Sentences with phrase «such alarmist»

Yet he never, and no one has yet, presented ANY evidence that such alarmist predictions will come true.

Such alarmist and unscientific language give all of us good reason to challenge statements like this.

Each such alarmist article is larded with words such as «if», «might», «could», «probably», «perhaps», «expected», «projected» or «modelled» - and many involve such deep dreaming, or ignorance of scientific facts and principles, that they are akin to nonsense.

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

The authors of the new document criticised such alarmist warnings at the report's launch.

Due to this, the Christian Council of Ghana which mostly is the first to dismiss such alarmist prophesies is questioning the country's preparedness to deal with any terror attack.

Not exact matches

Our 1996 symposium on judicial usurpation and subsequent articles were criticized for being alarmist; but the Florida Supreme Court changed many minds, and I now note that even worthies such as George Will are using the feared R - word, referring to the «regime» of lawless law - making by judges.

The movie, directed by Kip Andersen and Keegan Kuhn — who have shot similar alarmist films such as Cowspiracy and Turlock — alleges that eating eggs is as bad as smoking cigarettes, consuming animal products raises the risk of diabetes (while sugar is innocent), and meat causes cancer.

Hobbs creates installations in living spaces such «Alarmist (Motel 6)» that features a tent and objects hoarded by a survivalist; or, the room with walls clad in gold metallic sheets that features the iconic refreshment tables found at high school proms in «Prom Forever.»

I found Rod's comment idiotic beyond belief so I wrote something to the effect that «alarmists call them seasons» or some such.

Such proactive educational efforts will bring complaints that climate scientists are being alarmist, activist, and political.

The willingess of climate alarmists to beat critics over the head with such «facts» is what inspires counter-alarmism.

If science advocacy has to include statements such as «Alas, as with most over-simplified global warming claptrap, more thought goes into coming up with the alarmist concept than in actually looking into whether or not it is true», then I don't think it belongs in the discussion.

So I take it that the consensus view is that according to our best current scientific understanding, there is no possibility whatsoever of any catastrophic consequences of anthropogenic global warming; therefore to use the word «catastrophic» is irresponsible alarmism;, and therefore the deniers are actually quite right to accuse anyone who suggests that such outcomes are possible of being an irresponsible alarmist.

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..

Only Ignorant Idiots (I I) s come up with such stupid alarmist ideas!

Mann and Gore with the hockey - stick fraud is one of hundreds of such sick alarmist tricks to build a fake story on man made climate fiction.

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.

The important question to ask, I argue, is how such an intolerant culture was allowed to develop in powerful political and academic institutions, and why the alarmist case was preferred by policymakers, who continue to make use of the binary view of the climate debate.

The numbers between a sceptical estimate of ECS and an alarmist estimate of the same existed before the word «lukewarm» came to represent such a position.

Pat Michaels sums it up: Such results throw a bit of cold water on alarmist ideas that rising temperatures will lead to ever - accelerating ice loss from Greenland and accelerating sea level rise.

You would think that even a global warming alarmists must admit such facts if they are to have any credibility.

«If the United Nations and fellow climate alarmists get their way on restricting carbon dioxide, the poor will soon be getting poorer — much, much poorer — especially in places such as Africa, Latin America, and large swaths of Asia,» The New American's Alex Newman reported in a 2013 article entitled UN Carbon Regime Would Devastate Humanity,

I do not know how many times I've read on this here very blog about how the «alarmists» are «squashing» or «censoring» «dissenting opinion» or some such tripe.

Such actions further motivate me to expose the scientific, policy, and moral fallacies perpetrated by such climate «alarmists»: 1) in corrupting the scientific method, 2) in imposing «mitigation» without fully evaluating and debating «adaptation», and 3) in coercively imposing tyrannical totalitarian government to worship «Mother Nature&raqSuch actions further motivate me to expose the scientific, policy, and moral fallacies perpetrated by such climate «alarmists»: 1) in corrupting the scientific method, 2) in imposing «mitigation» without fully evaluating and debating «adaptation», and 3) in coercively imposing tyrannical totalitarian government to worship «Mother Nature&raqsuch climate «alarmists»: 1) in corrupting the scientific method, 2) in imposing «mitigation» without fully evaluating and debating «adaptation», and 3) in coercively imposing tyrannical totalitarian government to worship «Mother Nature».

