Just sticking to the science of cooking isn't really going to fix the problem we want to fix.
Ah, but here's a rebuttal you could have to my «logic»: «If the only products for some service suck, then I won't subscribe to that service, yet I'm forced to buy into the climate models via taxes, government regulation, etc.» If
we just stick to the science, though, and you're not forced to buy, then you might just have to admit that the models are the best there is and you have very little basis for demonstrating that they are worse than they should be.
Yes, it would certainly be better for corporations like ExxonMobil, which alone makes about ONE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS PER DAY IN PROFIT from fossil fuels, if climate scientists who understand that a rapid phaseout of fossil fuel consumption is urgently needed if we are to have any hope of averting the most catastrophic outcomes of AGW, would
just stick to the science and keep their mouths shut about that so as not to «spur political action» to save civilization from destruction.
Not exact matches
historical Jesus, lmfao... show me any historical evidence of jesus... let's start with his remains... they don't exist - your explanation, he rose
to the heavens... historical evidence - no remains, no proof of existence (not a disproof either,
just not a proof)... then let's start with other historians writing about the life of Jesus around his time or shortly after, as outside neutral observers... that doesn't exist either (not a disproof again,
just not a proof)... we can go on and on... the fact is, there is not a single proving evidence of Jesus's life in an historical context... there is no existence of Jesus in a scientific context either (virgin birth... riiiiiight)... it is
just written in a book, and
stuck in your head... you have a right
to believe in what you must...
just don't base it on history or
science... you believe because you do... it is your right... but try not
to put reason into your faith; that's when you start sounding unreasonable, borderline crazy...
Now we Season: Mix 1/2
stick of softened butter with whatever aromatics you're feeling and about a teaspoon of coarse kosher salt, there's really no exact
science to this, we
just want
to have some sort of paste consistency.
In the massive budget bill
just passed, Congress
stuck in language
to require the Federal Trade Commission
to conduct a cost / benefit analysis before finalizing a report that would provide the food industry with
science - based nutrition guidelines for marketing
to children.
«It's interesting that the governor said his intention was
to take the emotion out of the process and
just rely on the
science and that's the line that
stuck,» said Scott Kurkoski, a lawyer for the pro-fracking Joint Landowners Coalition.
After not quite
sticking the landing on its 4 billion - mile journey
to Comet 67P / Churyumov - Gerasimenko last November, the Philae lander managed
to complete its primary
science mission in
just 64 hours before losing power.
Lloyd: I want
to just, sort of,
stick really close
to the title of the session, because I think that's become, it's a perennial topic, it's a monthly topic, it's a daily topic — where is
science news reporting heading?
Beyond
just making your meals easier
to control and
stick with, there is some solid nutritional
science behind my recommendations.
My
science - oriented mind —
just wonders where it got
stuck... Best of luck
to your husband... and for you without a toilet for the week.
Personally, I think they should have
just stuck with the Doc, because his addition,
to my mind, bumps up the story from simple fable
to genuine
science fiction, albeit on a small scale.
I do accept that there are massive people are seeking God, seeking meaning of life and so on, but if we
just concentrate on the «Religious life and
sciences» only we will be
stuck and not be able
to move ahead.
And don't
stick to business, finance & investing either — there's
just as much
to be learned from
science, technology, current affairs, politics / policy, industry / trade and international journals & publications.
I suspect that, like the most despicable political strategists, Jessup, Dauphiné and Cooper, and Lepczyk et al., threw it out there
just to see if it would
stick — the connection they're attempting
to make certainly has nothing
to do with
science.
Lets
just stick to discussion of the
science and stop the paranoia with WUWT.
In a few years, as we get
to understand this more, skeptics will move on (
just like they dropped arguments about the hockey
stick and about the surface station record)
to their next reason not
to believe climate
science.
If we
just want
to do
science,
stick with peer review.
Here is why I think it matters: 1) Actively subverting FOIA intent 2) Admitting a) Hockey
stick flawed & Steve is right, b) hide decline was dishonest, c) climate models are pretty bad, and d) cherry picking results like Japan hurricanes
to emphasize a pre-ordained message 3) Trying
to manipulate (and probably succeeding) who gets
to be IPCC author 4) Trying
to manage the message (PR concern) 5) Viewing
science results as helping or hurting «the cause» — Mann especially All the above subverts the official messages of «overwhelming consencus» and «
science is settled», world's best scientists
just doing their
science, and that it would be «absurd»
to see a conspiracy.
As
to the «scientific consensus», Mann and his hockey
stick have been called «scanty», «sloppy», «sh*tty», «rubbish», «a disgrace
to the profession», «dubious», «invalidated» and «
just bad
science» by his fellow scientists, including the climatologist who came up with the term «global warming» back in the Seventies.
I don't suppose we could dump emotions and
just stick to logic and
science?
p.s. I've tried
to keep the Mann references
to a minimum, although it wasn't easy given that I have
just finished reading Mark Steyn's new book A disgrace
to his profession: The world's scientists on Michael E. Mann, his hockey
stick and their damage
to science.
I can't promise that the hockey
stick will be as dead as Section 13 by the time this stupid trial is over, but I will do my best
to ensure it - not
just because the appalling and incurious prostration before pseudo-authority embodied by everyone from «Ellen»
to The Columbia Journalism Review ought
to be embarrassing
to a functioning media, but because climate
science itself, like Brandeis and the State of Ohio, needs, in Steve Huntley's phrase, more «free speech, free debate, free minds».
A recent expose was written showing
just how financially skewed and biased
science is, as well as documenting that the vast majority of scientific studies are pure garbage as
science has shifted into a publishing business model rather than
sticking to the scientific method.
Either scientists communicate (and are damned) or they
stick just to their
science (and are damned).
This time round I think I'll
just stick to the free online MIT courses in climate
science.
So,
just in time for Michael E Mann's Congressional testimony this week, Watts Up With That posted a guest essay by Rick Wallace reflecting on my book «A Disgrace
to the Profession»: The World's Scientists - in Their Own Words - on Michael E Mann, His Hockey
Stick and Their Damage
to Science - Volume One.
«In a few years, as we get
to understand this more, [referring
to ocean variability and the pause] skeptics will move on (
just like they dropped arguments about the hockey
stick and surface station record)
to their next reason not
to believe climate
science.»
Yet, throughout the last eight years, what has struck us is that
science has become the
stick with which
to beat Bush, not because he really stood against
science, but because his critics — not
just the Democrats — lacked any real substance either.