Sentences with phrase «against science pointing»

The guests in the series ranged from Joe Romm, «America's fiercest climate blogger,» to Richard Lindzen, the climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who has been variously lionized and pilloried for his arguments against science pointing to a dangerous human influence on climate.

Not exact matches

John W. Campbell, the editor of Analog (formerly Astounding) Science Fiction, once wrote an editorial remarkable for the contrarian points he brought up (among other things, he came out against motherhood and for the man - eating shark).

This is taken to be a point against teleology by some and against modern science by others.

De Chardin made two important points: firstly that the science of man seems to come out decisively in favour of monophyletism and secondly that any decision for or against monogenism must ultimately elude science in view of the depth of time that has elapsed since the creation of man.

The other point, is that Graham, Cathy, and the other religious nutters want to legalize and legislate discrimination against a group of US citizens simply because the purposefully choose to be ignorant about the science of sèxual orientation.

Jeffrey Burton Russell points out that among historians of science «there's a strong debate going on between those who understand that the development of science is basically a Western European phenomenon, and that this is because of its Christian or Judeo - Christian roots, and those who maintain that religion blocked the progress of science until the 18th and 19th centuries, and that [science has] to struggle against religion.

It is this kind of «hate - speech» which led to the burning down of 77 churches in Norway by militant atheists and which at the most extreme end of the atheist movement leads to comments such as this from the Church Arson website «Any intelligent Antichrist methodology at that point will involve a consolidation of strength, public education in the ways of science and logic for our individual members, and actions taken against the remaining believers.

Although scientists behave as if their theories are facts, often arguing ferociously against critics, key paradigms of science can shift rapidly and fundamentally when empirical evidence reaches a tipping point.

Against secularism, the same theologians point to the many ideological distortions of science and technology in which scientific reason is used to dominate and victimize the same groups of persons and nature.

The point is illustrated by the logic which the National Academy of Sciences employed to persuade the Supreme Court that «creation - scientists» should not be given an opportunity to present their case against the theory of evolution in science classes.

In the chapter, «The Romantic Reaction», in Whitehead's (1933) Science and the Modern World he points to the English poets who reacted against the mechanical universe.

I have a wider conception of STEM degrees at four - year colleges than Lampkin does, but he's altogether correct when he points out how the progressivist nature of the sciences can corrupt other parts of the campus, especially in its prejudice against the «old.»

Laughing — yet again you fail, you sit here and you tell me in one breath that i'm wrong in dealing with absolutes, Yet My whole point in the previous post was to point out that I can't blame science for killing Billions of people because they created the bombs and guns to do so... Just like you can't blame Christianity for people using violence against others, it's the people not the ideology that caused the violence, and i believe that... for whatever reason you apparently missed that and tried to make me sound like i honestly blame science for killing billions... so... maybe you need some reading and comprehension classes... i du n no, just would appreciate if you're going to argue with me, that you actually read my responses.

What I want to propose is that recent progress in science suggests a resolution of the issues Felt raises against Wallack, which allows retention of her main point.

During the game they learn about everything from math, which range from simple points per game for younger students to how to calculate goals - against averages for older kids, to the science behind how a Zamboni works.

«(Consolidation is) unlikely to reach the voters at this point, given the strong push - back against it, coming not only from communities in the city, but also much of the suburbs,» said Grant Reeher, director of the Campbell Public Affairs Institute and a political science professor in Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, in an email.

The turning point came in 1996 when antitrust litigation against the American Bar Association forced it to accredit for - profit law schools, wrote co-authors Gruppuso, Dr. Eli Adashi, professor of obstetrics and gynecology and former dean of medicine and biological sciences, and current Brown medical student Gopika Krishna.

For this survey of global health, Science has joined forces with Science Translational Medicine, which examines vaccine development, strategies against emerging infections, progress in point - of - care diagnostics, and ways to promote mental health and neonatal health.

The whip - like tail of some bacteria has become the cause célèbre of the «intelligent design» movement and a focal point in science's ongoing struggle against unreason.

Writing a political science thesis is not very difficult for many students, because even though like all other theses it involves extensive research, political science topics are relatively easy and there is a lot of room for argument for and against a particular topic, so in many cases writing such thesis comes down to simply finding solid arguments and proving your point of view.

History is not an exact science and thus there are many points of view and a lot evidence for an against them, so even if you have your own opinion and enough evidence to support it, My Thesis Writing Service thinks that it would be wise for you to anticipate evidence that supports other points of view.

This is where it is now heading at light speed — and anyone pointing to this US Corporatist Deep State 1 % Psychopathic Conspiracy of Deniers against AGW / CC Science and it's obvious Impacts and Implications will of course be vilified and falsely accused of being a Spy Anti-American of all kinds of crimes that can be imagined.

You can point the finger at all sorts of participants in this battle, but I believe (and we have been examining and discussing at length on this site for more than 8 years now) the principal drivers of the polarization are coming more from: (1) the corporate energy interests who are protecting their profits against regulation and other policies that would move the system away from fossil fuels, and using their clout in the political process to tie things up; (2) right - wing anti-government and anti-regulatory ideologues whose political views appear threatened by scientific conclusions that point toward a need for stronger policy action; (3) people whose religious or cultural identities appear threatened by modern science; and so forth.

