Kinda like scientists shouting: Y2K, killer bees, overpopulation, depletion of resources, radon gas, nuclear fallout, asbestos, Mercury, San Andreas fault, and everything else but Thalidomide -- isn't it?
Nope:
Scientists said Y2K would be nothing - and it was.
Killer bees are real.
Overpopulation is a complex topic; Tokyo is densely populated, Kenya is not.
Resources are varied; some important resources (e.g., oil) are depleting, some are not.
Radon gas, nuclear fallout, asbestos, and Mercury, are very real dangers, being carcinogenic and otherwise deadly to humans and/or the environment.
The San Andreas fault is a real fault line; not sure what you're getting at.
Thalidomide... well, I'm not getting into that again.
Point is, you're equating 'scientists' with the general public and the mass media - what the media likes to squawk about is rarely indication of the scientific consensus.
If scientists would have had their way, we would have been gone a long time ago; but praise be to God, He is still the One in control.
Quite.
Really?
So scientists don't preach "the end of the world, unless we...", anymore?
If not, what are
these?
Those are end-of-the-world scenarios. Highly improbable (which is why scientists don't run around like headless chickens about them), yet the mechanics of such events are known to be apocalyptic.
I mean, how less scientific can you get: Number sevens starts off with the fantastic line of "New predictions for the end of the world just keep on cropping up. Its called a Negative Energy Cloud and there is absolutely no physical evidence for its existence". Really, AV, if you're going to bemoan the scientific consensus for being a doomsday cult, at least cite the scientific consensus...
A novelty clock.