Sentences with phrase «argument against science»

Much of the public argument against the science indicating that our greenhouse gas emissions are driving global warming has been carried by lobbyists and paid spokesmen who attempt to reposition global warming as theory rather than fact.

See no one in their right mind would ever expect that any person or any Heartland Institute operative would ever stoop this low to «win» a fraudulent argument against SCIENCE.

His argument against science funding (and science in general) seems to follow arguments made by other prominent Trump transition team figures: because science is sometimes wrong, or not clear cut, it shouldn't be trusted.

All of your arguments against science are AT LEAST as much arguments against imaginary fairies.

This is not a debate between rational scientists and some well meaning group of honest skeptics who use honest logic and honest reason to formulat honest arguments against the science.

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

In a recent interview with Cory Johnson on Bloomberg TV, Cuban presented an interesting argument against people pursuing so - hot - right - now computer science degrees or attending learn - to - code bootcamps.

The irony being that he was threatened by the church for going against the whole «god did it» argument, which is what this guy was trying to claim, and has nothing to do with «real science»

I am very aware of Cameron and Comfort's arguments against Evolution and they never seem to use Science in their explaination.

I see the argument against the term «atheist,» but I don't like «non-believer,» either, because I believe in lots of things — science, truth, empathy, the power of creativity, etc — just not in anyone's god (s).

Before science, there was no logical argument to be made against the presumed existence of gods and the supernatural.

Most of the creationist / ID web sites have quietly begun to ask their followers to stop using a whole set of arguments against evolution, including the «just a theory» argument, because they reveal the person's woeful ignorance of real science.

Ken Ham challenged Bill Nye to a debate, even while Ken Ham continues to run from me and my proposal that he «come out» and «come clean» regarding his positions relating to my argument that so many of his followers rail against but which quite properly is able to demonstrate why it is, in part, that young - earth creation - science promoters have failed in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges.

Perhaps the best argument against a super-intelligent agent creating the universe is that moderately - intelligent science fiction writers often dream up universes that are way cooler and often even «work» better than the reality we all experience.

In a more recent work, Reason in the Balance: The Case Against NATURALISM in Science, Law and Education (P. 3), Johnson continues his argument, and makes clear what was implicit in the earlier work.

You refute odds and say we don't have a clue through science the probability of life and further more the reason / occurrence of why we have life but your trying to build a argument against the idea of an intelligent designer through science.

Arguments for or against theism are very much like arguments in theoretical science, even in matArguments for or against theism are very much like arguments in theoretical science, even in matarguments in theoretical science, even in mathematics.

First, discussion of Intelligent Design's argument against neo-Darwinism is out of place in a high - school science classroom because most scientists working in the area do not accept the Intelligent Design criticism of neo-Darwinism and because understanding the scientific issues involves sophisticated arguments far beyond the capacity of nonspecialists, let alone high - school students.

science sorry, your carbon argument works against your position as Earth is miraculously water - and carbon - poor.

In 2009 he said, when talking about climate change, that the «science is highly contentious, to say the least» and «the climate change argument is absolute crap», but did accept that precautionary action against it was a good idea.

Commenting on the panel and its critics, Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education in Oakland, California, which has campaigned successfully for the teaching of evolution in schools, objected to the «hijacking» of science for arguments about religion: for or aScience Education in Oakland, California, which has campaigned successfully for the teaching of evolution in schools, objected to the «hijacking» of science for arguments about religion: for or ascience for arguments about religion: for or against.

«This is too logical a transition for anyone to have an ideological argument against clean energy, because it stands against economic growth and good business sense,» says Daniel Kammen, professor of energy at the University of California, Berkeley, and science envoy for the U.S. State Department, who is attending the talks, «That's what people are saying here — they're incredulous that anyone would want to back off on this.»

There are many arguments for and against such a funding model, and I've seen it from both sides: from the view of a small lab competing for ever - shrinking NIH funds, and as part of a major collaboration funded by «big science» awards.

«It's important not to interpret this study as an argument against vaccination of our children against flu or any other disease,» Peter Openshaw, president of the British Society for Immunology and Professor of Experimental Medicine at Imperial College London (who wasn't involved in the study) told the Science Media Centre.

Still, Robert Hyldahl, PhD, assistant professor of exercise science, believes the results are a good argument against the belief that runners are more likely to get osteoarthritis of the knee than non-runners.

Science materials to make a nest Arguments for / against Hunting Book reviews.

This lesson looks at science and suffering as arguments against the existence of God.

