Sentences with phrase «as valid science»

That then allows people to believe that a view on obese people warming the planet is at least on a par with fact and can be perceived as valid science.

He references this AMEG nonsense, presents it as valid science (although it is the furthest thing from), grossly exaggerates articles to make a point, and claims utter nonsense (6 °C by 2050, more than 100 % more than any credible institution predicts under any scenario) and never backs up his claims with numbers (especially his feedbacks, apart from the AMEG / methane stuff).

It's a clever strategy, really: endorsing bogus claims as valid science without having to defend them as such.

Like Higgins» column, «Baby Catbird Survival» is a Trojan Horse: unsubstantiated — and, potentially, highly damaging — claims «wrapped up» as valid science.

Not exact matches

Taken as a whole they've made a very compelling argument that the explanations of the universe provided by both science and religion are incomplete and always evolving, and that one perspective is no more or less valid than another.

As such, it is just another belief system — none of which can be proven or disproven with current science, but all of which are spiritually significant and valid to the individuals who follow them.

Science eventually proved those theories to be correct, but that doesn't mean that every crackpot theory is just as valid as any other because some of them were proved correct — that's stupid reasoning!!!

My objective in this short essay has been to show that in «stripping off the shell of the out - of - date science, we find the permanently valid kernel of... [Aquinas's] thought on the soul,» as John Saward wrote in Redeemer in the Womb.

These are common to all human beings and sciences in a way equally as valid as in 330 BC.

Or, to put it another way, is not mythology an essential element in human thought, and is it not therefore just as valid an approach to reality as, e.g. that of natural science?

Neither excluding a priori with positivists anything more than the material and efficient causes, nor making philosophy, as the «science of common experience,» superior to science, as Schönborn would have it, is a valid description of the world.

It can accept as valid only that for which there are already analogies and precedents that «objective» science can decipher.

«As length scales become smaller from several hundred miles to a few tens of miles, we discovered the point at which geostrophic balance becomes no longer valid — meaning that sea level is no longer useful for calculating ocean circulation,» said Qiu, professor at the UHM School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology (SOEST).

The new licence is valid until 2028 March 31, a ten - year timeframe that aligns with CNL's Long - Term Strategy, which will position the organization as a global leader in nuclear science and technology.

As a science geek, I base my views on valid research and I have first - hand experience of what it is to be on a low - carb diet and have witnessed the incredible benefits of it.

As a science geek, I base my views on valid research and I have first - hand experience of what it is to be on a low - carb diet.

I don't think the «Mystery Science Theater 3000» version of The Final Sacrifice stands up on its own two feet as a valid work of art.

It was written with a strong metaphor, in more of a picture book / storytelling style, so that it is as valid as part of a literature class as it is for science.

Smalley's views are utterly at odds with Climate Depot's robotic propagation of any content — valid or not — as long as it casts doubt on science pointing to risks from human - driven climate change.

«We often think of the sciences and the arts as completely separate — almost like opposites, but using music to share these data is just as scientifically valid as plotting lines on a graph,» he says.

But today, I come over to find some serious love for Mr. Smith, who's spending him some tax dollars in order to steer the science of climate more towards what he, as a freakin» politician, thinks is the more valid interpretation of the evidence.

Is it valid to conclude as the item quotes «It just means that the standard statistical methods of science are so weak and flawed as to permit a field of study (parapsychology) to sustain itself in the complete absence of any subject matter.»?

And by their qualification for conspiracies, these authors imply that they take whatever claims to be science as true and valid.

Those who have chosen careers in science and technology understand all too well that the scientific method itself is being called into question as a valid way to understand the world around us.

Right, appeal to authority, I made it and stand by it, and until they take Max Planck's Nobel Prize away from him as well as a dozen or so given to the developers of Quantum Mechanics, then you will have to consider the science I was referencing as valid.

To save the world from possible nuclear annihilation after WWII, nations and their national academies of sciences united under the UN on 24 OCT 1945 and replaced Einstein's and Aston's valid definition of mass (m) as energy (E) with Weizsacker's (1935) and Bethe & Bacher's (1936) flawed definition of «nuclear binding energy.»

People need to see the bigger picture rather than having partial pressures, dissolution constants, analysis of algorithms or actual science shown to them (the philosophy of science and it's method of logic is as valid to them as inductive reasoning, so that's no good).

