When climate scientists talk about worst case scenarios, he says, «often times they are
portrayed as alarmist.
Not exact matches
There are other examples of models being too conservative, rather than
alarmist as some
portray them.
Eminent scientists with PhD's in physics and geochemistry are
portrayed as being «
alarmists».
Often deniers
portray themselves
as reasoned, cautious, and conservative scientists, while the real scientists working in the field are described with emotionally charged adjectives like «
alarmists,» «warmists,» and the like to weaken the public's respect for their work and to fool journalists about who's who.
Unfortunately, despite this clear empirical evidence, the climate change and global warming doomsday
alarmists attempt to
portray the 2017 season
as a sign of CO2 - induced climate catastrophe - and that is not being well accepted by the actual hurricane experts (here, here, here) who have been on the front lines of tropical cyclone activity and impact research.
Think what you will of the name change, to
portray it
as some kind of secret conspiracy seems
alarmist.