Sentences with phrase «by sticking to the science»

Not exact matches

I happen to have met Bill Nye, in person, and in my opinion he's a conceited stuck up arrogant jacka $ $ who's managed to convince himself that because he had a «science» fair gig on a local comedy tv show in Seattle (Almost Live) that then got picked up by the Disney corporation that he now has qualifications that greatly exceed his actual faculties.

By the way, evolution can not do either the first - Observe evolution nor can they do the last, measure of true science Seek duplication Thank you «Bill Nye the Propaganda Guy» but please stick to observable stuff!!!

because it was scientists that created the Nuclear bomb, in fact it was science that created all weapons... so by your logic, Science is to blame for the Death of EVERY human being in Warfare throughout time except for those killed by rocks and sticks that are unsharpened and / or killed by use of barehands... Science has slaughtered BILLIONS...... of course that's nonsensescience that created all weapons... so by your logic, Science is to blame for the Death of EVERY human being in Warfare throughout time except for those killed by rocks and sticks that are unsharpened and / or killed by use of barehands... Science has slaughtered BILLIONS...... of course that's nonsenseScience is to blame for the Death of EVERY human being in Warfare throughout time except for those killed by rocks and sticks that are unsharpened and / or killed by use of barehands... Science has slaughtered BILLIONS...... of course that's nonsenseScience has slaughtered BILLIONS...... of course that's nonsense right?

I first saw a lolly stick chain reaction at a conference held by the Primary Science Teaching Trust and couldn't wait to show my children, we've since made hundreds of different sizes and even added small pom pom balls to add to the excitement.

This is well backed by much literature, science and research, especially as we are growing in our understanding of trauma, its impact and how to heal from it when we get stuck in trauma responses.

By 1979, Spielman had identified Babesia» stick vector, Ixodes dammini, as a creature new to science.

Right now, much of the emphasis in science is on the professional responsibility of scientists to stick to «standards agreed upon by the scientific community» regarding how research should be conducted, Frankel said.

WHEN Mostafa Ahmadi - Roshan, a chemist at the Natanz uranium enrichment plant in Iran, was killed on 11 January by a magnetic bomb stuck to his car, he became the fifth such victim in Iran, according to William Tobey of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University.

The draft appears to be «well thought out and well informed by the science advisers on the Pontifical Academy, contrary to statements I have seen publicly that state that he should stick to matters of religion and morals,» says earth scientist Marcia McNutt, a participant in the Vatican workshop and editor - in - chief of the Science family of journals (publisher of ScienceInscience advisers on the Pontifical Academy, contrary to statements I have seen publicly that state that he should stick to matters of religion and morals,» says earth scientist Marcia McNutt, a participant in the Vatican workshop and editor - in - chief of the Science family of journals (publisher of ScienceInScience family of journals (publisher of ScienceInsider).

When it comes to supplements, you might having trouble choosing what's most adequate for your goals, given the great number of choices with different price ranges we have today, but the best idea is to stick with those supported by science in terms of efficacy and safety.

Stick with stevia, raw honey, and maple syrup — these three have been tested by both time and science to not only satisfy your sweet tooth but are also healing and abundantly life - giving.

A few major areas I hope will receive attention during reauthorization are college / workplace readiness, including the promotion of more rigorous standards; greater accountability at the secondary level; more sophisticated policy and greater accountability for improving teacher effectiveness, particularly at the late elementary and secondary levels; a broadening of attention to math and science as well as to history; and refinements in AYP to focus greater attention and improvement on the persistently failing schools by offering real choices to parents of students stuck in such schools.

By «elective,» I don't mean offering kids a couple of options if they pass all their math, science, language arts and social studies courses, or are willing to stick around after hours.

Like sticking our fingers into the science - project sockets of our childhoods, we sit around tempting mythology to fry us again, gazing at this verse and that phrase by the self - published (papyrus format) author Luke.

My problem with these attempts to convince / influence people by appealing to something other than the actual science is that they tend to work equally well both ways, whereas sticking to the rules of science really does tend to favor the truth.

Scientists respond to intimidation from Rep. Joe Barton (R - TX) RealClimate has the complete scoop on how scientists have responded to efforts to intimidate scientists by Rep. Joe Barton (R - TX) over a particular detail (the now famous hockey stick) in the climate science.

