Sentences with phrase «warming alarmists with»

Tuesday night's presidential debate surprisingly united global warming alarmists with global warming skeptics.

Then it ends by quoting Winston Churchill in a way that's meant to group the furthest - out global - warming alarmist with the likes of RC and other responsible scientists: «A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.»

Not exact matches

Two years ago, Asness and an AQR colleague raised hackles with a research paper that argued that the global temperature trends over the last 125 years do not, on their own, support an alarmist view of global warming.

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.

Alarmists have drawn some support for increased claims of tropical storminess from a casual claim by Sir John Houghton of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a warmer world would have more evaporation, with latent heat providing more energy for disturbances.

Alarmists have claimed for years that sea level, because of anthropogenic warming, is rising, with ominous consequences.

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.

Skeptics have long cited Doran's research to show that global warming is a flawed theory motivated by alarmist scientists more interested in scaring up huge research grants than in pursuing the evidence with honesty and integrity.

He withdrew any kind of bipartisan support for an ETS (and more)» «two years ago Canadians gave majority government to Stephen Harper's Conservatives, who were pledged to a sensible use of its resources, so Australians have now elected a government with a pragmatic attitude on global warming» «Led by Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, an attempt was made, by what can only be described as alarmists, to exploit these fires for the purposes of the global warming debate.

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.

Like Greenland and the Little Ice Age, glaciers aren't cooperating with climate alarmists either, though glacier retreat is supposedly a harbinger of doom for our warming planet.

That pretty much is how skeptics feel when trying to have an intelligent conversation with global warming alarmist — especially when they can not even admit Mann's hockey stick is political and more social than science.

Michael Crichton had a big problem with these global warming alarmists who don't really seem to like people much, whether at home or around the globe — e.g.,

«Since its creation in 2006 the site has done nothing but post poorly researched propaganda with a clear intent to smear respected scientists, policy analysts or groups who dare oppose an alarmist position on global warming.

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

Earlier last year, following an article reviewing 6 (also alarmist) books on the environment including Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, Nicholas Stern's report, and George Monbiot's Heat, we discovered that, inconveniently, May had taken a few liberties with the facts himself, citing a single study, referenced in the Stern Report to make the claim that» 15 — 40 per cent of species «were vulnerable to extinction at just 2 degrees of warming, and that oil companies were responsible for a conspiracy to spread misinformation, and prevent action on climate change.

The message I'm taking away from this is that if you are a Global Warming Alarmist you can grope women to your heart's content and get away with it.

in one day over the global warming alarmists «Splattergate» film featuring skeptical children being blown up by their teacher for refusing to go along with climate edicts.

No matter how many stories seek to distract you with the shiny objects of prurient dialogue between sniveling, petulant and nasty global warming alarmists, that isn't the story.

While perhaps failing to observe the irony of its own reporting, the Times juxtaposed the thoroughly discredited population explosion theories of the 1970s with the (equally alarmist) global warming predictions of our day.

Well, ANU, snarky though you may be, you raise a nominally interesting point; the problem, however, is that the amounts are anomalies; so the 90's are on average a certain amount above the average of the base period; now to compare the increase in anomalies in the noughties, which are higher than the nineties and say this is evidence of progressive warming, hottest ever, or whatever is the current alarmist catch - cry, ignores the fact that the true measure of the warming is not the absolute anomalies but their difference; that is the amounts for the noughties should have the amounts for the nineties subtracted from them and then compared with the nineties after they have the eighties subtracted from them.

VTG fits the description of a warming alarmist that advocates implementing ideas with no knowledge what the proposals he advocates will accomplish except that they will cost more for many people alive today.

If I was willing to change my views to ingratiate myself with a funding source I would by now be on the global warming alarmist bandwagon.»

An alarmist organisation whose sole existence is thanks to the overblown «climate crisis» comes up with a report that justifies its own existence and reassures everyone that the massive, unnecessary new tax will have far less of an effect on food prices than the evils of «global warming».

The criminal aspect is not only the failure of the alarmsits to observe these basic facts bu the Hockeystick fraud giving hundreds of times the weighting to faulty Bristlecone pine proxy data as to other sets in order to give a desired result, the blatant tampering of Data to warm the past with extremely dubious reasons, the NZ NWA scandal where they demonstrably altered data to fit the alarmist agenda, the Darwin Australia tampering, the crude attempt to prove a «hotspot» by making the base temperature representation red and thus appear hot in a now debunked graph etc Then there's the Nazi / Stalin / Lenin / Maoesque attempts to silence debate.

A warmer world is a better world We are heading for another ice age and you alarmists with your bugaboos are a menace to society.

