This is nothing
but sloppy science.
Not exact matches
It was
sloppy science: Researchers around the world were already testing powdered minerals for their ability to form ice,
but they used minerals that were sterile and pure.
But one entomologist says the defense is based on
sloppy science.
In part, he says, that may be due to
sloppy science,
but it's also because «religiousness» is a tricky concept to quantify.
MCT, not only misdefines markets,
but also seems to be
sloppy science.
but it is still a
sloppy science.
-- Richard Lindzen understands the
science but is consistently careless,
sloppy and inattentive when it comes to making presentations of that
science, hence does not consider himself to be misrepresenting
science even though he is conveying inaccurate information.
I recall the presentation he gave when he announced this study (I can't find it at the moment
but hoping someone else here also watched) where he stated that he human activity is the primary cause of GW,
but the current (at the time)
science was
sloppy, thus he aimed to prove what he already suspected to be true.
Furthermore in publishing an article that suggests Dr Marohasy is «hostile» to climate
science, practices «pseudoscience», is in «denial», and performs «
sloppy» work, the Sydney Morning Herald is not only misleading its readers,
but also defaming Dr Marohasy.
One possible candidate would be not just the use of terms like «settled
science,»
but the use of goofy definitions of those terms followed by doing a
sloppy job in applying those definitions, e.g., sloppiness in nose - counting when applying a goofy nose - counting definition of settled
science.