Sentences with phrase «with alarmist science»

The social pressures against running an article about problems with alarmist science were enormous, but a scandal allowed them to make an end run around these social norms.

Not exact matches

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.

Have you ever called the so - called scientists who hide data, fake hockey sticks, the so - called administrators of science who tried to dismiss Climategate with fake inquiries, and the so - called scientists whose reaction to Climategate and alarmist fraud in general, is deafening silence?

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.

Obviously climate alarmism has nothing to do with «science» and everything to do with what the alarmists want to believe and want everyone else to believe as well.

That's the problem with the standard AGW Alarmist argument that «prestige» = «truth» in science.

After all, with little to no funding, virtually barred from science journals, unable to access the mountains of grant money enjoyed by the alarmists, and almost completely ignored by the mainstream media, somehow we've gotten our skeptic ideation to actually seep into the minds of scientists.

It appears to me that they're on the defense after Climategate, and appear to be taking some great liberties with the way good science is done, as evidenced by some of the alarmist reports and articles we see.

Consistent with this axiom, climate change alarmists, who believe that humans are destroying the Earth and its atmosphere, can not suspend their belief even as the peer - reviewed science to the contrary mounts.

The reason to have a science advisory board is to enlist independent critics to ask annoying questions, rather than to staff a board with alarmists alone.

There's this curious bridge - building declaration from one of your fellow diners: «Both sides are really fed up with the outrageous alarmists who are not representing science properly.»

Many years ago I made bets with a CNN science anchor and an alarmist billionaire regarding florida flooding and survival of arctic ice.

Wrong again, typical irrelevance by an alarmist who confuses the atmosphere with the human body and confuses irrelevance with science.

Climate alarmists can not argue the science, so you just defame them with smears like «climate denial».

Writing at Townhall, Wojick calls for a «Red Team critique» of the upcoming Climate Science Special Report (CSSR), which Wojick describes as «an extremely alarmist rendition of what is supposedly happening with Earth's climate.»

Denialism's Alarmism's predetermined conclusions are, of course, utterly at odds with scientific rationality... and this is why Climate Etc committed denialists alarmists are implacably hostile to all forms of science.

No, StevenI think the reason skeptics dislike Jones, and alarmists liked him, was because he hid the tax - funded data from skeptics and gave it to alarmists, in an attempt to suffocate science with politics.

even with the correction made the trend is still basically flat, it is still clear that the AGW alarmists are the ones promoting bad science.

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

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.

The other tactic often used is to keep repeating the mantra — climate alarmists do that regularly, both repeating their alarmist line and dealing with a setback by repeating a phoney positioning line such as «Climategate didn't change the science» (merely discreditted their version of it; — RRB -.

But the climate boffins don't really have much interest in testing their hypotheses in the real world anymore as nearly every time they do it disagrees with the alarmist narrative - science that pays the rent.

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.

But I had to laugh when comment # 14 at RC provided this link: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2010/2992897.htm#transcript It is to the ABC Science Show's 35 year celebration program where climate alarmist and ABC Science editor Robyn Williams, in a moment of self congratulation posted an interview with Peter Ritchie - Calder from 1975.

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.

Says the Leftist bedwetter who regards the specious alarmist drivel of Abrahams and Nutticelli of the Guardian as absolute authority on just about everything to do with climate «science»...

Note with pity the attempted insult from the brain - damanged alarmist, trying here to associate decline - hiding, data - hiding, email - deleting, vested - interest climate «science», with the hard science of physics.

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.

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.

I wonder how much of this occurs with climate science — in particular the alarmist bits: those portions of study which expound the most alarmist results, et al..

In common with socialist / Democrats, he remains dlireously keen on using the still highly imperfect and uncertain alarmist stooge - science as a trojan horse to undermine a free society, advancing his real agenda of a totalirian distopia.

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.

You respond with science and he counters with examples such as David Archer, who wrote an alarmist book claiming 10 meters of SLR by end of century.

In climate change, there is a political agenda with its necessary junk science propaganda and alarmist claims.

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.

That would be a very significant scientific contribution, and in my humble opinion much more worth it than slaying some climate alarmist dragons that constantly contaminate the paleoclimatology with sloppy science.

Then thereâ $ ™ s the pesky issue of â $ œconsensus.â $ Alarmists typically counter any fact - based global warming argument with the assertion that the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has already ruled on the issue, and therefore â $ œthe science is settledâ $ and â $ œthe debate is over.â $ â $ œMild winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms, â $ IPCC claimed in its 2001 Third Assessment.

It is yet more evidence that climate alarmists tend to be apologists for the current science establishment and to be particularly sensitive to anyone asserting that climate science, dealing with very small deltas in a very complex system, might be subject to bias.

Bengtsson thought he was a scientist doing science, but Nick's alarmist friends let him know forcefully that science has nothing to do with it.

grypo — After working with scientists for nearly 40 years, the first time I ever heard the phrase «the science is settled» was from a pair of alarmists (actually «catastrophists») arguing that I should become a believer.

Moreover, I have had many arguments with people of an alarmist bent in which it has become obvious that they are keener on a society organised around the authority of climate science than they are keen on understanding precisely what climate science has determined, which is to say that such a position is nakedly «ideological», yet owes very little of its understanding to science.

Only recently, faced with a gap between the climate reality and alarmist theory that was too great to ignore, has official climate science begun to admit the facts to the public.

I wrote something like 3000 words of indignation about climate alarmists corrupting the very definition of science by declaring their work «settled», answering difficult scientific questions with the equivalent of voting, and telling everyone the way to be pro-science is to listen to self - designated authorities and shut up.

Barely has the year begun and already the climate alarmist propaganda machine is up to its old tricks, trying to scare you with made up science stories promising global warming - related doom and gloom...

He lazily conflates the science with those that who at first sight may easily be cast in the mould of alarmist: those dreaded environmentalists.