Sentences with phrase «indisputable scientific»

Regardless of this unequivocal and indisputable scientific empirical evidence, which challenges the «consensus» global warming orthodoxy, the mainstream media chooses to gleefully push the latest discredited propaganda regarding the «hottest year ever» - an event that has been happening since the end of Little Ice Age, with an astoundingly great frequency.

Obviously, there is indisputable scientific evidence supporting evolution and none supporting creationism.

Not exact matches

Evolution is indisputable; the only scientific inputs at this point are nuances of how evolution occurs.

Indeed, Nat was pro-life to the marrow, his views predicated on history — in particular, lessons he learned from the Holocaust — and the indisputable, objective scientific fact that even the newest embryo is a biological human being.

That, it seems to me, is itself a kind of cheating, because it requires asserting» unscientifically» the secularist reading of the evidence as if it were the objective, scientific, indisputable one.

Propose a scientific law with indisputable evidence it doesn't.

The latter is the indisputable foundation of scientific enquiry.

With 350,000 known species, and scientific estimates that millions more have yet to be identified, the beetle's abundance is as indisputable as is its variety.

Whatever your views on scientific advancements, there is one factor that is indisputable - they are advancing at an extraordinary rate - Radical Evolution offers four scenarios as to how things could pan out... (Reviewed by BookBrowse Review Team).

Whatever your views on scientific advancements, there is one factor that is indisputable - they are advancing at an extraordinary rate - Radical Evolution offers four scenarios as to how things could pan out: In the «Heaven» scenario genetic engineering leads to happier, healthier humans.

This is an indisputable fact — the 97 % consensus figure is based on our team's categorization of the scientific literature, and we put their research outside the 97 % consensus.»

The belief is that being based on scientific facts, the power that is exercised is effective, legitimate, and based on unambiguous objectivity and indisputable rationality.

Without a valid scientific method for proving a hypothesis, no indisputable explanation can exist.»

These 5 scientific factual points are indisputable, undeniable, irrefutable and unequivocal.

The simple, indisputable, scientific summary after 35 years of empirical evidence: The tropical, runaway hotspot did not happen in spite of massive amounts of CO2 emissions released into the atmosphere; ergo, the IPCC was wrong, again; the billion - dollar climate model predictions were wrong, again; alarmist, agenda - driven scientists» claims of climate doomsday were wrong, again; and, the fanatical anti-CO2 green lobby was wrong, as always.

Despite the evidence of the public's growing dismissal of alarmism, and the indisputable empirical evidence that the IPCC «climate experts» and their models have been abysmally wrong for a very long time, along comes a «scientist» like Myles Allen, confirming for all that scientific honesty is now at a low point convincingly within the Twilight Zone.

The report, in other words, is «scientific - sounding,» rather than clearly settled and based on indisputable fact.

Those scientific uncertainties exist even with the acceptance of «indisputable» facts, as scientists seem to interpret those facts differently based on competing theories and differing views of what are the most important facts.

In short, the scientific consensus on human - caused global warming is an indisputable reality, supported by many different lines of evidence, despite the strategic efforts to deny it.

He also distinguishes how scientific knowledge may be very uncertain in specific details, while the core tenets are robustly known: «The fact that CO2 has a significant influence on climate is indisputable.»

But as long as this debate is nothing but an argument of one set of statistical assumptions vs another, with no emphasis on the collecting of data, defining a measurable causal mechanism, or bringing their theories into unity with the existing and indisputable laws of energy and thermodynamics, then you are all equally guilty of convoluting the truth and corrupting the true scientific process.