Sentences with phrase «as fake science»

The history is important, as a problematic front - page story in The New York Times, How GOP Leaders Came to View Climate Change as Fake Science, illustrates.

Not exact matches

Just months earlier, he and Joshua Kalla, political scientists now at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, and the University of California (UC), Berkeley, respectively, had exposed a study published by Science in 2014 as likely resting completely on fake data.

It performed well doing sutures on fake tissue (see video, above), but its performance on living tissue from pigs was more impressive, as reported today in Science Translational Medicine.

► «[F] raudsters are snatching entire Web addresses, known as Internet domains, right out from under academic publishers, erecting fake versions of their sites, and hijacking their journals, along with their Web traffic,» John Bohannon wrote, also in this week's Science.

Truthful tweets took six times as long as fake ones to spread to 1500 people across Twitter — in large part because falsehoods were 70 per cent more likely to be retweeted than the truth, even after accounting for the posters» account age, activity level and number of followers (Science, doi.org/gc3jt6).

RED LIGHTS is a thriller about preconceived notions, science versus pseudoscience, and what may or may not be a fake lip piercing as it goes about peeking behind the curtain of illusion that masks reality.

Its existence is hard proof that the evolution of this knucklehead series, beginning as a fake trailer in the Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodrigeuz Grindhouse collaboration, was merely bad science.

The team eventually purchases a science fiction script entitled Argo, and they spare nothing creating the illusion that the fake film is real, going so far as to purchase an ad in Variety and staging a public reading of the script with actors in full wardrobe.

McCarthy, as she always does, went big all night in the host's chair, whether mocking science deniers (and beating up Jennifer Aniston) in a fake ad for gravity skeptics, yelling at Kimmel's sidekick Guillermo Rodriguez for not dressing up in silly costumes with her as had been supposedly decided, or dutifully greeting her three guests in a succession of said costumes.

In this world, where the authority of science and empirical methods is being questioned and where even world leaders may brush aside uncomfortable facts as «fake news», it is increasingly difficult to know whose knowledge to trust.

Suddenly, we seem to live in a time dominated by «fake news», «alternative facts», conspiracy theories, scepticism of scientific research, partial accounts parading as «the real truth which has hitherto been concealed from us, the people», revolts against allegedly smug academic elites and distant political elites — a time where YouTube videos claiming research into climate change to be a scam get far more viewers than videos presenting the science of climate change.

Unfortunately, the fossil fuel industry has tremendous assets available to them which they use to purchase political power, as well as sponsor fake science and bogus «public education» campaigns.

The next stages are easy to predict as well — the issues of «process» will be lost in the noise, the fake overreaction will dominate the wider conversation and become an alternative fact to be regurgitated in twitter threads and blog comments for years, the originators of the issue may or may not walk back the many mis - statements they and others made but will lose credibility in any case, mainstream scientists will just see it as hyper - partisan noise and ignore it, no papers will be redacted, no science will change, and the actual point (one presumes) of the «process» complaint (to encourage better archiving practices) gets set back because it's associated with such obvious nonsense.

As with the rest of the AGWScienceFiction Greenhouse Effect, your link takes to a page of more joke fake fisics from august bodies of science conned by magic tricks of clever sleights of hand and word play, here's a better link:

What is your motivation for censoring my posts comparing AGW fake fisics with traditional real world empirically tested and well understood physics as still taught by some, primarily in applied science fields, but no longer taught in the general education system?

The small but vocal part of the infosphere dominated by the climate deniers seized on this «fake» photo to try to paint the entire climate science community as fake.

So, in case there is now or there will be some newbie to these arguments who may have been confused by the disinformation you (and Memphis) have been producing here, here is an example from a genuine study to remind of what the AGWSF fisics passes off as real physics, as used generally in all the variety of science studies because this has been introduced into the education system and, apart from the applied scientists in the field who can spot this is fake, the majority simply take it as if real physics basics:

The National Center for Science Education (NCSE), which is a real public charity - and not, as Heartland, a PR agency faking it - has long helped teachers defend science against creatScience Education (NCSE), which is a real public charity - and not, as Heartland, a PR agency faking it - has long helped teachers defend science against creatscience against creationism.

In a recent post on her Web site, No Frakking Consensus, she provides excerpts from scientists, ethicists, and activists who excuse or even lionize Peter Gleick for stealing Heartland Institute budget documents, impersonating a Heartland board member, misrepresenting himself to bloggers as an anonymous «Heartland insider,» and palming off as genuine — maybe also authoring — a fake climate strategy document in which Koch supposedly funds Heartland to keep opposing voices out of Forbes magazine, sell doubt as their product, and dissuade teachers from teaching science.

«Maybe a branch of science is ripe for infection by pseudoscience whenever it stops making enough progress to satisfy the people in that field: as a substitute for real progress, they'll be tempted to turn to fake progress.

As a science professional myself, I have witnessed many times that it takes a HECK of a lot more work for someone to try to fake up a «defensible» set of data, than it does to do the diligent work to generate a good data set to begin with.

In the media recently was a revealling story on «dubious» practices in research, describing how the well - known science publisher Elsevier had published a series of «fake» journals that were dedicated entirely to publishing results from drug company research (such as the «Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine `, dedicated to

«We know that General Motors has been paying for this fake science exactly as the tobacco companies did,» says ED attorney Jim Marston.

Lewandowsky was the lead author on research finding that endorsement of conspiracy theories, such as NASA faking the Apollo moon landings, was linked to the rejection of climate science.

In one study, for instance, when political conservatives were shown a fake newspaper article that framed the science of climate change as supporting an «anti-pollution solution to global warming» — presumably suggesting environmental regulations, perhaps by the EPA — their denial of the science actually increased, relative to a group of conservatives who had not been shown any newspaper article.

One of the reasons I come here is to continue to educate myself, and I find that moderation is exactly as stated — gentle, patient, and sticking to science until the commenter begins to be more obvious, if less genuine, in spouting the party line in the fake skeptic movement.

Learning as much as I could about the science became paramount because as long as I can remember media has been a cesspool of fake news and knowing the truth has always been dicey when the best you can hope for is information provided by others.

Kurt Bardella, a former spokesman for Breitbart News (which with Cambridge Analytica has common links to conservative billionaire Richard Mercer), described the company's sales pitch as «fancy fake science.»

And — even if you fake it till you make it — the science says you'll end up feeling happier as well.