FoE draws on the support of James Hansen, who contradicts the IPCC «consensus»
with alarmist statements about meters of sea - level rise, yet escapes being called a «denier» on the basis that he differs from the mainstream in a more apocalyptic direction.
Not exact matches
The real blowback against Hansen has a lot more to do
with the
alarmist and scientifically unsupportable
statements he makes in his op - eds at the WP and NYT.
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.
[And, Flannery goes out true to form,
with a ridiculously
alarmist statement... See ya» later pal.
I agree
with your point that «framing
statements are essential to avoid false attacks by
alarmists» > However, this does not frame it correctly:
Among the remainder — most of whom are not professors, but research associates at best, are an assorted bunch, many of whom are better known for their
alarmist statements in the mainstream press than they are for their contributions to scientific knowledge — activists in other words,
with their own political motivation.
I agree
with Ladbury's
statement money, money, money to prove what the secular climate preist want, growth of there
alarmist agenda, Fossil fuels my ass.