Sentences with phrase «accept the science of»

Others accept the science of vaccination, but fail to get the full course or get them on time.

Heartland doesn't just question climate science, they put up billboards comparing people who accept the science of climate change to murderers and terrorists like the Unabomber and Osama Bin Laden.

comparing people who accept the science of climate change to murderers and terrorists like the Unabomber and Osama Bin Laden.

Even among the public that accepts the science of global climate change, the dire circumstances we now face in this regard are consistently downplayed, and the logical implications that follow from the scientific analysis of the necessity to enact swift and aggressive measures to combat climate change are not followed through either intellectually or politically.

Family First's Bob Day, set to take a seat in South Australia, said his party did not accept the science of global warming and would vote for the repeal and against Direct Action.

Unlike Trump, Tillerson says he accepts the science of climate change, although he doesn't hold out much hope of limiting dangerous levels of global warming.

But he later contacted Guardian Australia to say that he accepts the science of global warming which in his view does not present any consensus that human beings contribute to global warming.

It comes at a time when President Donald Trump and other members of the administration have expressed doubt about the accepted science of climate change, and are considering drastic cuts to federal funding for scientific research.

Happily, in America this question has already been asked and answered by a number of major religious organizations and evangelical groups that are on record as both accepting the science of climate change and supporting action at the public - policy level.

He attacks his fellow GOP colleagues on their stubborn refusal to accept the science of climate change.

There are people who accept the science of vaccines because it is overwhelming and based plausible biology and yet do not accept the science of anthropogenic climate change.

4 Aug: Crikey: Ellen Sandell: Abbott's European holiday might make him hot and bothered Abbott seems to still be confused about the science of climate change, moving between «climate change is absolute crap» and aligning himself with the climate deniers, and at other times accepting that climate change is a problem, but just not one worth acting efficiently on... All of this will be news to most Europeans, who have long accepted the science of climate change and have been measuring their CO2 emissions in tonnes through the trading scheme, and are benefiting from climate change solutions... Studies predict an increase of up to 6.1 million jobs in 2050, and the EU - wide emissions trading scheme is expected to generate between $ 143 billion and $ 296 billion over the next six years... Maybe on the plane on the way home to Australia, Abbott could use the time to catch up on some reading.

I accept the science of climate change, and that anthropogenic climate change has not been falsified.

And there were three witnesses that actually are sort of in the fringe of scientists who do not accept the science of climate change.

Last year some observers were impressed that Campbell appeared to accept the science of climate change − around ten years after the rest of the world.

Newsweek reported: «the leaders accepted the science of climate change and agreed to work together to do something about it.»

A predictor of whether you accept the science of global warming?

And sure enough, one key predictor of whether you accept the science of global warming is whether you're a Republican or a Democrat.

The textbook's authors repeatedly attempt to cast doubt on the accepted science of global warming.

The Hypocritical Majority I expect that this group accounts for 80 - 90 % of Coalition MP's who have to say that they accept the science of climate change (when most of them don't) and that that are committed to action on climate change (when they're not) As Paul Gilding points out in his article, everyone knows that the Coalition is resisting action on climate change, but unlike America (where climate denial is a badge of honour for conservatives) in Australia they need to take a more subtle line.

No less by the very people (climate scientists included) who hide behind their claims they accept the science of climate change and the urgent need for immediate actions which must include changes to Laws and Regulations directly related to energy production and use.

The ire from the «deniers» is that we were bullied and told we were stupid for not accepting that the debate is over and yet we find new holes in the so called accepted science of AGW.

Obama did re-iterate that he accepts the science of climate change and that impacts — such as melting Arctic sea ice — are occurring faster than predicted.

Not exact matches

So he applied to the University of Pennsylvania and was accepted as a double major in computer science and biology.

Turns out, that there's at least one glaring example of outdated science that's still widely accepted by many entrepreneurs.

