Sentences with phrase «much scientific evidence for»

Many sources claim that taking cold showers is also a good thing for sensitive skin and hair, but there does not seem to be much scientific evidence for this.

Not exact matches

He concedes too much in the end to the methods of scientific materialism including the demand for tangible evidence.

We have scientific evidence for much and where we have gaps there are plausible theories.

Much has been written on the health benefits of dates and there is now scientific evidence for much of the traditional folklore surrounding these benefMuch has been written on the health benefits of dates and there is now scientific evidence for much of the traditional folklore surrounding these benefmuch of the traditional folklore surrounding these benefits.

What bothers me so much about the homebirth debate is that we have ample scientific evidence to show that homebirth is safe for low risk women.

Holt argued that respect for the principles of scientific inquiry, as much as for the evidence it produces, should infuse our political discourse.

Over the past 20 years, evidence that humans are affecting the climate has accumulated inexorably, and with it has come ever greater certainty across the scientific community in the reality of recent climate change and the potential for much greater change in the future.

A new study out today in Psychology of Women Quarterly examined a well - known space for candid sharing of thoughts — the comments sections of online articles — and found that men are much less likely to agree with scientific evidence of gender bias in STEM than women.

Much of what she suggests for optimal diet is similar to what I recommend on this site, but she provides great scientific evidence for the necessity of foods like grass - fed meats, bone broths, organ meats, fermented foods, raw dairy (if tolerated) and more.

Oz and physicians like him think that there's so much to be gained by eating whole grains and fruits (we agree on the green vegetables, although I do so less because of any compelling scientific evidence than because my mother insisted they were good for me) that they think this should be recommended to anyone and everyone and a diet that restricts them can't possibly be healthful.

To give you a taste of what is coming in Part 2, the arguments can be summarized as: 1) Education does not lend itself to a single «best» approach, so the Gates effort to use science to discover best practices is unable to yield much productive fruit; 2) As a result, the Gates folks have mostly been falsely invoking science to advance practices and policies they prefer for which they have no scientific support; 3) Attempting to impose particular practices on the nation's education system is generating more political resistance than even the Gates Foundation can overcome, despite their focus on political influence and their devotion of significant resources to that effort; 4) The scale of the political effort required by the Gates strategy of imposing «best» practices is forcing Gates to expand its staffing to levels where it is being paralyzed by its own administrative bloat; and 5) The false invocation of science as a political tool to advance policies and practices not actually supported by scientific evidence is producing intellectual corruption among the staff and researchers associated with Gates, which will undermine their long - term credibility and influence.

This research is considered to be a critical step in providing much needed scientific evidence as a basis for fostering more serious attention to human - animal bond dynamics and related issues and policy concerns.

There is no scientific evidence in what I have read showing grains are bad for dogs; however too much grains are clearly unhealthy in the long run.

Although there's not much proven scientific evidence that glucosamine is the be-all, end - all supplement for dogs with joint problems, there's a general consensus that it does help.

• There is much scientific and historical evidence that the reported recent warming in the Arctic is not unprecedented, for instance the 1920/30's are recorded to have been relatively warm as in this 2006 paper, and this newer paper is interesting if challenging, but there are still other similar papers and much widespread history of the Medieval Warm Period.

Sadly, if this article had been written with some (or maybe even any) supporting evidence for these highly entertaining but somewhat wild conclusions, it would probably make as much impact within the scientific world as the IPCC's latest report is making now.

Pulling out theories that aren't supported by the evidence is not what a scientific report should care much about, for good reason.

But there is one issue on which the president can, and should, say much more: the strong scientific evidence on human - induced climate change and its impacts on the United States, and the rapidly closing window for action.

Earlier this week, documents revealed by the Guardian and New York Times provide irefutable evidence that climate denier Willie Soon and the Harvard - Smithsonian Center for Astrophyics received more than $ 1 million in funding from fossil fuel companies to deliver scientific reports that called into question the scientific conclusion that climate change is the result of burning too much oil, coal and other carbon - emitting fuel sources.

«The president can, and should, say much more [about] the strong scientific evidence on human - induced climate change and its impacts on the United States, and the rapidly closing window for action,» say Harvard Prof. Jim McCarthy and UN Foundation President Tim Wirth, giving voice to what Climate Science Watch has argued repeatedly since before President Obama's inauguration.

I also find that many of those who might be categorized in the identified groups on AGW are in that category not so much for their judgment on the scientific evidence but rather their grounding in the politics of the matter.

In fact, the report affirmed the «scientific consensus regarding human - induced global warming,» based on multiple «lines of evidence» supporting «the conclusion that human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming» of the Earth.

It is much better to use your time explaining that there is nothing in the CRU case which would significantly undermine the scientific evidence for AGW.

Implicit in the court's reasoning is the need for an indigenous community to scientifically and collectively quantify its FSC numbers, not merely through anecdotal evidence (e.g., how much fish a fisherman historically caught, and how much he or she may now catch), but through larger «scientific» studies that address FSC needs on a broader community level.