If you don't know much about climate science, or about the details of the controversy over the «hockey stick,» then A. W. Montford's book The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science might persuade you that not only the hockey stick, but all of modern climate science, is a fraud perpetrated by a massive conspiracy of climate scientists and politicians, in order to guarantee an unending supply of research funding and politicalscience, or about the details of the controversy over the «hockey stick,» then A. W. Montford's book The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science might persuade you that not only the hockey stick, but all of modern climate science, is a fraud perpetrated by a massive conspiracy of climate scientists and politicians, in order to guarantee an unending supply of research funding and political pstick,» then A. W. Montford's book The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science might persuade you that not only the hockey stick, but all of modern climate science, is a fraud perpetrated by a massive conspiracy of climate scientists and politicians, in order to guarantee an unending supply of research funding and political pStick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science might persuade you that not only the hockey stick, but all of modern climate science, is a fraud perpetrated by a massive conspiracy of climate scientists and politicians, in order to guarantee an unending supply of research funding and politicalScience might persuade you that not only the hockey stick, but all of modern climate science, is a fraud perpetrated by a massive conspiracy of climate scientists and politicians, in order to guarantee an unending supply of research funding and political pstick, but all of modern climate science, is a fraud perpetrated by a massive conspiracy of climate scientists and politicians, in order to guarantee an unending supply of research funding and politicalscience, is a fraud perpetrated by a massive conspiracy of climate scientists and politicians, in order to guarantee an unending supply of research funding and political power.

If you're artless, by all means stick to the science.

38 tharanga: Sticking to science: Read «Collapse» by Jared Diamond and «The Long Summer» by Brian Fagan.

Stick with defending the real scientists at RealClimate by contributing only to the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund.

Its all part of the legitimate, honest give - and - take of science that I discuss in my book «The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars» (http://bit.ly/sRasaq) and which is to be distinguished from the dishonest attacks by the Watts / McIntyres / Singers / Michaels of the world.

Steve McIntyre's failed sensitivity analysis has been used by a much wider audience to dispute the Yamal hockey stick, accuse scientists of fraud and undermine the credibility of climate science in general.

Yet many of these are the same people that presumed to question the science behind the so - called «hockey stick» graph published by Mann and others in the journal Nature in 1998.

Take away the self - conferred Nobel and you're left with a one - stick pony whose principal if not sole contribution to science has been assailed by many of the most respected scientists on earth.

As to the «scientific consensus», Mann and his hockey stick have been called «scanty», «sloppy», «sh*tty», «rubbish», «a disgrace to the profession», «dubious», «invalidated» and «just bad science» by his fellow scientists, including the climatologist who came up with the term «global warming» back in the Seventies.

Thus Mann's hockey stick is not science because the modern scientific method requires transparency so that outside researchers can test the hypothesis by reproducing results (or failing to) by experiment or their own review of the raw data and calculations and review of the methods used.

For example, understanding that global warming is not a proven science and that there is no circumstantial evidence for global warming alarmism — which is why we see goats like political charlatans like Al Gore showing debunked graphs like the «hockey stick» to scare the folks — and, not understanding that climate change the usual thing not the unusual thing and that the climate change we observed can be explained by natural causes is the only thing that really separates we the people from superstitious and ignorant government - funded schoolteachers on the issue of global warming... that and the fact that global warming alarmists do not believe in the scientific method nor most of the principles upon which the country was founded.

Versus Michael Mann's hockey stick showing there was no enigmatic medieval period (even tried to change the name) with greenhouse gases emerging as the dominant forcing in the twentieth century — but was based on incredible data - selection techniques and was mostly based on one tree core series, the bristlecone pine trees from one mountain which can not possibly be expected to provide a reliable indicator of climate — the worst type of science but still accepted by climate science because that it what they do — rewrite history and get all the facts wrong.

«Mann is author of two books, «The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines» (Columbia University Press, 2012), which will soon to be available inpaperback with an update and a new guest foreword by Bill Nye «The Science Guy», and «Dire Predictions: Understanding Global Warming» (DK Publishing, 2008).

Far more so than, say, Skeptical Science, which prefers to stick strictly to the science (albeit only if it matches their view of it) and strictly edits any off topic discussion (unless it is by one of their acolytes) and will allow no personal criticisms or adhoms whatsoever (unless delivered against an «unbeliever», and more acceptably delivered by one of the moderScience, which prefers to stick strictly to the science (albeit only if it matches their view of it) and strictly edits any off topic discussion (unless it is by one of their acolytes) and will allow no personal criticisms or adhoms whatsoever (unless delivered against an «unbeliever», and more acceptably delivered by one of the moderscience (albeit only if it matches their view of it) and strictly edits any off topic discussion (unless it is by one of their acolytes) and will allow no personal criticisms or adhoms whatsoever (unless delivered against an «unbeliever», and more acceptably delivered by one of the moderators).

C: increase in atmospheric CO2 from pre-industrial to present is anthropogenic (D / A) S: best guess for likely climate sensitivity (NUM) s: 2 - sigma range of S (NUM) a: ocean acidification will be a problem (D / A) L: expected sea level rise by 2100 in cm (all contributions)(NUM) B: climate change will be beneficial (D / A) R: CO2 emissions need to be reduced drastically by 2050 (D / A) T: technical advances will take care of any problems (D / A) r: the 20th century global temperature record is reliable (D / A) H: over the last 1000 years global temperature was hockey stick shaped (D / A) D: data has been intentionally distorted by scientist to support the idea of anthropogenic climate change (D / A) g: the CRU - mails are important for the science (D / A) G: the CRU - mails are important otherwise (D / A)

Can this be even started when the «hockey stick» is so blatantly used (by the IPCC and others) to provoke political / policy changes based on bad science and bad processing of that data?

