Sentences with phrase «skeptical science points»

This is actually pretty well understood, as Skeptical Science points out (and check the links listed there for lots more info as well).

Not exact matches

Many scientists are certainly skeptical of many of the finer points of evolution, but as a whole, the evolutionary process is accepted as fact amongst any and all biologists that put science ahead of religion.

As Clifford Geertz has pointed out, the contemporary skeptical and revisionist spirit is «determined to examine science as through and through a social and cultural phenomenon.»

Jay Vroom, president of the pesticide industry group CropLife America in Washington, D.C., said in a 19 May statement that «we are skeptical of how sound science can be «sped up» for this evaluation and look forward to a reasoned dialogue with EPA on that point.»

Now, it is apparent from reading even the first few pages of The Skeptical Environmentalist that Lomborg proposes to make the case that not just environmentalists, but a considerable part of the heretofore respectable environmental - science community, have been misunderstanding the relevant concepts, misrepresenting the relevant facts, understating the uncertainties, selecting data, and failing to acknowledge errors after these have been pointed out in other words, that the scientist contributors to what he calls «the environmental litany» (namely, that environmental problems are serious and becoming, in many instances more so) have been guilty of massively violating the scientists code of conduct.

In this wide - ranging, humorous talk, Seth Shostak takes a look at Star Wars and other science fiction films from the point of view of a skeptical scientist, tells stories about the movies he has been asked to advise, and muses about aliens from space and how we might make contact with them.

Perhaps provide somewhere that Skeptical Science is a handy, user - friendly reference for answers to contrarian talking points — keeping in mind that the tutorial, in addition to providing general background, has to have some relevance to the way the opposition is likely to argue (misrepresent).

Skeptical Science's list, with points assigned to individual AGW - denialist arguments, could be a place to start.

Is their position and no matter how much you point them at skeptical science or peer reviewed data, they only read the denial bunk and never read the quality data coming from such studies as these.

Wheelsoc, besides Hanks (as always) excellent suggestion, a good go to for countering denialist nonsense is Skeptical Science where they have a list of the common talking points of the pseudo-skeptics and brief responses to each with references to the scientific literature.

Skeptical Science notes that while Linzen has published a large body of peer - reviewed work, some of his points remain disputed.

I'm afraid the Skeptical Science article misses the point.

As an aside, when tempterrain promoted Skeptical Science like I mentioned, he pointed to this article.

This points to a persistent tension in defining the nature of science, between the scientist as groundbreaking skeptical revolutionary and the scientist as conforming to the dominant paradigm.

Apparently Skeptical Science has no problem using sources with significantly different results without pointing out those differences.

The fact that eadler2 didn't make this point right away is proof that she is little more than a Skeptical Science parrot and not a very good one considering she didn't point to this canonical restraint on planetary surface temperatures.

The point made in the skeptical science article is that there is good quantitative agreement between ocean heating and satellite measurements of the radiation imbalance which is what one would expect to see.

I guess they just needed another data point to counteract all the skeptical science being produced.

While recent headlines about the woes of U.N. - led efforts to assemble a comprehensive picture of the science have caused gleeful headlines on The Drudge Report and other skeptical media outlets, the vast weight of the evidence — from melting glaciers to warming oceans to satellite temperature readings, and much more — still points to a changing climate caused by human activity.

The blogosphere emphasises this point, with behaviour at RC and (un) Skeptical Science enough to convince any unbiased commentator that you are on extremely tenuous and shaky grounds with your CAGW assertions.

Anybody with an education in the sciences can tell when a credentialed charlatan is violating scientific method, «cherry - picking» data, manipulating computer simulations (climate models) to «draw the curve, then plot the points,» concealing his raw observational data sets from properly skeptical examiners, corrupting academic peer review (both to suppress the publication of colleagues» studies casting doubt upon the reviewing officers» pet hypotheses and to ensure that the submissions of «The Team» do not suffer impediments to publication), and concerting all these violations of professional ethical standards by way of back - room confabs and some of the most incredibly stupid e-mails this side of Enron's «Smartest Guys in the Room.»

The survey noted that those skeptical of man's influence on global warming aren't science illiterate, a favorite talking point of the far left.

Wally says: «So, going back, the fact that you can't differentiate good skeptical stand points or arguments from those pushing a religous belief as science, shows you're quite ignorant of the scientific process, and the differences between conjecture, hypothesis, theory and blind blief.»

Blogs are not the point here, as the general public do not read them (and anyway WUWT is are more than offset by the nonsense from RealClimate, Deepclimate, Skeptical Science etc).

Skeptical by nature and the very first point of interest for me was the the series nature of the field of climate science.

Michael Tobis says, «Since Heartland is happy to pay people to say things about science that just aren't true,...,» with the link pointing to a blog supposing that Patrick Michaels is so very dead wrong to be skeptical of non-tree-ring temperature proxies.

It means that it is hard to have confidence that those making such over-confident pronouncements are truly objective about what they are studying, that they are not properly «skeptical» from scientific point of view, always re-examining their assumptions and conclusions which I always believed was the bedrock of good science.

Indeed, the first point made in this Skeptical Science article is «A variety of different measurements find steadily rising sea levels over the past century.».

We're overdue for a few paragraphs on chaotic climate from Ellison and mebbe time for BBD to spin the dial and pick out another talking point from Skeptical Science to cut & paste or is Science of Doom's turn?

However, virtually every point made in the article was factually incorrect, as Rose would have known if he were a Skeptical Science reader, because we recently pre-bunked his piece.

Popular debunking website Skeptical Science also looks in detail at climate sceptic myths and ranks «climate has changed before» as the most popular of all denier talking points.

Fifthly, as kindly pointed out by Tom Curtis at Skeptical science to the maths challenged Russ R statement that G = +0.9 ± 0.4 °C and OA = -0.25 ± 0.35 °C.

And I'll point out that another of your favored sites to quote about AGW Skeptical science isn't a neutral party either.

Delingpole was on first and gave a typical performance stuffed to the gills with strawman arguments and many «usual suspect» talking points that we have debunked beyond death here at Skeptical Science - «no warming since 1997», of course, plus a few throwaway comments about yoghourt - weavers and eco-loons, accompanied by much spirited heckling.

Whitehouse makes several points that seem to originate from Skeptical Science, like The Escalator steps.

Yes I have often linked to Skeptical Science but often the response is «yes, but...» followed by another denialist taling point or they just claim hat SS is a «warmist» site and therefore inherently untrustworthy.

On the one hand, he says that any reasonable person should've been skeptical two years ago due to valid points raised by skeptics (despite these points having been dealt with by mainstream climate science for * years *).

But when the kajillions of scientists turn out not to be scientists at all, and there is no counterbalancing science, only advocacy, with which to respond, then at some point you've got to blow the whistle and say «Okay, this is no response to the skeptical side» and send someone to the penalty box.

As Nick Stokes points out the Skeptical Science calculator uses a large correction for autocorrolation — I couldn't say if it's too large or not, but I am certain that not correcting for autocorrolation at all, will not give you the correct level of confidence.