BTW — as predicted by some comments in this post: several outlets in the media are
taking alarmist positions (not grounded in fact) on the change in Atlantic circulation.
Not exact matches
Even if we suppose that all their scientific staff signed on to the
alarmist position, is the board obliged to
take their conclusions as gospel?!
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.
It's understandable to
take that
position when
alarmists are telling you things like don't have more kids and extreme things like that, but at the same time just because scientists were wrong about global freezing in the 70s doesn't mean the current climate change issue isn't worth giving serious thought.
For years, I presume partially in an effort to avoid debate, certain
alarmists have
taken the ad hominem
position that skeptics are anti-science.