a meeting of tens of thousands of alarmists suggests they are worried that a handful of people speaking the truth, threatens the so - called consensus that global warming is a crisis.»