Sentences with phrase «just sticking to the science»

Just sticking to the science of cooking isn't really going to fix the problem we want to fix.

Ah, but here's a rebuttal you could have to my «logic»: «If the only products for some service suck, then I won't subscribe to that service, yet I'm forced to buy into the climate models via taxes, government regulation, etc.» If we just stick to the science, though, and you're not forced to buy, then you might just have to admit that the models are the best there is and you have very little basis for demonstrating that they are worse than they should be.

Yes, it would certainly be better for corporations like ExxonMobil, which alone makes about ONE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS PER DAY IN PROFIT from fossil fuels, if climate scientists who understand that a rapid phaseout of fossil fuel consumption is urgently needed if we are to have any hope of averting the most catastrophic outcomes of AGW, would just stick to the science and keep their mouths shut about that so as not to «spur political action» to save civilization from destruction.

Not exact matches

historical Jesus, lmfao... show me any historical evidence of jesus... let's start with his remains... they don't exist - your explanation, he rose to the heavens... historical evidence - no remains, no proof of existence (not a disproof either, just not a proof)... then let's start with other historians writing about the life of Jesus around his time or shortly after, as outside neutral observers... that doesn't exist either (not a disproof again, just not a proof)... we can go on and on... the fact is, there is not a single proving evidence of Jesus's life in an historical context... there is no existence of Jesus in a scientific context either (virgin birth... riiiiiight)... it is just written in a book, and stuck in your head... you have a right to believe in what you must... just don't base it on history or science... you believe because you do... it is your right... but try not to put reason into your faith; that's when you start sounding unreasonable, borderline crazy...

Now we Season: Mix 1/2 stick of softened butter with whatever aromatics you're feeling and about a teaspoon of coarse kosher salt, there's really no exact science to this, we just want to have some sort of paste consistency.

In the massive budget bill just passed, Congress stuck in language to require the Federal Trade Commission to conduct a cost / benefit analysis before finalizing a report that would provide the food industry with science - based nutrition guidelines for marketing to children.

«It's interesting that the governor said his intention was to take the emotion out of the process and just rely on the science and that's the line that stuck,» said Scott Kurkoski, a lawyer for the pro-fracking Joint Landowners Coalition.

After not quite sticking the landing on its 4 billion - mile journey to Comet 67P / Churyumov - Gerasimenko last November, the Philae lander managed to complete its primary science mission in just 64 hours before losing power.

Lloyd: I want to just, sort of, stick really close to the title of the session, because I think that's become, it's a perennial topic, it's a monthly topic, it's a daily topic — where is science news reporting heading?

Beyond just making your meals easier to control and stick with, there is some solid nutritional science behind my recommendations.

My science - oriented mind — just wonders where it got stuck... Best of luck to your husband... and for you without a toilet for the week.

Personally, I think they should have just stuck with the Doc, because his addition, to my mind, bumps up the story from simple fable to genuine science fiction, albeit on a small scale.

I do accept that there are massive people are seeking God, seeking meaning of life and so on, but if we just concentrate on the «Religious life and sciences» only we will be stuck and not be able to move ahead.

And don't stick to business, finance & investing either — there's just as much to be learned from science, technology, current affairs, politics / policy, industry / trade and international journals & publications.

I suspect that, like the most despicable political strategists, Jessup, Dauphiné and Cooper, and Lepczyk et al., threw it out there just to see if it would stick — the connection they're attempting to make certainly has nothing to do with science.

Lets just stick to discussion of the science and stop the paranoia with WUWT.

In a few years, as we get to understand this more, skeptics will move on (just like they dropped arguments about the hockey stick and about the surface station record) to their next reason not to believe climate science.

If we just want to do science, stick with peer review.

Here is why I think it matters: 1) Actively subverting FOIA intent 2) Admitting a) Hockey stick flawed & Steve is right, b) hide decline was dishonest, c) climate models are pretty bad, and d) cherry picking results like Japan hurricanes to emphasize a pre-ordained message 3) Trying to manipulate (and probably succeeding) who gets to be IPCC author 4) Trying to manage the message (PR concern) 5) Viewing science results as helping or hurting «the cause» — Mann especially All the above subverts the official messages of «overwhelming consencus» and «science is settled», world's best scientists just doing their science, and that it would be «absurd» to see a conspiracy.

As to the «scientific consensus», Mann and his hockey stick have been called «scanty», «sloppy», «sh*tty», «rubbish», «a disgrace to the profession», «dubious», «invalidated» and «just bad science» by his fellow scientists, including the climatologist who came up with the term «global warming» back in the Seventies.

I don't suppose we could dump emotions and just stick to logic and science?

p.s. I've tried to keep the Mann references to a minimum, although it wasn't easy given that I have just finished reading Mark Steyn's new book A disgrace to his profession: The world's scientists on Michael E. Mann, his hockey stick and their damage to science.

I can't promise that the hockey stick will be as dead as Section 13 by the time this stupid trial is over, but I will do my best to ensure it - not just because the appalling and incurious prostration before pseudo-authority embodied by everyone from «Ellen» to The Columbia Journalism Review ought to be embarrassing to a functioning media, but because climate science itself, like Brandeis and the State of Ohio, needs, in Steve Huntley's phrase, more «free speech, free debate, free minds».

A recent expose was written showing just how financially skewed and biased science is, as well as documenting that the vast majority of scientific studies are pure garbage as science has shifted into a publishing business model rather than sticking to the scientific method.

Either scientists communicate (and are damned) or they stick just to their science (and are damned).

This time round I think I'll just stick to the free online MIT courses in climate science.

So, just in time for Michael E Mann's Congressional testimony this week, Watts Up With That posted a guest essay by Rick Wallace reflecting on my book «A Disgrace to the Profession»: The World's Scientists - in Their Own Words - on Michael E Mann, His Hockey Stick and Their Damage to Science - Volume One.

«In a few years, as we get to understand this more, [referring to ocean variability and the pause] skeptics will move on (just like they dropped arguments about the hockey stick and surface station record) to their next reason not to believe climate science.»

Yet, throughout the last eight years, what has struck us is that science has become the stick with which to beat Bush, not because he really stood against science, but because his critics — not just the Democrats — lacked any real substance either.