Which is a more appropriate global warming label - 'Alarmism' or 'Alarming'?

Question

The standard label for those who accept the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory has become 'Alarmists'.

Reading a review of a new book (Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet) on RealClimate, the issue was raised as to whether 'Alarming' is a more appropriate label than 'Alarmist'.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/11/six-degrees/

Is someone who makes alarming predictions automatically an alarmist? For example, is a doctor who tells you that smoking is increasing your chances of contracting lung cancer by a certain percentage an alarmist?

It seems to me that 'Alarmist' is an appropriate label for someone who is intentionally inflating the dangers of a risk like global climate change. This would not be applicable to anthropogenic global warming. Whether or not you believe the science, the evidence does indicate that global warming poses potentially alarming dangers.

What do you think about the labels 'Alarmism' vs. 'Alarming' in this context?

Answer 1

Humans have big brains to help them survive and adapt... it's one reason we have become the dominant species on the planet at this point in time...

We've gotten to where we are because our ancestors made observations and determined some things will kill you... some fast and some painful and slow, over time we learned that even though you couldn't see, taste, smell or hear some of these dangers, they could still kill you.

Those ancestors that shared information about dangers helped save lives for their generation and future generations...

We don't call them alarmist... Louie Pasture comes to mind.

Based on an article in the 2007 October National Geographic; "Carbon's New Math"

We are beyond being able to stop global warming, past the point of no return so to speak, so the "alarmist" stage has passed us by.

The article goes on to point out how we can minimize the potential damage...

I can only hope at some point those of us that are trying to adapt to this fact, will be supported to do as much as we can rather than be tagged with derogatory terms.

AHO!

Answer 2

Dr Jello
What you call consensus science is in fact a very effective scientific method but id does have its flaws. The problem with this type of science that is testing variables that are hard to measure or that have complex interactions is that their is no exact answer and therefore it takes many different fields of science or a lot of the same type of scientists to come to the same or similar answer for it to be accepted. This is how the theory of evolution became generally accepted, its how a lot of modern ecological relationships are determine and its also how global warming theory comes to be. Its more like detective work or CSI because although each piece of evidence individually cannot explain it, collectively its the most logical answer and the jury (scientific peers) agree. It might seem like bullshit but that's the way it is. I bet that if some credible evidence came out tomorrow that suggested that the current warming trend was because of something else and it made sense and stood up to scrutiny it would be backed. Every time someone on this site or on television someone makes claims about a new climate theory i personally investigate it. Like the sun intensity and all the other theories non have been able to withstand scientific scrutiny.

I will not say that AGW is real because i cant and nor can anyone. What i will say is that it is the most possible, logical and probable cause of current warming trends. Warmers arnt alarmist, they just accept the theory. Its not blind faith its just that they have looked at the evidence and come to the same conclusion as many others including most scientists.

Answer 3

Observations can be alarming. For example, if we were to learn that polar bear population had fallen below 1,000 and the bears were truly facing extinction - that would be alarming. The reality is the polar bear population is over 20,000. This is a tremendous improvement over the 1950s when the polar bear population was about 5,000.

Predictions can be alarmist. This is when the predictions are not supported by the evidence. For example, the prediction the polar bears will go extinct soon. The prediction is simply unfounded and flies in the face of the stable and historically high polar bear population.

People can also be alarmist if they regularly promote preposterous predictions.

Answer 4

An alarmist is someone who inflates the facts in order to further their agenda. Thus many of the AGW promoters are alarmist. They are embelishing their "evidence" and exaggerating the effects.

Why do we never hear of one good thing about global warming? Because it would not fit into their paradigm. But, if you really think about it, global warming would improve many peoples position. Colder climates would have longer growing cycles. Less people would die from exposure to cold (more die from cold than heat). And yet, we NEVER hear of any of this. To me, that suggest the promoters are nothing but alarmist and liars.

Answer 5

Sorry dude, you just don't get it. This isn't an argument between believers and non believers, it's an argument to hold science to objective standards.

Objective science can be explained by anyone with a little knowledge and ability.

Drop an object from the Empire State Building, a plane, on the moon and anyone can tell you where it will be at any given time, the speed and rate of acceleration.

We can determine exactly how many electrons pass a point in one second depending on the given voltage and resistance.

We know exactly how many atoms we need, how much they weigh, how much heat is needed or given off and what the result will be when mixing two or more elements.

We can launch a satellite and know how to shoot it past the Sun to take pictures of several planets.

None of these examples require a "consensus" to tell us how they should work. The math speaks for the consensus.

Consensus science isn't science and should never be compared to real objective science. A consensus is political, a consensus depends on emotions, personal perceptions, political views, and religious faith among many other things. These traits are inherent in everybody. Objective science removes these variables.

Consensus science has been wrong so many times before that no one should ever consider this to be real again.

Eugenics was a science that was based on the opinions of smart people. Millions ended up dead because of this opinion. Still there are no facts that support this pseudo science.

Some people make the claim that because a CEO of a department store, a right wing televangelist, a former republican politician, and a space shuttle pilot think that global warming is real, then we should believe them. What if they also believe in creationism instead of evolution? Would you think that creationism was real also, or do you pick and choose what you believe because of your on emotions, personal perceptions, political views, and religious faith among many other things?

Prove us wrong. Tell us if it will be warmer or cooler this winter, 6 month, 1 year and 5 years from now and show us how you came to that conclusion.

Answer 6

I think the "alarmists" do help bring attention to real problem that is occurring. The down side of this is that it disturbs and upsets some more sensitive people who really can't do much about it.

It seems to me that that is just the way life is. If it really bothers you, don't listen to the news.

Some perspective would help. There should be no major problems for the next few decades, other than some bad weather.

Answer 7

If you want to get technical, a terrorist is just someone who practices terror, so Steven King and Wes Craven are my favorite terrorists. Unfortunately, a lot of people result to name calling. I remember the first George Bush calling environmentalists "the ozone men" because of their concern about the ozone layer. It's human nature. I personally don't use labels like that because I'd be attacking the person (unfair) instead of disagreeing with their ideas (fair game).

Answer 8

It was 'alarming' to me in the 70's, now I feel hopeless and put it out of my mind. I think Mother Nature could still balance the mess we have made if it stopped quickly. That may happen on 12/21/2012 when the Mayan calander ends. I sense something is soon to happen - nature fighting back with disasters or us with super bugs, GMO and other weapons. Maybe we will be in an ice age in our lifetimes instead of cooking or drowning. Nature and society tend to over correct.

Answer 9

Interesting question, I believe that the world will experience dramatic cooling over the next few decades, so much so that many will die from starvation. And people like you will be guilty of misleading them. Is that Alarming or Alarmism?

Answer 10

I like
alarming climatic changes

so yes Doctors are alarmists
so are traffic lights
What i find much more Alarming is the outright denial of anything being wrong

but what can you expect ?

this one book has been screaming at people for thousands of years ,about people coming from space (the heavens) flying down to earth (angels).
and countless similar references ,and if you say oh yes there were alien landings with space men ,the same people declare you insane .