Not exact matches
People who cast
doubts on
science are also casting
doubts on the effectiveness of medicine, civil engineering, and the rocket
science that NASA relies
upon.
When you pick something that is so strongly established as the approximate age of the earth and start talking about
doubting that as «free thought» you're rejecting the whole field of
science upon which modern scienfific progress is built.
The Paris Moniteur says: «No
doubt the discovery of the principles
upon which the electric telegraph system is founded does not belong to M. Morse, but he was the first to transfer that discovery from the region of speculative
science into that of practical application.
Considering the involvement in the anti-global warming community of industry shills with a proven past involvement in industry funded conspiracies to cast
doubt upon valid science (see e.g. «Merchants of Doubt» or http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/plagiarism.conspiracies.felonies.v1.0.pdf), not to mention the criminal break - in to CRU's email, I think the existence of a conspiracy against climate science is pretty well establi
doubt upon valid
science (see e.g. «Merchants of
Doubt» or http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/plagiarism.conspiracies.felonies.v1.0.pdf), not to mention the criminal break - in to CRU's email, I think the existence of a conspiracy against climate science is pretty well establi
Doubt» or http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/plagiarism.conspiracies.felonies.v1.0.pdf), not to mention the criminal break - in to CRU's email, I think the existence of a conspiracy against climate
science is pretty well established.
They switch quickly among uncertainties of vastly different kinds, to cast
doubt upon the understanding of this
science, and
upon the recommendations which might be drawn from it.
Anybody with an education in the
sciences can tell when a credentialed charlatan is violating scientific method, «cherry - picking» data, manipulating computer simulations (climate models) to «draw the curve, then plot the points,» concealing his raw observational data sets from properly skeptical examiners, corrupting academic peer review (both to suppress the publication of colleagues» studies casting
doubt upon the reviewing officers» pet hypotheses and to ensure that the submissions of «The Team» do not suffer impediments to publication), and concerting all these violations of professional ethical standards by way of back - room confabs and some of the most incredibly stupid e-mails this side of Enron's «Smartest Guys in the Room.»
(In the UK, only two political parties — Ukip and the BNP — proudly state in their manifestos that they
doubt, or reject, climate
science; proof, if it were ever needed, that climate scepticism is predominantly built
upon a foundation of ideology rather than
science.
The ARGO bathythermograph measurements, for instance, present results to a precision of 1/1000 K. My
science background has taught me that to claim a precision beyond what is appropriate casts
doubt upon the reliability of the calculation.
There has been little
doubt tat he IPCC is a corrupt organization, as bomb shell after bomb shell fall
upon their «
science».
While I agree strongly with Gavin on the need to improve the communication of
science, I
doubt we can blame the media for many problems climate
science seems set to bring
upon itself.