Sentences with phrase «harder for skeptics»

The mapping of phrases to percentages, they argued, would make it easier for policy - makers to apply the science and harder for skeptics to spin it.

I believe evidence from breast milk is both more precise about what diet is optimal, and much harder for skeptics to refute.

To his credit, Lloyd realizes this has been coming for a long time — he explains the Australian and UK Met offices were caught discussing ways to make it hard for skeptics.

It is very hard for any skeptic to actually make a contribution to science here unless they actually come up with a different governing equation.

S.Mosher wrote: It is very hard for any skeptic to actually make a contribution to science here unless they actually come up with a different governing equation.

Not exact matches

But these findings often meet with a response that is breathtaking in its creativity, as skeptics look for ways to show that women are somehow mysteriously less qualified, less committed, or harder to manage than men.

I understand it is hard to comprehend such a wild statement because I am the biggest skeptic in the world, I argued with all of these experiences with these Being for years and kept asking for proof, always to get it.

Susan Pease Gadoua, my The New I Do: Reshaping Marriage for Skeptics, Realists and Rebels co-author, and I also will be at the conference, talking about the stresses of life after baby — which is even harder for those who have struggled just to create a family — as well as how to renegotiate your marital contract to a Parenting Marriage, one of the marital models in our book.

That's why The New I Do: Reshaping Marriage for Skeptics, Realists and Rebels suggests that you try something different rather than work harder on a marriage, which is what «experts» often recommend.

To hear his critics and Buffalo skeptics, however, Jemal is just another hard - nosed out - of - towner with a reputation for sitting on properties — and with a nine - year - old felony conviction for fraud to boot.

It is extremely hard to find genuine climate scientists who ARE alarmist; wheras it is of course easy to find «skeptics» who claim that all AGW research is alarmist, and that this is essential for funding.

If, however, the collective of all skeptics / contrarians only ever engages in sniping, denial, palpably bad science, etc., * especially when the resources are available for them to do real science *, it's hard to avoid drawing certain conclusions.

It is getting harder and harder to deny the scientific evidence of global warming, even for the skeptics.

My elemental objective is to show how extensive time exclusively devoted to seeing where the accusation came from and whether it has any evidence to back it up reveals a disturbing pattern: Inconsistent narratives that don't line up right; no hard evidence is ever presented proving such skeptics are in an orchestrated arrangement where they are paid industry money in exchange for fabricating false science assessments; and an overall set of talking points which is ultimately traceable to the clique of people surrounding Ross Gelbspan.

-- Once again, I wonder whether the physicists, those most attuned to hard and serious science, are the ones to save science from cargo cultists, for it is the physicists who speak out against the orthodox, the physicists who are skeptics of incredible, unproven, untested (or worse, tested and failed) claims.

On the minus side, even the most raving die - hard skeptic is going to have all the evidence they need for global warming.

It was hard for me to understand this at first, but then I realized that by talking about uncertainty and engaging with skeptics that I was following the playbook according to the merchants of doubt meme.

On the plus side, even the most raving die - hard skeptic is going to have all the evidence they need for global warming.

The radar measurements in the Arctic tell the warming story in a way that will be hard for the global - warming skeptics to refute.

Bob, I think the notion of a modern grand maximum which provides a hand - waving mechanism for natural variability to explain all the global warming that occurred late last century is hard for AGW skeptics to give up.

These are like the blog «skeptics» that haven't done any of the hard science themselves, but throw things in for discussion from the sidelines even purporting to be qualified.

What makes it exponentially worse is how enviro - activists can't even hardly bring themselves to point out specific hard evidence for industry money corrupting the skeptics.

Here is some of the hard data honest skeptics are looking for - at this resolution.

Not only the public, but industry and every other country have accepted the science and the idea that emissions need to be reduced, so a rag - tag group of skeptics would have a hard time with making their case for urban heat islands or whatever their current fad is.

But it's pretty hard to maintain the perception of a bridge - building open - minded skeptic when you're writing material for a group like GWPF.

But even if one believes such actions are justified in principle I don't think it is appropriate for someone in Gleick's position to do what he did because if scientists are seen to do anything which undermines their personal integrity then it can cast doubt in the public's eye about their scientific work and that of their colleagues and makes it harder for them to counter the anti-scientific antics of the fake skeptics, although I would hope that the stinking hypocrisy of the latter would also be apparent to the public.

And thank you for the confirmation that finding «true» skeptics is hard if not as much so as finding that even you're not a «true» Scotsman.

Yesterday, an excerpt of my book appeared on The Huffington Post and I am hard at work on my first blog post for that venue which will be titled Why I'm a Climate Skeptic.

Something legitimate for the hard work and non-funded by the big oil, the big coal and remotely from the Government fund to skeptics.

So I would recommend — modestly — that skeptics try very hard not to buy into this and redirect all such discussions to questions such as why the models are in such terrible disagreement with each other, even when applied to identical toy problems that are far simpler than the actual Earth, and why we aren't using empirical evidence (as it accumulates) to reject failing models and concentrate on the ones that come closest to working, while also not using the models that are obviously not working in any sort of «average» claim for future warming.

But the skeptics and lukewarmers do themselves no favors by making it harder for them to ever do so by attaching emotionally - loaded words like «dishonest» in describing them.

The advocates of the problem have worked hard and employed a number of methods in which to convince the skeptics that the very lack of evidence the skeptics ask for is the very evidence they need.

Also consider that a non-climate scientist (yes, he is a meteorologist) running one of the world's most popular skeptic blogs is going to have a harder time getting published and being criticized for minor choices in data analysis, that those in the CLUB don't have to deal with and I understand why he is reluctant to release it all too soon.

Now, skeptics would say that if your interface is so hard to use with touch that you need a voice assistant to replicate those movements for you... well, maybe your interface should be simpler.