Sentences with phrase «n't change the science»

I am not claiming that causation is God however whether it is God or other force does not change the science behind Quantum Physics.

But what may or may not have happened does not change the science - ice sheets are melting, sea level is rising and the top ten hottest years since 1880 include 2001 through 2008.

The government indeed can not change the science and doesn't even try.

It can not change the science because the science isnt what is written in mails.

The other tactic often used is to keep repeating the mantra — climate alarmists do that regularly, both repeating their alarmist line and dealing with a setback by repeating a phoney positioning line such as «Climategate didn't change the science» (merely discreditted their version of it; — RRB -.

Getting rid of the IPCC (never mind that its cost is negligible) won't change the science.

The language that gets changed in the body is not changing the science; it's changing the descriptions of the science in a draft that has been edited, re-edited, re-edited, and re-edited to make sure the conclusions in the text are every bit as precise as the carefully considered summary.

They may make you feel on an emotional level that you are doing something to make the bad news go away, but they are not changing the science.

It doesn't change the science or the reality one jot.

Not exact matches

«I try to keep up with science, not people who have money to be made by not wanting things to change.»

Our focus as a company has not and will not change: We remain committed to moving the science of cognitive training forward and contributing meaningfully to the field's community and body of research.»

Counting your blessings isn't just good advice from mom or a dippy self - help suggestion; consciously practicing gratitude actually physically changes your brain, science shows.

Science suggests that a stint as an expat won't just be life changing, it will be great for your career too.

«When we launched our science initiative last year, I spoke about how we need to change that our government spends 50x more treating people who are sick than finding cures so people don't get sick in the first place,» he wrote.

Slate's Science Editor, Susan Matthews, in «Alarmism Is the Argument We Need to Fight Climate Change» said the «global - warming horror story isn't too scary.

Mashable's Senior Editor for Science and Special Projects, Kevin Freedman, in «No, New York Mag: Climate change won't make the Earth uninhabitable by 2100» contrasts the story's gloom against hope and optimism, but mostly analyses the science behScience and Special Projects, Kevin Freedman, in «No, New York Mag: Climate change won't make the Earth uninhabitable by 2100» contrasts the story's gloom against hope and optimism, but mostly analyses the science behscience behind it.

The 56 companies on our 2017 Change the World list, which includes six smaller rising stars, are tackling problems obvious and not - so - obvious — from Accenture, which is using data to reduce E.R. visits, to DSM, a Dutch life sciences company, that is fighting greenhouse gas emissions from a notorious source: cow flatulence.

Those game - changing things aren't limited to science experiments and orbiting tourism hubs.

«Science is on our side,» Cooke says, «and when it's not on our side, we better change.»

Science evolves, so facts change (despite the lessons of Popeye, for example, spinach actually isn't loaded with iron).

On Monday, as Irma weakened over Georgia, Bossert used a White House briefing to offer more hints of an emerging climate resilience policy, while notably avoiding accepting climate change science: «What President Trump is committed to is making sure that federal dollars aren't used to rebuild things that will be in harm's way later or that won't be hardened against the future predictable floods that we see.

But what a lot of people don't realize is that earth science data and earth science in general goes way beyond climate change.

[1:20] How the kindness of a stranger changed Tony's life [3:35] Peter Diamandis talks about the origins of X Prize [6:30] Technology helping the agricultural industry [7:00] Sequencing genomes [8:55] Life - work integration [11:15] Finding your highest calling in life [12:00] Reframing what is «impossible» [14:00] Strategy vs. psychology [15:00] Changing your state [16:00] The science of achievement, the art of fulfillment [19:00] Living in a beautiful state [24:00] Thinking 10x bigger [28:00] Surrounding yourself with a «nothing is impossible» community [29:00] The news pollutes your mind [31:00] Tony's natural gifts and core beliefs [33:30] Overcoming failure and criticism [37:45] Defining your environment [40:00] Life happens for you, not to you [42:00] Rituals and practices to up your game [46:30] Tony's priming process

«Governments can not short - change basic science and expect innovation to flourish,» says ex-UofT Naylor

But Liang Zhongtang, a demographic expert with Shanghai Academy of Social Science, doubts the policy change will alter this trajectory, saying there may be a baby boost from the policy change but not a baby boom.

This isn't rocket science — it's just making the changes that are necessary for Albertans to believe that this government is actually taking accountability seriously.»