On Monday, as Irma weakened over Georgia, Bossert used a White House briefing to offer more hints of an emerging climate resilience policy, while notably avoiding accepting climate change science: «What President Trump is committed to is making sure that federal dollars aren't used to rebuild things that will be in harm's way later or that won't be hardened against the future predictable floods that we see.

Rather than accepting the science and adapting to other sources of energy, the oil industry has developed an aggressive campaign to obscure the science and advance its own interests.

Not only is the University of Nicosia now accepting Bitcoin is payment for tuition fees, but it is also launching the first Master of Science Degree in Digital Currency in Spring 2014.

Not only is the University of Nicosia now accepting Bitcoin is payment for tuition fees, but it is also launching the first Master of Science

Miles accepted, which led to the creation of the Genius of Warren Buffett: The Science of Investing and The Art of Managing ™.

Funny, wallace, you mention science because the left consistently refuses to accept the decades of social science research that says single - and step - parent families are not in fact suitable alternatives to the the traditional 2 - parent family.

An athiest is trapped in the walled city of science, whereas a person of faith can go beyond that and explore the unkown from alternative perspectives as well as accepting the scientific aspects of the universe.

David It is because a lot of these people will accept psuedo - science as if it were science.

Intelligent Design, and it's root Creationism, is in NO WAY an accepted branch of Science!

One may or may not accept Thomas's metaphysical analysis, but at least one can see that the doctrine of creation, in its philosophical foundations, is not challenged by any discovery in the natural sciences.

The goal of yourself and focus on the family is «spritual warfare», that is to replace current accepted science (all fields), with creationism.

DO NOT be an apologist or accept the explanation «your mind is too small to understand the greatness of science» or «evolution moves in mysterious ways» when you come upon logical inconsistencies in your belief.

As for Rasputin's apparent ability to stop Alexei's bleeding, Smith explains at length how modern science accepts the influence of mind over body.

By accepting unfalsifiable ideas, you're already admitting that scientific evidence doesn't matter to you because you've already forsaken the principle core of science, the need for ideas to be falsifiable.

You had better learn to accept Jesus first or no dice, and even then our «science» will focus on teaching you about the miracles of Jesus.

The Science behind the big bang has some gapping holes yet its put forward all the time to the public as the only other option is..., as well as Macro evolution but well we all know that they say its the only option... Could it be that science doesn't accept a concept of God from the outset so then the big bang and evolution are the only oScience behind the big bang has some gapping holes yet its put forward all the time to the public as the only other option is..., as well as Macro evolution but well we all know that they say its the only option... Could it be that science doesn't accept a concept of God from the outset so then the big bang and evolution are the only oscience doesn't accept a concept of God from the outset so then the big bang and evolution are the only options.

Love your neighbor... unless he is gay or secular or Muslim or lesbian or Hindu or atheist or Wiccan or Mormon or accepts the truth of evolution or accepts the findings of science or questions the assertians of Christianity or, uh, well, the list is just too long.

I do agree that all members of the Senate and House committees on Science should be asked whether they accept the big bang theory, evolution and a 4.5 billion year - old earth — or be disqualified.

And in accepting that inevitable FACT, proved by the findings of science, of the existence of that GREAT FIRST CAUSE, YOU HAVE ACCEPTED THE FACT of the existence and preexistence of the Creator - GOD!

Peer review in climate science means that the «team» recommends publication of each other's work, and tries to keep any off - message paper from being accepted for publication.

Furthermore, they seem happy to accept one unanswered question in return for being able to use God to answer any number of other questions, at least until better answers can be found through science and reason.

Why accept the largely disproven word of an ancient Bronze Age tribe over science.

Once we accept that the language of Genesis is symbolic, then there is no difficulty in holding both what it really teaches about creation and what we have learned from modern science.

You can not accept and understand the limits of science then turn around and demand God conform to what you already agreed God could not conform to.

Some theists have accepted this challenge, arguing that it is the mechanistic assumptions of modern science rather than any empirical data that lead to this conclusion.