Meanwhile, the NOAA report shows that climate alarmists (and NOAA belongs in this category) are still, as the Climategate emails revealed very clearly, willing to lie with statistics to get the warming the models predict.

Like many other conference speakers and attendees, Secretary - General Ban cited the recent droughts, floods, and Tropical Storm Sandy as proof of the dire consequences of man - made global warming, even though many studies and scientists (including scientists who usually fall into the climate alarmist category) have stated that there is no evidence to support claims that «extreme weather» has been increasing in frequency and / or magnitude in recent years, or that extreme events (hurricanes, droughts, heat waves, etc.) have anything to do with increased CO2 levels.

My criticism of this site and many others is that, in an overreaction to the alarmists» obsession with predicting and controlling the future, most sceptics refuse to speculate on how the politics of global warming will develop, and just assume that the truth will out, that the Emperor's nakedness will become evident, and we can all go back to leading normal lives.

'' -LSB-...] for the alarmists, global warming has nothing to do with science or scientific inquiry.

The alarmists at the IPCC and «Big Green» like to point to the gigantic icebergs produced by Antarctica as proof that global warming is directly melting the polar continent with high temperatures.

Preventing asthma is now the principal reason brought forward by the global warming alarmists in Congress to cripple the U. S. economy with energy - rationing regulations.

As the actual climate truths and realities are finally being reported by the world's press (Der Spiegel, The Financial Times, etc.), the UN's global warming chief alarmist continues with delusional denial.

He and his coconspirators are so desperate to discredit anyone who disagrees with their alarmist views on man - made global warming that they are willing to lie, steal, and even defraud their own friends and allies in the media.»

Now compound this massive propaganda failure by the anti-growth Democrats with this week's latest climate science news from the world's premier science journal and a leading global warming alarmist scientist: natural ocean oscillations are responsible for Earth's modern temperature changes, not human CO2.

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.

-LSB-...] The warming alarmists and Green eco-mentalists are definitely raising the stakes, in line with Greenpeace and Earth First!

Please, provide a plot of the number of scientists who dare speak against global warming alarmists vs. year, with the source.

Unfortunately the global warming alarmists have done just that and gotten away with it until Climategate.

As has been the case with other attempts to vilify, intimidate and silence experts who disagree with alarmist views on global warming and climate change, Kaine presented an argument rife with logical fallacies — appeals to emotion, straw men, ridicule, oversimplification and misrepresentation.

But the problem with global warming alarmists getting on their science high horse is that they don't really know the science all that well, or how to talk about it.

So it's quite understandable that — just as they tried to do with the «Medieval Warming Period» and also «the decline» (which proved so troubling to Michael Mann and his pals)-- the alarmists are doing their damnedest to write the «Pause» (or, if you will, «hiatus») out of scientific history.

This is what happens when you send people from liberal Brown University, who conveniently come up with another scare - a-rama about global warming, in what appears to be another feeble «alarmist» attempt to counter climategate and all the other «gates» since.

WARMING alarmists rebut the 1970's global cooling scare with claims that the phenomenon wasn't «peer - reviewed» or that a «consensus» of «97 %» of «scientists» didn't agree.

This edition has been revised and reformulated with a new chapter template of short chapter introductions, study questions at... View Details Global Warming - Alarmists, Skeptics and Deniers: A Geoscientist Looks at the Science of Climate Change by G. Dedrick Robinson (Author), Gene D. Robinson III (Author) Global Warming - Alarmists, Skeptics & Deniers: A Geoscientist looks at the Science of Climate Change, brings a unique geological perspective to this politically charged issue, a perspective that has been ignored far too long.

Moreover, not only have all of the AGW alarmist computer models failed spectacularly and repeatedly, but the alarmists have been caught red - handed once again engaging in wholesale fraud fraud, blatantly tampering with the temperature data, in order to be able to falsely claim that the planet is warming.

Then, in keeping with the global warming alarmist playbook, they suggested I disclose who my funders are.

There was the keynote address by Sir Robert Watson, who explored the implications of our current emissions path, and the fact that we are likely heading for a world that is 4 or 5 degrees warmer by 2100 than it was before industrialisation, with consequences that are alarming rather than alarmist.

Dr. Hansen, along with a number of other climate change alarmists (like Al Gore), believes that man is the chief cause of global warming, and that warming is generally harmful.

And I assume the Sierra Club would issue a public retraction if confronted with the facts that the data are precisely as I described that over the last 18 years there has been no significant warming and indeed that is why global warming alarmists invented the term «the pause» to explain what they called the pause in global warming because the data demonstrate what you just said, that the Earth is cooking and warming, is not back up by the data.