Sentences with phrase «junk science only»

Not exact matches

Dr Kat Arney, science communication manager at Cancer Research UK, said: «Only a tiny fraction of our DNA contains actual genes, and we know that at least some of the bits in between — often dismissed as «junk» — play important roles in controlling how genes get switched on and off at the right time and in the right place.

The only major news outlet to pick up on the story, though was Fox News, whose report by «Junk Science» columnist Steve Milloy here arguably represents a new low in propaganda masquerading as science journalism.Milloy does not mention that Esper et al is an opinion piece, not a research aScience» columnist Steve Milloy here arguably represents a new low in propaganda masquerading as science journalism.Milloy does not mention that Esper et al is an opinion piece, not a research ascience journalism.Milloy does not mention that Esper et al is an opinion piece, not a research article.

But, I doubt either the nutrition professor or the science teacher or would say that their respective diets are the healthiest diets, or that people should eat only junk to lose weight.

Looks can often be deceiving, as RoboCop is, underneath the junk cinema exterior, one of the more intelligent and savvy thrillers of the science fiction genre, perhaps only bested by The Terminator in terms of blending intelligent, complex sci - fi with all - out supercharged action.

This policy happens to be the linchpin of Race to the Top, and its use is now commonplace in most states, despite the fact that the research base for it is not only weak but indicates that the current use of VAM is junk science.

By the way, if you guys really believe that, as an expert told you, «newspapers essentially never use op ed space for op eds directly rebutting other op eds,» then maybe it'd be better to offer to engage the denialists» larger themes anyway: their junk science, their tarring of you all as «alarmists,» their idea that what's genuinely alarming is really only the concoction of a «science - journalism complex.»

While President Bush's recent public statements seem to indicate that he may also be falling for global warming junk science so far, he's only for voluntary cuts in greenhouse gas emissions as well as «technology - based solutions.

Often justified largely on the basis of junk science they have come up with such wonderful policy prescriptions as using only unreliable sources of energy because they are «sustainable,» keeping natural resources in the ground rather than using them to meet human needs, having government tell manufacturers what requirements their products must meet to use less energy rather than encouraging manufacturers to meet the needs of their customers, all in the name of «energy efficiency,» substituting government dictates for market solutions on any issue related to energy use, and teaching school children junk science that happens to meet «environmentalists» ideological beliefs in hopes of perpetuating these beliefs to future generations even though they do not conform to the scientific method, the basis of science.

I've discussed the subject with family members that were at one point dead certain that AGW was «only a theory» and was wildly overstated if not «junk science», but who grasped the relevant issues relatively quickly and revised their opinion as they went along.

Scientific predictions are only as good as the science behind them, if you put junk data in you get junk results, hardly scientific at all, it's a bogus belief system that calls itself science and like all such systems it requires ardent blind followers to keep the fires of the faith burning without ever questioning anything no matter how utterly absurd.

There is clearly now so much junk in the body of climate science literature relied upon by the IPCC that only rigorous examination of their inputs, methods and results would have any hope of establishing the veracity of their conclusions.

You only have to look at some of the junk science coming out of people like Burt Rutan on the subject and how the WUWT crowd clap to see either they are totally ignorant of the subject, or a bunch of hypocritical bstards.

The Climate change lie isn't the only lie out there, the anti-tobacco plan of attack is what these climate nutz have been using of late to push their agenda and the use of epidemiology and its junk science results........

Not only did you attack my comment on the basis of my fairly offhand reference to hydrocarbon formation, (my intial comment primarily related to the dead zone off the Oregon coast and its possible causes and effects) you used my comment to claim that this website, which is one of the few places where unbiased scientific discussion of global warming appears outside of strictly academic circles, has «way too much junk science».

The negative economic consequences may be substantial when the government - mandated speech involves a claim about a technical topic that not only lacks empirical support (and thus may be characterized as «junk science»), but is deceptive and misleading (if not demonstrably false).