Just because I have disagreed with the importance of your substantive points concerning MBH, it does not imply that I am somehow against openness in climate science.

Two points: 1) An update on the Lamar Smith affair (which I continue to regard as a politically motivated witchhunt): «About 600 scientists and engineers, including former employees of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), have signed on to letters urging the head of that agency, Kathryn Sullivan, to push back against political interference in science.

John Carter August 8, 2014 at 12:58 am chooses to state his position on the greenhouse effect in the following 134 word sentence: «But given the [1] basics of the greenhouse effect, the fact that with just a very small percentage of greenhouse gas molecules in the air this effect keeps the earth about 55 - 60 degrees warmer than it would otherwise be, and the fact that through easily recognizable if [2] inadvertent growing patterns we have at this point probably at least [3] doubled the total collective amount in heat absorption and re-radiation capacity of long lived atmospheric greenhouse gases (nearly doubling total that of the [4] leading one, carbon dioxide, in the modern era), to [5] levels not collectively seen on earth in several million years — levels that well predated the present ice age and extensive earth surface ice conditions — it goes [6] against basic physics and basic geologic science to not be «predisposed» to the idea that this would ultimately impact climate.»

Moore has provided an explicit voice in the fabricated non-debate over climate science, where scientists are pinned against industry talking points and cherrypicked data (see clip provided by ThinkProgress).

However, he also supports the idea that warming has recently stopped and has argued against some well - established points of climate science, such as observed sea level rise and glacier melting.

Many more of Monckton's claims — including others about snow cover and sea - ice — are being diligently examined against the peer - reviewed science — yet again — by SkepticalScience, which has begun a series looking at his debating points in detail.

I do like the «no credibility» aspect of the comment, Adam, but the point is that so much public sentiment is based upon commentaries just such as these — in fact, these particular articles where apparently very influential in turning public opinion against climate science — and now we are seeing retractions.

I might as well label you an idiot for using it, when you've never met me, have no idea of my competence or the strength of my arguments for or against any aspect of climate dynamics (because on this list I argue both points of view as the science demands and am just as vigorous in smacking down bullshit physics used to challenge some aspect of CAGW as I am to question the physics or statistical analysis or modelling used to «prove» it).

My climate enemies have done scientific and other academic frauds; they've destroyed, withheld and pretended to misplace scientific data in order to prevent the human race discovering things about nature; they've forged documents to frame people they don't like; mendaciously and publicly accused innocent people of deplorable crimes that carry prison sentences; betrayed the trust reposed in their professions by fraudulently abrogating to themselves the magical competence to diagnose entire swathes of the (perfectly healthy) population with thought disorders just to score points in an academic bitch fight; deliberately and self - servingly lied to * massive * audiences about the way science itself works — than which I can't for the life of me think of a greater crime against humanity in the recent history of the developed world, can you Joe?

That said, I don't retract my main point which is that the Academy needs to take a much more vigorous line against the attacks on science and individual scientists which have become a pervasive feature of Australian political commentary.

The novel suggestion was that the science of keeping the planet to 2 degrees created a new «baseline» reference point against which all future fossil fuel projects could be tested.

At this point, it may be best to move the debate into the halls of Congress, where there is a huge scientific community prepared to defend the legitimacy of climate science against the small number of scientific claims to the contrary.

IIRC, the judge in the ruling against An Inconvenient Truth being shown in schools said it wasn't science and if it was shown had to be presented with the claims corrected, there were several points.

I've been to CA, and McIntyre isn't interested in the science — he just wants to score points with his fanboys against Mann, Jones, and the rest of the «Team» he's invented.

From that point of time on, the mandate given to science experts was clear: to prosecute at charge against man - made warming [by greenhouse gases], and not at discharge.

There's no point pointing out the science against it.

Evidently his mortal sin against the Climate Cult was pointing out that human - caused climate change is not inflicting greater economic damage due to extreme weather, an empirical truth that cuts against one of the most sacred dogmas of politicized science.

If you read Dr. Stieg's blog @ RC, he comments on how he tried to forge a bridge to the other side, against the advice of his peers, only to find out that said peers advice was true, and the O'Donnel group / opposers were not really interested in the science, just scoring points.

«We have seen in recent weeks how the fossil fuel sector has misled consumers and investors about emissions — the Volkswagen scandal being a case in point — and deliberately acted against climate science for decades, judging from the recent Exxon expose.

Brandon Gates: «I believe that the science is at the point, past the point, where it is clear that the prudent option is to act against market forces with policy.»

cerescokid, you can put it up against the Paltridge post, where Paltridge goes through all the skeptic talking points but gives no solid science, and this program showing the scientists doing the work and explaining the physical basis.

Jim D: cerescokid, you can put it up against the Paltridge post, where Paltridge goes through all the skeptic talking points but gives no solid science,

I add the point to this page as an example of one of the difficult to credit claims being made against wind turbines with no apparent basis in reason or science.

Your missing my point, the issue here is the ability of a scientist to use a cherry picked piece of science as a case against global warming, not regional variability in relation to natural variation.

When the point used against your opinion is that there is a consensus in science, do not stop thinking and blindly accept the consensus.