The irony continues with the feting of Okotoks as the greenest community in Canada by such pundits as Prime Minister Stephen Harper and CBC's Peter Mansbridge at the same time the «rurban» community sits in the chosen provincial riding of Wildrose leader Danielle Smith — a right wing student of the climate - change - denying Fraser Institute and cheerful avower that global warming science is «not settled.»

Social Buyerology becomes a best practice and science for listening to and identifying patterns of behavioral changes so that an organization does not find itself flatfooted in responding to its social buyers.

The success of science is founded on the principle that the laws of nature do not change with either time or place.

Do you seriously think for even one millisecond that the religiously driven anti-intellectual climate in America is not largely due to adults telling kids that evolution isn't true, that climate change is just a big liberal conspiracy, or that generally speaking nobody really needs to be good at math or science anymore?

It has been the boast of environmental orthodoxy that «science» is a monolith «settled» on the coming crisis if humanity does not change its ways, or in the jargon, «reduce its carbon footprint.»

But don't change what science is because it's more convenient for you.

same could be said for Science as it is constantly changing and evolving and what is considered the constant today may not apply thousands of years from now just as what was Fact a few thousand years ago is not today.

This may come as a shock to you — BUT - evolution could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in court — if it is a «Law» of science and not a theory explain to me why Scientist in the same field have differing opinions theory has undergone massive changes since the 1850's when Darwin first came up with the THEORY — there are a lot of interesting similarities to true science which makes it sound so plausible, but it should sound good — After all the top scientist / humanists in the world promote it and they are all pretty smart

southerneyes44, you wrote «Germany doesn't teach about him» in regards to Hitler That's a ludicrous assertion as is «Theories in science change with the newspaper.»

The fact that you are uneducated is not the issue of those of us who are... read a science book for a change and get your head out of that 2000 year old book... only children and schizophrenics have imaginary friends..

If science can not answer a why question, it has been the case 100 % so far that nothing else has an answer either, and there's no reason to think this will change anytime soon in any foreseeable future.

n8263 I like to say that we have «confidence» in the method behind science where ideas do not become dogmatic, new evidence can change what we thought we know, and that all the experts are looking for the mistakes and eager to point them out if there are any.

we would self sustain ourselves... they have been the prime reason fr th recession due to higher oil prices to indirectly stage war against america and the rest of the world... cowards... if ther was no oil... the time has come for the next era... we are not far away from that day... the world is changing... science is developing in exponential way... new species are still being found... ther is always a progress... and these extremists are travelling to the end of the road... which will form the next journey fr the major part of the other world... no oil... no islamist would be heeded anymore... those people ll crumble very soon

When theology, whether under that label or designated as religious studies, flourishes under the auspices of the humanities and social sciences, not only has the game moved to a different ball park, but the rules and umpires are also changed.

Doesn't science change almost every day?

Your ignorance of how science works does not change the fact that science works.

It doesn't mean the school will be changing the curriculum; they will still be able to teach science from a design perspective.

Even if in the earlier book the envisaging had been attributed to God, the situation would not have been changed, since Whitehead wrote in Science and the Modern World that «God is not concrete (SMW 257.)

It must be acknowledged, however, that questions such as those raised by the awareness of change are not usually included among the inquiries considered appropriate to science.

Go back to the real reading and leave us alone with your just a few years back science that disproves itself everyday because of its not good enough to tell us accurately about things without changing their mind and definitions of things all the times.

At least, it tells me that they at least have the mental faculties to understand that numbers, facts, science, and proof aren't on their side, there's no point in disputing it, but there's also no point in trying to change their mind.

Thomas Kuhn's work on paradigm shifts in the history of science presents the idea that changes or increases in our understanding not only fill out gaps in previous knowledge, but at times bring about a reorganisation of the structure of the theories or paradigms by which previous ideas were organised and understood.

Not only are irrefutable facts being challenged by people who do not understand the science involved or the importance of these facts, but the belief that there is no scientific consensus leads to a lack of attitudes to chanNot only are irrefutable facts being challenged by people who do not understand the science involved or the importance of these facts, but the belief that there is no scientific consensus leads to a lack of attitudes to channot understand the science involved or the importance of these facts, but the belief that there is no scientific consensus leads to a lack of attitudes to change.

Evolution would be a little more believable Bill if the «theories» didn't constantly change because you eggheads and science keep proofing significant parts of your own theory to be completely wrong.