Sentences with phrase «obvious nonsense as»

What's interesting here is the fact that such obvious nonsense as Rose's article got such a credulous reception.

The road from Being President to Being That Slightly Stupid Aunt on Facebook Who Posts Obvious Nonsense As if It Fell From the Lips of David Attenborough Himself was never going to be a long one for Donald Trump.

Not exact matches

You should be ashamed as a rational adult for buying into such obvious nonsense.

Not that it doesn't have fun with the obvious archetypes — Josh Brolin was basically born to play the kind of gruff, no - nonsense commanding officer who stands on ridges talking to the wildfires as he tries to predict where they're headed next.

In the end the plot also falls apart under its own logic as more and plot holes become achingly obvious and some insipid nonsense about «family values» that would have seemed more appropriate in a sitcom instead is thrown in.

You only scream that you're not trolling because you desperately want people to believe your nonsense, even going so far as to subtly change your tone half - way through to make it sound like you're only referring to sales being bad right now [which is such a blatant Captain Obvious moment that it SCREAMS «I'm quoting sales to get people mad, trolololol!»]

The next stages are easy to predict as well — the issues of «process» will be lost in the noise, the fake overreaction will dominate the wider conversation and become an alternative fact to be regurgitated in twitter threads and blog comments for years, the originators of the issue may or may not walk back the many mis - statements they and others made but will lose credibility in any case, mainstream scientists will just see it as hyper - partisan noise and ignore it, no papers will be redacted, no science will change, and the actual point (one presumes) of the «process» complaint (to encourage better archiving practices) gets set back because it's associated with such obvious nonsense.

Since, without free parameters, and parameterizations calibrated (or fudged, if you like) to match observed data (such as it is), models (the principle means of attribution) are unable to replicate real world observations, then the statement above is obvious patent nonsense.

To claim that the entire system of atmospheric temperature moderation has been described by the fluctuations of atmospheric CO2 content while excluding the other obvious factors such as atmospheric water vapour content, solar flux and orbital mechanics is just nonsense.

A related argument is that it is * impossible * for summaries of cited sources to be plagiarized... also nonsense... but if so, then there's W. 11.4 Summaries issue tally and at the very least the 4 categorized «B» and «C» (in caps), and in Bold seem especially obvious candidates for fabrication, as they all make explicit change to the text to change meaning significantly.

Something has changed with DC's and John Mashey's investigation: we scientists used to think of denialism as a science problem, something that could be set right with more science; the WR was obvious nonsense and not even peer reviewed, so the scientific response was to so argue this and ignore the report.

My view is that in the face of very ignorant journalistic nonsense, too many scientists are failing to maintain their research objectivity and argue against alarmist or foolish interpretations (such as the obvious alarmist tone of AIT) I see good scientists lining up ideologically rather than methodologically, and find this painful to watch.

Mann's calculations produces hockey sticks from white noise, toilets, and any other assemblage of numbers, so anyone who would place an iota trust in such obvious nonsense can hardly be regarded as a scientist instead of a false propagandist.