Sentences with phrase «evidence against scientists»

Not exact matches

Mr. Hawking wins easy battles against uneducated (in science) religious persons, but taking his statement on perspective, He is based on assumptions with serious underlying problems, basically everything from mathematics, to the incompatibility of quantum mechanics and relativity, and the lack of proof and evidence for string theories, he is launching a very aggressive statement, probably his last effort on life to counter the anthropomorphic ideas of God, and this is very common in all scientists.

Scientists, for their part, especially those in the scientific community with burdens against religion, need to understand that the nature of scientific evidence, method and hypotheses and the nature of theological evidence, method, and hypothesis have more in common than they might imagine.

The atheistic scientists oppress other scientists against evidences.

Although scientists behave as if their theories are facts, often arguing ferociously against critics, key paradigms of science can shift rapidly and fundamentally when empirical evidence reaches a tipping point.

No, I wasted 5 hours listening to him rehash the same old and tired lines about why he believes and how everyone will burn in hell and how there is all this «real» scientific «evidence,» but the scientists and the media won't talk about it because they want us to turn against god.

BRC, there is no evidence?!?! what an uneducated statement, there are hundreds / thousands of books and studies, research by thousands of scientists, some christians some not... evolution is REAL... it's a proven theory and i would put that against your ONE book that was written when everyone thought the earth was flat.

When Time magazine senior editor Jeffrey Kluger contacted the authors of some of the studies cited by William Sears for an article he wrote in May 2012, the scientists said it was unfair that Sears had used their work as evidence against sleep training.

Ornstein called on scientists to be vigilant against false information and evidence - free arguments.

Generally scientists have thought autophagy protects against cancer, although some evidence suggests it can help tumor cells cope with nutrient scarcity and other stresses.

But the evidence may be thin: «The indictment against Xi details activities that seem commonplace to people familiar with the interactions between overseas Chinese scientists and their native land.»

«Our results provide the first evidence that blood promotes T cell responses against the brain,» says first author Jae Kyu Ryu, PhD, a staff research scientist at the Gladstone Institutes.

When powerful people of any political leaning go against the evidence, New Scientist can not turn a blind eye

Ivermectin, the established drug which successfully treats the infection, is known to be effective against minor damage caused to the front of the eye by the worm, but until now scientists had very little clear evidence about the drug's role in preventing more serious effects of infection, in particular damage to the optic nerve.

This fresh evidence could help scientists and breeders especially in arming crop plants against a swathe of emerging diseases.

A jury assessing evidence against a defendant, a CEO evaluating information about a company or a scientist weighing data in favor of a theory will undergo the same cognitive process.

Heuer also suggested that scientists who engage with the public emphasize what principles they are for, such as striving for verifiable evidence, rather than what they are against.

All I can do is to say a few things (as above) about what I consider to be a feasible astronomical model which might fit against the YD event evidence, if the latter survives verification by scientists who do understand its basis.

Heat trapping greenhouse - gas emissions are the obvious culprit, since they've increased dramatically over that same 50 years, but scientists prefer hard evidence to presumption, so a team from the British Antarctic Survey has been drilling into ancient ice to see how the current warming stacks up against what happened in the ancient past.

«Some scientists believe there is not enough evidence to recommend for or against taking a daily multivitamin, because there isn't yet enough data from randomized controlled trials.

«The 1999 FDA - approved health claim pleased big business, despite massive evidence showing risks associated with soy, and against the protest of the FDA's own top scientists.

There is a growing body of evidence from serious scientists like Dr. Ravnskov and medical research professionals that show the whole war against cholesterol to be completely misguided.

Against Kingsley Amis» skeptical assertion that «time travel is inconceivable,» Gleick adduces impressive evidence that the phenomenon has tantalized novelists, philosophers, poets, scientists, moviemakers, and even cartoonists as a transformative possibility.

Taking «backfire effect» as a starting point — a phrase coined to describe how people often maintain or even strengthen their beliefs when given factual evidence against them — Tillmans has interviewed scientists, politicians, journalists, and social workers in an effort to understand the political climate in recent decades, with a particular focus on right - wing populism and fake news.

Taking as a starting point the «backfire effect» — a phrase coined to describe how people often maintain or even strengthen their beliefs when given factual evidence against them — Tillmans interviewed scientists, politicians, journalists, and social workers in an effort to understand changes in the international political climate in recent decades, with a particular focus on right - wing populism and fake news.

The associations I point to among the man - caused global warming promoters is really just a secondary problem, with the relevance being simply to amplify the core problem: nobody corroborates the corruption accusation against skeptic scientists, and it has been devoid of evidence to prove it true from its inception.

Especially when going up against the overwhelming evidence compiled by a consensus of 97 % of scientists who study climate as their career.

This also goes against the idea of scientists» opinions being entirely based on objective analysis of the evidence, and concurs with previous studies that have shown scientists» opinions on topics to vary along with their political orientation,» writes survey author Neil Stenhouse of George Mason University.

