Sentences with phrase «from consensus science»

They are both departures from consensus science, yet you will condemn one as anti-science and praise the other.

Good ter hear from consensus science yet again (and again and...) bts.

Not exact matches

We do need to separate scientific fact from extrapolations that suggest no god since science has never arrived at such a consensus.

This situation is witnessed to by the fact that the only metaphysical issue where there is a virtual consensus among mainstream twentieth century Catholic thinkers, apart from the reality of human subjectivity mentioned above, is the claim that the discoveries of modern science should not have a significant influence upon metaphysics.

Despite the «science is settled» and «consensus» claims of the global - warming alarmists, the fear of catastrophic consequences from rising temperatures has been driven not so much by good science as by computer models and adroit publicity fed to a compliant media.

The IPCC's conclusions were reviewed and endorsed by the national science academies of every major nation from the United States to China, along with leading scientific societies and indeed virtually every organization that could speak for a scientific consensus.

That finding is meant to contradict the stereotype of Americans learning little science in school and being oblivious to or willfully ignorant of the scientific consensus on everything from climate change to evolution.

At a hearing before the House of Representatives Science Committee last week, John Doolittle, a Republican from California, said that research implicating CFCs in the destruction of ozone is «very much open to debate», and there is «no established consensus» on the role of CFCs.

But much of the rest goes toward goals largely absent from the planetary science community's consensus planning, namely the new push for lunar exploration.

The hot - spot standoff arises from big gaps in mercury science, according to environmental researchers, and the lack of comprehensive data on mercury deposition means that a consensus about emissions control will not likely emerge soon.

It is tactically shrewd, insofar that nterposing just one said - to - be «expert» with contrarian views in any science case can prevent ajury from reaching consensus, because absent expertise of their own, they tend to equate the existence of «expert» dissent, however dubious, with reasonable doubt

Countless professional and honorific scientific societies have looked at the science — and not one has dissented from the consensus position.

This work included an evidence session held in October 2016 by the NDG office, with collaboration from the PHG Foundation and the Association for Clinical Genomic Science (ACGS), which informed Dame Fiona's paper on building consensus on genomic data sharing.

The impetus for the new science standards sprang from a growing consensus among educators and policymakers that K - 12 science education was outdated and relied too much on rote memorization of facts.

Here's what I do nt» get: There seems to be no shortage of loud political commentary from contrarians, as seen on various op - ed pages, yet when a scientist from the consensus community makes any suggestion of reducing emissions, an obvious implication from what the science says, it's a big deal and they are labelled as activists or ideologues.

Not one single, solitary scientific professional or honorific science organization has dissented from the consensus opinion on climate change.

Generally, the public forms views by what it sees in the media and internet (not peer - reviewed journals, academia, scientific conferences, or the consensus from the major science academies) and what I see in the general media a pretty even mix, with many outlets covering contrarians exclusively (such as the WSJ op - ed columns to name one of many).

A responsible skeptic will request that you remain open minded to opinions from both sides, and consider the uncertainties involved * without * prejudging them based on the demonstrable human predilection toward a «herd mentality» — by «herd mentality», I mean that once a consensus is formed, a flock of «me too» science papers become much more easily accepted, by peer review journals, than the skeptics» papers.

Are we to believe that all the other scientific fields — many of whom will be hurt as research priorities shift toward climate science — are complicit as well, since not a single scietific professional society dissents from the consensus theory of Earth's climate?

However, from what I've been able to learn from the people who actually do this type of research, there are simply too many variables and too many uncertainties in the field of climate science to make the sort of claims being made by advocates of the so - called «consensus» view.

It is tactically shrewd, insofar that nterposing just one said - to - be «expert» with contrarian views in any science case can prevent ajury from reaching consensus, because absent expertise of their own, they tend to equate the existence of «expert» dissent, however dubious, with reasonable doubt

«When you look at the history of science denial, there is plenty of evidence that a scientific consensus drives deniers into postulating such a conspiracy — from tobacco to AIDS to climate.»

It's always amusing to read in the «skept - o - sphere,» the thousands and thousands and thousands of comments on the subject of whether there is a «consensus» and even more interestingly, precisely how big that «consensus» is, from people who say that the noting the existence of a «consensus» is not only a fallacious argument, but that in fact noting that there is a «consensus» is antithetical to the valid practice of science.

Once you see and dismiss the official climate establishments» «97 % consensus» as nothing more than propaganda, you can only conclude that climate science is either politically - motivated or it is the product of a personal problem — e.g., a problem that is similar to those who suffer from medical maladies they do not actually have, who waste their lives looking for remedies that do not exist.

Since AGW is potentially catastrophic and that the findings of consensus climate science are difficult for the mass of the population to understand then the issue of AGW should be removed from democratic control.

Corollaries of this fallacy include peer review, publication in professional journals, consensus, and conformity to social mores, all tenets of Post Modern Science, all attributable to Karl Popper, and widely practiced among AGW sources and their academies, including especially the issue reverberating on this thread: the unsound conjecture of ocean acidification from anthropogenic CO2.

