Sentences with phrase «agenda than science»
And he provides fodder for those asserting that he's driven more by an agenda than science.
https://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/ Not exact matches
Findings also showed it as an empirically and conceptually innovative, diverse, vibrant discipline that in many areas sets the intellectual agenda The UK publishes more than its share of major disciplinary journals; bibliometric indicators reveal international primacy both in volume and citation impact; and a large number of the seminal publications (books as well as articles) continue to have a UK origin UK human geography is radically interdisciplinary and with the spatial turn in the humanities and social sciences has become an exporter of ideas and faculty to other disciplines There was confidence that research in human geography had substantial impact on policy and practice and would successfully meet the challenges of the current impact agenda
People seem to love to always jump from fad diet to fad diet such as low - fat diets, atkins diets, south beach diets, grapefruit diets, detox diets, vegetarian diets, and other sometimes ridiculous diets that most times are based on one person's opinion or marketing scheme (or personal agenda) rather than based on actual science.
(Just last week, Alley Cat Allies delivered more than 55,000 signatures to the Smithsonian Institution in response to the publication earlier this year of agenda - driven junk science produced by researchers at the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute.)
In science, what is more important than any individual study or collection of papers (particularly if assembled by someone with an agenda), is the trajectory of understanding.
Since science should always start with observation, as opposed to an agenda (disproving ACC / AGW), why is it that the entire denial industry is focused on disproving rather than proving?
3) Ad Hominem (questioning the motive rather than the facts): The fact that some people use the issue of climate change to pursue other agendas has no relevance to the accuracy of the science.
It should be obvious that Kevin Anderson, and many others, whether he knows it or nor, is doing more than science, and that the Tyndall Centre — amongst many other research organisations — has a political agenda, in spite of claiming to be working objectively.
He said the people who participated in the People's Climate March were «more concerned with their political agenda than climate science,» and that they shouldn't be «prostituting the weather and climate for [their] own needs.»
AGW agenda is driven more by politics than any science that can even be speculated upon.
If only more climate scientists had publicly distanced themselves from the hiding of data, hiding the decline, sabotaging of peer - review and the science process generally, and the subsequent official attempts at covering all this up, then today they could possibly have been credited with having some integrity, and be seen as being bona - fide rather than agenda - driven.
Smith has accused the EPA of being driven by a political agenda rather than sound science; the agency has often refused to cooperate with Congress.
I will not go into depth here but for anyone wanting some real and honest science rather than cult faith you should look into the whys and wherefores of clouds, and not just the work of Svensmark but all reputable scientific sources who do not have an agenda of self - interest (usually income or reputation based on past work — pride is a great influence on perception) with regards to the ever variable climate.
It is more than the problem of bureaucrats doing science or people using science for a political agenda.
NASA and the UN-IPCC seem to have political agendas rather than the science.
«The science of climate change continues to evolve and regardless of the outcome of the climate debate, observational data suggests that we may be served well by basing our climate agenda, scientifically and economically, on a broader perspective than that in the IPCC outline...
As a technician not a scientist I have long been of the opinion that climate science went from being less about science than it is about the promotion of a political agenda.
Once you learn that CAGW is more PR than science, that it has hidden agendas and that the research has been made to fit the conclusions, you begin to wonder about the rest of environmentalism...
Republican Lamar Smith, chairman of the committee, opened the hearing by saying «alarmist predictions amount to nothing more than wild guesses» and that «much of climate science today seems to be based more on exaggerations, personal agendas and questionable predictions than on the scientific methods.»
It is more than apparent that the rhetoric — superficially in the objective idiom of science — is a facade for a fringe extremist agenda.
Moreover, the paper gets its history wrong when it notes that «Total cancer mortality rates did not decline until 1990, 25 years after the identification of the effect of smoking on lung and other cancers...» Well, actually, it was more like 50 years, because the earliest studies to connect smoking and lung cancer were conducted not by NIH - funded scientists but by Nazi scientists in the run - up to World War II.4 By the logic of the PNAS paper, then, ought we to be crediting the Nazi health science agenda with whatever progress has been made on reducing lung cancer, rather than the incredibly protracted and difficult public health campaign (that, for the most part, NIH had nothing to do with) aimed at getting people to cut down on smoking?
Jo, for me the problem with all your posts is that the motivation seems always to be the pursuit of an agenda rather than advancement of the science.
Rather than selling this as a policy agenda — they attempt to appropriate the socially valued imprimatur of science as a stalking horse for societal and economic transformation.
Importantly, those unofficial experts are not parti pris; that is they do not have careers which will be influence by their willingness to go where the science takes them rather than in the direction of a pre-determined agenda.
Here we have the empirical proof that the positivist should welcome: institutional science is evidentially more easily influenced by politics than are an array of independent researchers, whether or not they are scientifically trained, because they are free to speak out of turn without fear; institutional science can not check itself for political prejudice and deviation from scientific consensus; climate sceptics can and do successfully challenge institutional science; the problems of the climate debate are problems caused absolutely and entirely by the excesses of institutional science and its proximity to political agendas.