Lesson 3 examines how scientists gather data about climate change and finally lesson 4 examines the evidence for and against global warming.

It makes the scientist weigh evidence against renown instead of relevance, and the framing of key questions against prudent self - preservation.

«But more than 15 sections in Chapter 8 of the report — the key chapter setting out the scientific evidence for and against a human influence over the climate — were changed or deleted after the scientist charged with examining this question had accepted the supposedly final text...» — Dr. Frederick Seitz commenting on the IPCC Second Assessment Report, The Wall Street Journal, June 12, 1996

You have claimed to investigate evidence for or against AGW, but you have mostly only provided evidence or against for GW... bad scientist, no cookies.

Joe, you mention that «Lewandowsky falsely linked climate skeptics to moon landing hoaxism, and free marketeers to rejection of beliefs they overwhelmingly endorsed» Far worse, his compatriot Prof David Karoly falsely linked skeptics to an (imaginary) «relentless campaign» of electronic death threats against Australian climate scientists, none of which Karoly deigned or was asked to produce as evidence despite the fact that he was alleging the existence of a serious (and despicable) criminal conspiracy.

With most scientists now recognizing that the jihad against CO2 emissions was not really supportable by the empirical evidence, new scientific efforts are being conducted to determine what are the major factors influencing global warming / cooling.

Unlike your ideologically fuelled and baseless smears against climate scientists, Wegman's case involves clear and compelling evidence of misconduct.

50 Scientists: Evidence Leans Heavily Against Man - Made Global Warming

The plain simple truth is that decent scientists whose only «crime» is to happen to find evidence against doomsday global warming are constantly being prevented from publishing, from getting grants and are then being libelled by people such as this ******.

If I am a scientist who believes I am right am I more fearful of the possibility of prison from a charge measured a standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, or financial / professional ruin from a charge measured against preponderance of the evidence?

There seems to be a popular perception that if a scientist has an opinion about a scientific topic, then they have carefully analysed the data and rigorously assessed the evidence for and against that opinion.

At first, many will argue against it, but eventually, as evidence piles up, the scientists will come to terms with the new idea, and use it as the default position.

Rob I think the difference is that the real scientist takes on board the evidence presented against his theory and either adjusts the theory or abandons it.

no matter what the evidence against, the theory is correct or the» I am not going to give you my data as you will poke holes in it»... that sort of position indicates the «scientist» has gone missing.

«It is especially important that, despite a deluge of allegations and smears against the CRU, this independent group of utterly reputable scientists have concluded that there was no evidence of any scientific malpractice,» he said.

But look at the evidence of those closest to bearing the real costs: private US insurers — those who place real bets indemnifying against property loss — unlike the supposedly more serious scientists — are unmoved by ACW: «The American Insurance Association, which represents 400 property and casualty insurers, says the debate about global warming has not been resolved.

Do you think that the fact that there is still considerable debate on the web (including by some people who are scientists and engineers) in regards to evolution means that there is legitimate scientific evidence against it?

Yet the very person whose past is exposed is making allegations of deceit and manipulation of evidence, use of propaganda against climate scientists and the IPCC, the NAS and other science orgs, and these charges stand and are repeated!

This abysmal failure to show us all absolute evidence of illicit money exchanged for fabricated, demonstratively false science papers / assessments is the proverbial «mathematical certainty «that dooms the accusation, and places the whole idea of man - caused global warming in peril of sinking if its promoters can not defend their position against science - based criticism from skeptic scientists.

An elemental question begs to be corroborated in more than one way for sheer fairness: When the main pushers of the idea that the «reposition global warming» phrase insinuate it is proof of an industry - led disinformation effort employing crooked skeptic climate scientists — Naomi Oreskes saying it indicates a plot to supply «alternative facts,» Gelbspan saying it is a crime against humanity, and Al Gore implying it is a cynical oil company effort — are they truly oblivious to the necessity of corroborating whether or not that phrase and the memo subset it came from actually had widespread corrupting influence, or did they push this «evidence» with malice knowing it was worthless?

His own citations only seem to fuel the fire regarding a enviro - activist misinformation campaign against skeptic climate scientists that's entirely based on just one single set of worthless evidence.

To recap: Ross Gelbspan accuses a prominent skeptic scientist of being involved in a global warming «misinformation campaign», and he claims a key «leaked memo» phrase he supposedly found is the smoking gun evidence for his overall accusation against skeptic scientists.

Start dissecting their narratives, comparing them side - by - side while looking for physical evidence corroborating Ross Gelbspan's «industry corruption» accusation against skeptic climate scientists, and a very different picture becomes clear: these people's narratives don't line up right, they collectively have no evidence backing up their accusation, and this prompts serious questions of whether core leaders of the global warming movement are totally oblivious to this situation, or if they knew their narratives had no merit from the start.