Global warming alarmists claim that such incidences have nothing to do with a climate trend.

The alarmist camp is predicting such a resumption of warming.

Global warming alarmists (many of them the same who predicted a New Ice Age in the 1970s) ignore, or evade, such awkward facts as the greatly increased CO2 production worldwide for 30 years after 1941, when heavy industry increased immensely for armaments in WWII, and for rebuilding and consumer goods like cars in the postwar boom in the Americas, Europe and Asia — while global temperatures simultaneously fell.

Fortunately, climate alarmist policies are not well advanced in the US, with some exceptions such as California.

In the absence of any obvious climate catastrophe, let alone the slightest evidence, I can only conclude that the alarmists understand at some level that are losing the «debate,» such as it has been.

Most climate alarmists wouldn't know the answer to that question, either, and even most of those who would know because they just memorized a number from an article wouldn't really know what it means, whether it means anything, and how such numbers may be estimated.

I think this debates shows how inaccurate such an approach is from Briffas and the alarmist side.

THE only place where such catastrophic scenarios exist are in the warped minds of alarmist hysterics who occupy the climate controlled offices of NASA, NOAA, BoM, National Geographic and the New York Times et al..

If only all countries had the backbone to stand up to the Greens and face down the alarmists in such a resolute manner.

You have been in the climate debates for years yet only now you are discovering that Alarmists will not touch empirical studies of phenomena such as the AMO with a ten foot pole?

CPI does not attack pro-Obama climate change lobbyists for exaggeration or scare mongering but instead give praise and approval to alarmist pressure groups such as Bill McKibben's 350.org and the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Accordingly climate alarmists have circled the wagons and refused to debate with climate skeptics, preferring hit pieces such as Years of Living Dangerously.

In the previous two posts (first, second) we have looked at the climate alarmist's «steel greenhouse» which they mathematically solve in such a way as to lead to what they think is an alarming behaviour about temperature, which they call... Continue reading →

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.

But the ranks of climate alarmists are filled with legions of scientific ignoranti who blindly see such coastal erosion as another «proof» of impending CO2 - caused climate hell.

As such, alarmists aren't just questioning the value of continuing the global warming debate; their approach also calls into question the scientific method, which has been used successfully in its current form since the Enlightenment.

Such remarks are «alarmist» but not informative — they have negative connotations and as such instil fSuch remarks are «alarmist» but not informative — they have negative connotations and as such instil fsuch instil fear.

It is such whacko prognostications that should make every scientist very skeptical of the good intentions of global warming alarmists.

The litany of failed, alarmist predictions is why scientific organisations, such as the BoM, have — tragically — become almost the last places to hear the truth about global warming climate change.

«The climate alarmists maintain that man's emissions of CO2 caused such a rapid increase world - wide, and further increases in CO2 will create additional catastrophic global warming.

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

It underscores the «precautionary principle» that SHOULD be applied here: Climate alarmists must prove, with clear and convincing evidence, that we face an imminent manmade climate disaster, and that their «solutions» will avert that disaster, without creating even bigger problems — before any such prescriptions are implemented.

D) Despite A and B, the Alarmists insist that we must spend huge amounts of money and modify the global economy in ways that are sure to have extremely dangerous consequences — even though the models (if they are believed) show such changes would have no significant effect.

Potential sources of methane disaster, such as thawing permafrost, occur occasionally as alarmists and media perpetuate fears of environmental collapse.

It's very reassuring to know how the very average alarmist has such a good grip on climate «problems» whereas the expert sceptic.......