Sentences with phrase «skeptical science takes»

By the way, I'm coming to believe all of Skeptical Science takes place on another planet.

A History of Climate Science Skeptical Science takes a different approach to Naomi Oreskes» Science paper who sorted her papers into «explicit endorsement of the consensus position», «rejection of the consensus position» and everything else (neutral).

Not exact matches

Gerald Benjamin, a longtime professor of political science at SUNY New Paltz, was even more skeptical that politicians would take a hit.

But the board took a more skeptical view of the Christian Science Reading Room project, which its developers, Peter and Rebecca McCauley, already estimate will generate a nearly 11 percent return on their investment without any tax breaks, and a nearly 28 percent return if the IDA approves the $ 35,000 in incentives they are seeking.

If you are skeptical, just take a look at the programs some universities have tailored to deliver the knowledge that is needed to break into cosmetics science.

«Other researchers were skeptical about whether it is possible to make an accurate match between public records and individuals taking part in a life - long study, but New Zealand's national databases are very reliable and Dunedin Study members have given us great information for matching over the years,» said Terrie Moffitt, the Nannerl O. Keohane University Professor in Duke's departments of psychology & neuroscience and psychiatry & behavioral sciences.

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.

Even the most skeptical among us can take comfort in the application of teas in this manner, primarily because there exists some substantial science to support it.

As far as the time delay issue is concerned, I'll once again quote from the Skeptical Science post: «The reason the planet takes several decades to respond to increased CO2 is the thermal inertia of the oceans.»

If you really believe «this idea that it takes 21 years for «warmth to transfer from atmosphere to ocean» is just too deliciously goofy to resist,» I suggest you share your «evidence» with the folks at the Skeptical Science blog (http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climate-Change-The-40-Year-Delay-Between-Cause-and-Effect.html).

Steven @ 45: Skeptical science already took him on: http://skepticalscience.com/happer-spencer-global-warming-continues.html

A little from column A, a little from column B. My long - term (loosely defined) plan with Skeptical Science was to follow the direction that climate discussion takes.

Hydrologist and science writer Scott K. Johnson is more skeptical and writes on his Fractal Planet blog: «It takes careful examination of McPherson's references, and a familiarity with the present state of climate science, to uncover that his claims aren't scientific at all.»

Skeptical Science was hacked and personal information from posters taken.

Also taking side bets that these are trolls from Skeptical Science, especially given that they sent a couple of their newbs out to hand out pamphlets at the wonderful Watts presentation last night.

Unfortunately, relative to climate science, whoever takes a skeptical position in the debate, or even question orthodoxy, would immediately be labeled a big oil shill, discredited, and displayed in the proverbial town square to be mocked and ridiculed; ultimately to be branded a heretic.

They take most issue, however, with the 2013 survey — conducted by the blog Skeptical Science — that is most responsible for popularizing the 97 percent meme.

When it comes to skeptical science I am surprised that no one has taken them to task for false temperature curves.

It is hard to dispute this except to note that Krauthammer here has taken a radically skeptical position not merely on climate science, but on all science.

Creationist take not only a skeptical stance on evolution, but they push their own theory as if it were science, without ANY scientific evidence advancing their claims.

In all honesty I don't know how you can compare lightly moderated skeptical blogs where actual conversation takes place to indoctrination camps like RC and the hilariously named «skeptical science.»

The most difficult, though most rewarding, aspect of introducing a more reasoned and skeptical approach to this subject, is calming people down and taking the emotion (and politics) out of the science.

The hacker has taken much or all of the Skeptical Science database, zipped various excerpts into a single file, uploaded the file onto a Russian website then linked to the zip file from various blogs.

«Contrary to the progressive hysteria, the fact that President Trump's Cabinet nominees take a skeptical stance toward what science knows and how to apply it is probably the best reason to have some confidence in them.»

The MOOC (Massive Open Online Course) is a collaboration between Skeptical Science and The University of Queensland, that takes a interdisciplinary look at climate science Science and The University of Queensland, that takes a interdisciplinary look at climate science science denial.

Skeptical Science also notes that the graph on page 33 of the SPPI document has taken a sea level graph from the University of Colorado at Boulder which shows a 3.2 millimeter per year sea level rise trend, and literally rotated to make the trend look flat.

A new survey of over 12,000 peer - reviewed climate science papers by our citizen science team at Skeptical Science has found a 97 % consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer - reviewed literature that humans are resposcience papers by our citizen science team at Skeptical Science has found a 97 % consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer - reviewed literature that humans are resposcience team at Skeptical Science has found a 97 % consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer - reviewed literature that humans are respoScience has found a 97 % consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer - reviewed literature that humans are responsible.

First of all, science itself is not a «job», and if your job is actually working in science, for example, if you are paid by someone to actually do science, then your job is certainly not to be skeptical, your job is to produce usable (actionable) results (right or wrong, well, there really is no right or wrong on the front lines anyways, just results, take em or leave em).

I think it's wonderful that this is taking place and that varying viewpoints within the field (not baseless, tired, skeptical viewpoints but variations of science backed viewpoints) will be expressed and discussed.