«A Disgrace to the Profession»: The World's Scientists ~ in Their Own Words ~ on Michael E Mann, his Hockey Stick, and Their Damage to Science Volume One Edited by Mark Steyn with illustrations by Josh

The entire effort to attempt «sounding scientific» by discussion of the «hockey stick» is no more different than those café conversations of «dark matter», and present no more SCIENCE or valid «statistical philosophy».

For decades, the mainstream journalists have dutifully reported hysterical alarmism generated by a minority of scientists dedicated to the concept of human CO2 - caused catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW)... this style of sensationalist, tabloid «climate science» journalism however is dependent on either a condition of stuck - on - stupid mentality or a highly biased, politically motivated political agenda, not on scientific empirical evidence

You have spent a great deal of time describing why you believe that the science behind the hockey stick phenomenon is more uncertain than how it was portrayed, and you have spent a lot of time analyzing the tribalism behind what you characterized as a «dishonest» approach to representing data, but from what I've seen, you have spent remarkably little time talking about the volumes of unsound data which were deliberately fabricated, or at the very least twisted, by those with a vested interest in proving theories of AGW incorrect.

I can't promise that the hockey stick will be as dead as Section 13 by the time this stupid trial is over, but I will do my best to ensure it - not just because the appalling and incurious prostration before pseudo-authority embodied by everyone from «Ellen» to The Columbia Journalism Review ought to be embarrassing to a functioning media, but because climate science itself, like Brandeis and the State of Ohio, needs, in Steve Huntley's phrase, more «free speech, free debate, free minds».

As IO have extensively proven in my papers and by proponent of the AGW (see for example Crowley, Science 2000), the traditional climate models produce a signature quite similar to the hockey stick graph by Mann which not only simply disagree with history but has also been seriously put in question under several studies.

«More likely to occur,» he wrote, «is a similar exercise directed by the head of another department» — like NASA, NOAA or the White House science office — «with more interest than Pruitt has shown in the scientific debate and more likely to stick around to see the results.»

If scientists wish to stick with science, by all means stick to the scientific method, but if they wish to enter the realm of policy they should be prepared to debate their opponents, as that's the political method.

I assume by «all the recent science», Inhofe is referring to the NAS study and the Wegman report, both of which chopped off most of the shaft of hockey stick as statistically inconclusive, turning it into really more of a boomerang than a stick.

It would be nice to think that having narrowly escaped being written off by future historians as yet another of those junk science eco-loons who helped foment what I describe in my book Watermelons as «the biggest and most expensive outbreak of mass hysteria in history», Nurse will now stick to what he knows best: proper, falsifiable, empirical science — as opposed to post normal science and left - leaning activism.

That Manne manipulated his «hockey stick data» to produce a kink to «prove» AWG covering the industrial revolution to the present, is all the more amusing, not only for the juk science entailed in that abuse of maths but also in the breath - taking silliness involved in altogther eliminating the record which, before matters of science as laid out by Eshchenbach, simply makes nonsense of such claims.

So, just in time for Michael E Mann's Congressional testimony this week, Watts Up With That posted a guest essay by Rick Wallace reflecting on my book «A Disgrace to the Profession»: The World's Scientists - in Their Own Words - on Michael E Mann, His Hockey Stick and Their Damage to Science - Volume One.

Live debates favor skeptics because, unconstrained by having to stick to the published science, they know how to make things up and the public audience is none the wiser.

Further review by the national academy of science and multiple university reviews of the committee findings found that by and large, the Hockey Stick was not flawed enough for them to consider it inappropriate for use as a model to represent the climate variability for the time period specified.

What they are really saying is this: In their humble opinion, the Mann hockey stick will not be deposed from its status as the generally - accepted temperature record for the last 2,000 years unless some major new study, one conducted by people with recognized stature in the climate science community, comes to a different conclusion.

Michael Mann's infamous «hockey stick» graph, used by the IPCC «experts» as propaganda to convince gullible elites that modern warming was unprecedented, has had its science and respectability torn asunder by a multitude of experts over the years.

I was stuck by how much it related to climate science.

Jan P Perlwitz: Now, one could ask, is this twisting of Gavin's words, that he was asking for blind faith into science, even though his use of the term «bad faith» implies the opposite, he asks for sticking to the truth and to facts, is based on a lack of knowledge about the English language or is this itself an example for how a statement made by a climate scientist is twisted in bad faith, for the purpose to deliberately deceive the public?