From my own reading on the history of science, antagonism and skepticism are essential to good science and to scientific progress in general, and scientific consensuses are more frequently wrong than right especially when the experimental evidence is ambiguous, and impede scientific progress more often than not.

Which is to say that most arguments for political action to mitigate climate don't actually proceed from the science at all, and in many cases make up the content — i.e. «object» — of the consensus to suit the argument.

You mean «attacked from those who reject consensus as science».

The rebuttal, of course, from the technocrats is that the world will end without them, and that anyone who argues otherwise argues with the whole of science (or at least the consensus).

quote: «Despite the 97 % expert consensus on human - caused global warming supported by peer - reviewed research, expert opinion, the IPCC reports, and National Academies of Science and other scientific organizations from around the world, a large segment of the population remains unconvinced on the issue.»

We have a professor from UWA's School of Psychology discussing the perils of ignoring consensus in science?

Private funding, the internet, and the emergence of scientists from outside the traditional community (not just Muller's team but also Steve McIntyre, Nic Lewis etc.) bodes well for improving the integrity of climate science in the 21st century and diminishing the effectiveness of the consensus police.

It is really amazing to see people from outside with no background in climate science nevertheless pressuring you to stick to the consensus.

«I'm not arguing that the incidence of encephalopathy from vaccines is greater than or less than from the disease; the question is merely, does it ever happen with vaccines, and the consensus science says no, never, any relation of brain damage to vaccines is a myth.»

Their tactics and fallacies include ignoring or distorting mainstream scientific results, cherry - picking data and falsely generalizing, bringing up irrelevant red - herring arguments, demanding unachievable «precision» from mainstream science with the motif «if you don't understand this detail you don't understand anything», overemphasizing and mischaracterizing uncertainties in mainstream science, engaging in polemics and prosecutorial - lawyer Swift - Boat - like attacks on science - and lately even scientists, attacking the usual scientific process, misrepresenting legitimate scientific debate as «no consensus», and overemphasizing details of little significance.

Australian Professorial Fellow Professor Stephan Lewandowsky, from UWA's School of Psychology, will discuss the perils of ignoring consensus in science...

Also, Inside Climate News recently described a new study published in Science about how fossil - fuel funded climate - science deniers disingenuously shift their arguments and use normal scientific uncertainties to deflect attention from the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change and argue for no action to reduce greenhouse - gas emiScience about how fossil - fuel funded climate - science deniers disingenuously shift their arguments and use normal scientific uncertainties to deflect attention from the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change and argue for no action to reduce greenhouse - gas emiscience deniers disingenuously shift their arguments and use normal scientific uncertainties to deflect attention from the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change and argue for no action to reduce greenhouse - gas emissions.

It seems that the definition of «consensus» varies by field, just as the decision - making framework does, with unanimity or near unanimity expected from the scientific community, even including those scientists who in many cases have not really embedded themselves in the literature nor been required to put together a coherent assembly and analysis of scientific knowledge (and even including, somehow, CEI's [Competitive Enterprise Institute] lawyers with their ExxonMobil support, who are often quoted as the contrary view in papers on the science of climate change).

In numbers, after all, there is strength, while individuals and small groups are far more vulnerable — and the purpose is two-fold: to undermine the credibility of wider scientific consensus and to discourage other researchers from sticking out their necks and participating in the public discourse over matters of policy - relevant science.

As they tend to do from time to time in an effort to distract from the climate science consensus, a group of scientists who are also climate «skeptics» have published an opinion - editorial (op - ed), trying to make the case against taking action to address climate change.

A peer review journal from Science disagrees with Lindzen regarding the consensus.

The Governor's Office also repeats usual lies about the so - called «scientific consensus», «climate science,» and the conspiracy theory about «a well - organized climate change counter-movement,» funded by «companies that make their profits from burning fossil fuels.»

It's certainly plausible that the whole «consensus» meme comes from people on the fringe, who don't understand science (no matter PhD's), or even do understand science but are writing for people whose eyes glaze over when you get technical.

«What passes for science includes opinion, arguments - from - authority, dramatic press releases, and fuzzy notions of consensus generated by preselected groups.

> It's certainly plausible that the whole «consensus» meme comes from people on the fringe, who don't understand science (no matter PhD's)

The strong and accelerating renaissance / reformation I see occurring in climate science away from the problematic IPCC consensus science needs a corresponding baggage free process.

I think some of the research on the climate science consensus is garbage, but even if the numbers are inflated, it looks like a large consensus will still be there if you fix the studies and revise them downward ( there's a lot of room to go down from 97 % and still have a very high number ).»

From van der Sluijs et al. paper «Beyond consensus: reflections from a democratic perspective on the interaction between climate politics and science:&raFrom van der Sluijs et al. paper «Beyond consensus: reflections from a democratic perspective on the interaction between climate politics and science:&rafrom a democratic perspective on the interaction between climate politics and science:»

Perhaps it is because the same procedures have been adopted by many other assessments in many other contexts; the National Academies of Science, for example, produces consensus documents from diverse committees and panels that are subjected to expert review from selected external scholars (and it is perhaps noteworthy that NAS reports occasionally feature signed dissents on particular points).