This latest report on the Science of Climate Change covered the key aspects of concern to those not part of the IPCC consensus, but did not involve them sufficiently, if at all, in developing the material and the result seems to be an official dismissal of the literature rather than a thorough development as is common for ideas necessary for the consensus view to be valid.

And all the time presuming the consensus forming, Popper's intersubjectivity, a major of tenet of Post Modern Science (PMS) was a valid replacement for Modern Science, as it has been practiced since Bacon introduced Cause & Effect to replace Aristotle's childish induction.

You had made a perfectly valid point that guilt by association is not science and has no place in this debate and then you expose yourself as nothing more than a cheerleader for a violent cause... Because the violence supports your belief....

Valid SCIENCE will readily allow Gas (and Coal) processes as fuel for such purposes, and I have been warning of this Uranium outcome for years, NOW however is when «it is happening».

In this regard, with the wisdom that historical hindsight affords, everyone on Climate Etc can appreciate the wisely conservative governance of Ronald Wilson Reagan, in ratifying the Montreal Accords, as guided by the «inconvenient truths» of atmospheric science — truths that none - the-less are verifiably valid (V&V)!

Lacking valid SCIENCE «temperature reconstruction» can only remain a concept, as a THEORY requires valid construction, which even the «Greenhouse Theory» does NOT have, and it is NOT sufficient to cite «validation» of that theory incorporated as the USE of such needs Theory also requires to REMAIN valid.

So it is ONLY as an opinion that the «greenhouse platform» can present the «greenhouse effect» and that is not making such to be valid science «Sam», nor is «opinion» a validation of SCIENCE and never has opinion beescience «Sam», nor is «opinion» a validation of SCIENCE and never has opinion beeSCIENCE and never has opinion been such.

Maybe there is a valid reason for you to advocate because of your concern about a lack of balance, but: (1), I question the criteria you are using to measure that imbalance, and (2) as you become an advocate, you drift away from the science, and you drift away from the first order priority of presenting as much information as is reasonable, objectively, before laying out the argument for your conclusions.

I would only put that forward as valid reasons to accept the science and the scientific assessments that are carried out.»

They suggest that the Senate Minority Report criticized by the Credibility Project is just as valid as The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Physical Science Report - 2007, and one of them notes, correctly, that the full subtitle of this IPCC report is «The Physical Science Basis.»

USGCRP did not perform the conditions precedent for valid science as cited in that language.

I find a serious fracture in your «science» argument, namely, you keep talking about the Mann Hockey Stick graph as if it valid for determining temperature during the Medieval Warm Period.

«Overall, Broeckerâ $ ™ s paper (together with that of Sawyer) shows that valid predictions of global warming were published in the 1970s in the top journals Science and Nature, and warming has been proceeding almost exactly as predicted for at least 35 years now.

There are hundreds of other meteorologists, many of them PhD's, who are as certain as I am that this global warming frenzy is based on bad science and is not valid.

That leaves many science educators free to include climate change in courses however they want — by, for instance, teaching the scientific consensus on climate change, or explicitly advocating skepticism as a valid scientific proposition as Heartland does.

One ClimateGate story I read used the Fraser Institute as their primary source, hardly a valid source for interpretaion of science.

What does not help the case is vituperative bile such as we see from some in the anti-AGW side, and snidely dismissing science which looks reasonable and valid.

This is completely valid and not on the same level as denying science.

Beesamen, the key feature of Post-Modern Science is that there is no objectivity, all viewpoints are equally valid, as knowledge is a social construct.

Yes if the pope calculated it via (Absorptivity = 1 — Reflectivity) he would be doing valid science, as supported by every link provided.

Considering that Trenberth and Kiehl in their energy balance diagrams use the term «greenhouse gases» instead of the proper term «atmosphere» as the causative agent for their 324Watts / m ^ 2 «back radiation»; this can not be considered valid science.

The routine assumption that the analyses put forward of innumerate bloggers are just as valid as (in fact more valid than) as those of scientists who have devoted their life to the relevant field is one aspect of this, as is the constant demand to «teach the controversy» on evolution, climate science, wind turbine health scares, vaccination and so on.

After this searching and careful review of ID as espoused by its proponents, as elaborated upon in submissions to the Court, and as scrutinized over a six week trial, we find that ID is not science and can not be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer - reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community.