But when your case against Common Core leans so heavily on muddled logic and flawed science, it suggests that your arguments don't add up.

When asked by a Christian radio station, Bennett said that their science curriculum presents evolution, creationism, and intelligent design as equally tenable explanations for the existence of life,» adding «We're centered in the Judeo - Christian tradition, we do not ignore faith and religion, we do not ignore the arguments against evolution, because there are some...»

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.

Argument against climate change: how will the earth have evolved in 200 -500 years: What is the foundation of your arguments for or against the climate change science — and have the students access research articles and mobile apps to state their positions for or against climate change.

I will spare you all of my arguments I use against deniers based on social science analysis, but I'm sure most readers will have their own largely overlapping set of comebacks.

The two most common arguments against warming theories seem to be (1) local temperature variations (or mutually - inconclusive data) disprove global warming itself; and (2) models aren't real science, anyway, so we don't need to worry about them.

G&T managed to get their work out there; publishing it in Nature or Science would not have changed the fact that they're arguments just don't hold any water (they didn't do any new science, they just took what was already known, and then tried to use that to argue against what is already known — a search for logical inconsistency, which might have been worthwhile if they'd known what they were doing and if they'd gone after contrarian «theory»)-- unless it were edited, removing all the errors and non-sequitors, after which it would be no different than a physics book such as the kind a climate scientist wouldScience would not have changed the fact that they're arguments just don't hold any water (they didn't do any new science, they just took what was already known, and then tried to use that to argue against what is already known — a search for logical inconsistency, which might have been worthwhile if they'd known what they were doing and if they'd gone after contrarian «theory»)-- unless it were edited, removing all the errors and non-sequitors, after which it would be no different than a physics book such as the kind a climate scientist wouldscience, they just took what was already known, and then tried to use that to argue against what is already known — a search for logical inconsistency, which might have been worthwhile if they'd known what they were doing and if they'd gone after contrarian «theory»)-- unless it were edited, removing all the errors and non-sequitors, after which it would be no different than a physics book such as the kind a climate scientist would use...

• Lack of formal model verification & validation, which is the norm for engineering and regulatory science • Circularity in arguments validating climate models against observations, owing to tuning & prescribed boundary conditions • Concerns about fundamental lack of predictability in a complex nonlinear system characterized by spatio - temporal chaos with changing boundary conditions • Concerns about the epistemology of models of open, complex systems

The basic insights of post-positivist science are common knowledge, and along with other social insights, not an argument against the scientific evidence for AGW.

Or is Paul defending against the charge by making a numbers argument — the scientists in question are on the same side as the consensus, so to challenge any aspect of global warming science or politics is to make a statement about «the majority of scientists» (many of whom are in fact social scientists)?

For some time now I have thought that the science - based arguments have been «too cute» (radiative forcings and all that) and that the strongest case against the orthodoxy is rooted in common sense.

Her ad hominem attacks of «climate denier» and «irresponsible» against Judith Curry are severely damaging climate science, nullifying Mhyre's arguments.

There have been clear voices against advocacy however, particularly in relation to the climate community, often centring around arguments of bias, impartiality, and ethics that suggest it is problematic for scientists to express views beyond communicating their science.

Climate scientists have done an admirable job pursuing their science under great political pressure, and they have tirelessly rebutted pseudoscientific arguments against their work.

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).

THE BEST arguments against tree rings or bore holes or temperature adjustments or c02 are already IN THE SCIENCE..

Given the magnitude of potential harms from climate change, those who make skeptical arguments against the mainstream scientific view on climate change have a duty to submit skeptical arguments to peer - review, acknowledge what is not in dispute about climate change science and not only focus on what is unknown, refrain from making specious claims about mainstream science of climate change such as the entire scientific basis for climate change has been completely debunked, and assume the burden of proof to show that emissions of greenhouse gases are benign.

«Climate scientists have done a great job in pursuing their science under great political pressure, and they have tirelessly rebutted pseudoscientific arguments against their work.

If someone is skeptical of the «science» then simply state your case and answer the arguments against the claims you are making with facts and allow them to make up their own mind.

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.

Some of the arguments against climate change policies based upon scientific uncertainty should and can be responded to on scientific grounds especially in light of the fact that many claims about scientific uncertainty about human - induced warming are great distortions of mainstream climate change science.

They were tired of orchestrated complaints about Bob's writings and lectures on climate change and could not handle the person who showed that polite argument against poor science and reasoning can defeat politicised science.

The conservative Heritage Foundation might have just previewed the Trump administration's arguments against climate science.