Sentences with phrase «is no convincing scientific»
Additionally, 32,000 American scientists have signed onto a petition that states, «There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate...» http://www.petitionproject.org/index.html
http://www.realclimate.org/
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.
The petition read: «There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the earth's atmosphere and disruption of the earth's climate.
«There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming,» it stated in an official declaration in 2009.
The problems any of these individual surveys can and do present are minuscule compared to the laughable counterpoints Bast and Spencer throw at them: a 2012 survey, for example, which found a strong showing of climate denial among members of the American Meteorological Society, and a petition, signed by 31,000 scientists asserting that «there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of... carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.»
«There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.
«There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate,» the petition states.
The Petition Project features over 31,000 scientists signing the petition stating «There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere...»
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of CO2, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.»
A 2003 report published by the National Research Council (NRC) put a damper on the idea of weather modification, saying there was no convincing scientific proof that cloud seeding works.
«There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.
The Petition reads in part: «There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.
Not exact matches
The data looks bad so they convince themselves they feel terrible, even though more thorough scientific tests find they're functioning perfectly fine.
@Dee — if you want to convince us that Scientific Creationism is a plausible alternative, then YOU need to provide evidence or research for it.
No amount of scientific data or evidence would ever convince them that it wasn't God that put the tornado in their path... they just see it as God challenging them.
The quantum physicist Max Planck famously quipped: «A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.»
As for the one god being more valid than any of the other thousands, that things you attribute to him (technically to Jesus), still haven't been proven in anything outside of the bible, which no one of a scientific mind can accept as convincing proof.
(there are several apparently)... but this one was a marine biologist, a doctor in fact, (I forget the name and it is unimportant) who was convinced he could find Nessy using scientific method.
They are discrediting bible through their wit, intellectual, articulate, scientific and logical but sly arguments to convince every people here on earth that it's a 2000 year old hoax and everything written in it which includes the prophecies in Revelations and the book of Apocalypses that had prophecized their comming.
They are discrediting bible through their wit, intellectual, articulate, scientific and logical arguments to convince every people here on earth that it's a 2000 year old hoax and everything written in it which includes the prophecies in Revelations and the book of Apocalypses that had prophecized their comming.
What they need is a clear and convincing exposition of the Faith that takes full account of the latest scientific advances.»
However at that time the Church authorities were more concerned with defending the Bible than with assessing scientific theories, and Galileo failed to convince them.
Townsend was a great salesman, and he convinced Mexican education officials that SIL could make a legitimate scientific and humanitarian contribution.
Sociologically and psychologically, one who is convinced of the truth of the modern scientific worldview will have no interest in listening to Buddhist discourse or in pursuing Buddhist enlightenment.
Freud was convinced that things are hidden below the surface, and he saw his scientific work as showing the instinctual sources of religion, culture, and morality.
In your eyes, NO scientific discovery or breakthrough will convince you that your belief system is wrong.
the most convincing evidence of God of panthrotheism is the scientific proof of the Big bang, becasue after billions of years of evolution when we humans developed cosnsciousness we began to think of Him, God is the source of everything and all religions.
The same people who shoot down religious based knowledge are the same people who lap up everything the scientific community spews out; you're just as bad and stop trying to convince yourself otherwise.
«That is not a relativist's position, and it displays the sense in which I am a convinced believer in scientific progress.
Although Townsend had convinced Mexican officials of SIL's standing as a bona fide scientific institution, as a college dropout he had only a hazy idea of what was required to fulfill this.
But the only reason I take seriously such implications is because I am convinced that Darwinism is on its own terms an oversold and overextended scientific theory.
Modern historical, philosophical and scientific thought has come into conflict at so many points with traditional Christian teaching that the latter has been losing its power to convince ordinary people (to say nothing of the intelligentsia).
Such instances, for which no convincing scientific explanations have been given, are cited by some Christian biologists as evidence of God's intervention in the process.
Justin recalls a frustrating conversation with an evangelical leader named Mark who tried to convince Justin that his homosexuality must be the result of faulty parenting, or some sort of childhood trauma, because there was no concrete scientific «proof» that biology contributed to same - sex attraction.
its in history.In the future the most convincing proof is scientific using advance computational methods»
This really isn't about something that could be proven through scientific experiments, so what it takes to convince you isn't about «evidence» in the scientific sense.
its in history.In the future the most convincing proof is scientific using advance computational methods, At the present we have to prepare the future humans for this inevitable change, the future faith will be Panthrotheism, its our Willed responsibility.
He was convinced that people with a scientific background would be useful to the Church and this was something no one had ever said to me before.
These men are convinced, for the most part, of the validity and importance of the scientific - therapeutic approach to alcoholism.
However, there is no convincing reason for us now to believe that the non-teleological universe issuing from scientific method's rejection of final causal explanation coincides with the one given to us at the pole of primary perception.
Its basic tenets are that God does not exist, it can be proven through scientific reason that God does not exist, and that all believing atheists are obligated to convince everyone that God does not exist and force them to live their lives accordingly.
The scientific community is regularly convinced of things that turn out to be entirely untrue.
There is nothing I can say to people of this dense intellect, as they have already made up their mind what they will accept as «truth» and no amount of scientific evidence will convince them.
Since he was convinced that the reality he sought must be a concrete one, subject to experience, he argued for a scientific method.
I'm still not convinced by ur scientific arguements.
The scientific socialists were guided by a certain moral sense which convinced them that the revolution they were making was something that ought to be done for the sake of mankind; nevertheless, this moral sense remained vague and philosophically undefined.
Marshalling convincing scientific data, they tell us that the environmental degradation caused by massive pollution of air water and land, threatens the very life of earth — fast depletion of non renewal resources, indeed of species themselves, the thinning of the ozone layer that exposes all living creatures to the danger of radiation, the build up of gases creating the greenhouse effect, increasing erosion by the sea — all these are brought out through their research.
With such a wealth of delicious meat free grub around these days — not to mention the growing body of scientific evidence about the unhealthiness of eating meat — it's a wonder anyone needs convincing.
Scientific studies aside, I've personally never been been convinced that non-naturally-derived sugar substitutes (sucralose / slenda, nutrasweet / aspartame, saccharine, etc.) don't have some unknown negative affects when used over time or in large quantities and there have even been questions about the more natural ones like stevia and agave.
In a recent book by Dr. Peter Cook (Mothering Denied) describes better than most others the difficulties that Dr. Jay Belsky has had convincing his fellow scientists that social ideology is passing for, if not dictating, scientific interpretations of studies on this issue (as is true for the bedsharing debate), in favor of dismissing the serious concerns and negative developmental correlates of infants and children being placed for long hours, early in their lives, in daycare centers.