Sentences with phrase «arguing over the science»

Rather than arguing over the science of climate change, public discussion should be about actions needed to address it, he said.

Not exact matches

He argues that the decline of Islamic civilization over the past 600 years resulted from defeats at the hands of the West — in trade, technology, science, philosophy, political development, modernization, diplomacy and war.

• «the God for which we are arguing is not a God of the gaps, not a God who is brought in to paste over the gaps in our present scientific knowledge, which might be filled later as science progresses.

His subject, as one might expect, was theology and the philosophy of science, and he argued that the biblical concept of the Holy spirit may provide the missing link, so to speak, in the controversy over whether mind or language has precedence in the creation of human thought.

I argue with Tom Reese, over this exact issue often at Epiphenom (a blog which reviews science research about religion — to is an atheist).

Opponents have been pushing DEC and the governor to add a public health assessment to the agency's review, and argue that the absence of such a study means DEC is skipping over essential science.

«In 2012 alone over 250 judicial opinions — more than double the number in 2007 — cited defendants arguing in some form or another that their «brains made them do it,»» according to an analysis by Nita Farahany, a law professor and director of Duke University's Initiative for Science and Society.

Two years ago, the accomplished science writer John Horgan made quite a splash when he argued in The End of Science that the great era of fundamental scientific discovery is noscience writer John Horgan made quite a splash when he argued in The End of Science that the great era of fundamental scientific discovery is noScience that the great era of fundamental scientific discovery is now over.

Regardless of whether Landrigan's legal team was simply using the drug shortage as stalling tactic, their legal maneuvering brings to the fore a contentious dispute over the science (or some would say lack thereof) behind lethal injection executions in the U.S.. For more than two decades, it has been argued that the FDA should be required to certify the safety and effectiveness of drugs used to carry out executions (as it does for drugs used to euthanize animals).

You can argue all you want about the superiority of science over religion, but I have yet to see a movie that turns out well when scientists start playing god.

Drawing from math test scores from PISA 2009 in which the United States performed lower than the OECD average, the report argues that while demand for STEM labor is predicted to increase over the next few decades, a shortage of STEM labor in the United States, along with inadequate performance in science, math, and reading compared to other countries, endangers U.S. future competitiveness and innovation.

So, I agree with Al Gore (and most, if not all, climate scientists) that the general debate about AGW is over (tho some keep arguing on and on to the contrary like zombies), even though the scientists are still doing climate science and ironing out «the details.»

In this case, science does tell us what to do (reduce CO2 emissions: we can argue about the amount and rate but this argument should be along the lines: «do we reduce by 70 % or 90 % over current levels by 2050?).

In terms of the gold that a climate science denier might find in the paper, at the very least, they could argue that the fact that the troposphere isn't warming more quickly than the surface shows that the climate models are unreliable — even though the models predict just the pattern of warming that we see — with the troposphere warming more quickly than the surface over the ocean but less quickly than the surface over land.

In 2004 Stephen Pacala and Robert Socolow published a paper in Science in which they argued that a pragmatic, but still difficult, way of stabilizing atmospheric CO2 levels over the long term was via the implementation of seven «stabilization wedges» over the next 50 years.

We argue the logical fallacies of the Carbon Dioxide Cult, what I perceive as, abuse of the scientific method.We are interested in negating their attempts to cloak a cause in science as a cover for power over people.

Drawing on case studies of past environmental debates such as those over acid rain and ozone depletion, science policy experts Roger Pielke Jr. and Daniel Sarewitz argue that once next generation technologies are available that make meaningful action on climate change lower - cost, then much of the argument politically over scientific uncertainty is likely to diminish.26 Similarly, research by Yale University's Dan Kahan and colleagues suggest that building political consensus on climate change will depend heavily on advocates for action calling attention to a diverse mix of options, with some actions such as tax incentives for nuclear energy, government support for clean energy research, or actions to protect cities and communities against climate risks, more likely to gain support from both Democrats and Republicans.

The «Greenies» have taken the Obama Administration to Federal Court over this (arguing also that the regs are not strict enough based on the science health data).

As outlined over the past decade in articles at Science and Nature, and in reports such as the Hartwell paper and Climate Pragmatism, various experts have argued that political success will only come by pursuing a diverse portfolio of policy solutions and technologies, implemented across levels of government and through the private and nonprofit sectors.

The scientists could get on with the science, go to conferences, argue over climate sensitivity or the impact of CO2 on the oceans or whatever.

One can argue that the science is settled by saying «the science is settled»» the debate is over» «there is a consensus»» we know we are not wrong»

On point, I am arguing that you were treating the questions over the value of consensus in the process of science, anc secondarily policy development based on science, as a one - size - fits - all type of situation.

Science, as a practice and technique, has evolved, been developed and understood, over millenia of arguing, so that basic mistakes and frauds can be avoided, and rational debate be held over competing theories.

What the proponents of AGW have argued is that man over the past 60 years has turned that science on its head, i.e, increasing man - made CO2 emissions drive temperature.

It argues that the IPCC's «heroic days» of «Herculean work» are probably over, more frequent assessments focused on policy challenges are required, and the wider review of science made possible by the blogosphere can help: New Scientist says because the case for anthropogenic climate change is firmly established («the Nobel prize is won») the IPCC really needs to revision itself.

The courts do not uphold orders, some helping professionals deem it junk science, others argue of what to call the problem, some fret over the word syndrome, or some think if PAS is a problem, then those who deem it a legitimate issue «must» be dismissing domestic violence.