Sentences with phrase «of fraudulent science»

Not exact matches

«We became interested in the plight of people whose career trajectories were derailed because of someone else's unethical behavior — these were people who did nothing wrong themselves but suffered reputational damage merely by being associated with a fraudulent employer or company,» says Takuya Sawaoka of Stanford University, who published a paper today on the «moral spillover» effect in Social Psychological and Personality Science.

We do NOT support fraudulent marketing claims; junk science or toxic ingredients that increase the risk of sickness and premature death.

The entire lipid hypothesis was based on bad science - the flawed and fraudulent research of Ancel Keys.

Well... after the miserable defeats at Durban, Cancun and Copenhagen, and in combination with the continuing Climategate2.0 exposure of the IPCC's fraudulent science, the global warming debate may be coming to an end, fitfully.

After a section featuring Christopher Monckton and his views that much climate science was fraudulent near the end of episode two, Stewart said,

«The science denial apparatus — to mount a fraudulent challenge to the very enterprise of science, that is a third grave sin,» he said.

Tony Heller of Real Climate Science has spent thousands upon thousands of hours of unpaid work exposing the relentless fraudulent adjustments and data tampering pushed out of government (taxpayer funded) climate institutions — NASA, NOAA, NSIDC, NCDC, CSIRO, BoM, UN IPCC to name a few.

It was also fraudulent, for which I hold the lead author responsible — it says right there in their paper that they excluded social science, education, and studies of people's views.

Bad experimental practices or fraudulent selective data would mean failed instruments and (for the second part of my career — after I left pure science and worked for a defense contractor) dead American soldiers.

Portraying Dr Mann falsely as producing fraudulent science they are hoping to cast doubt in the minds of the public who can not tell the difference between one study from the thousands that make up the case for AGW and the false claims that false science is harming the «American way of life» which apparently is non negotiable.

Having read some of Mr Keenan's investigations and his postulations on aspects of climate science, I would suggest he is an astute detective who has exposed fraudulent scientific practices by a few climate scientists.

And fraudulent «studies» bought by the fossil fuel industries to dispute the reality of the temperature record are not science.

The New American has published many stories over the years debunking the claim that there is a «consensus of science» on man - made global warming, particularly exposing the flawed and fraudulent studies by Naomi Oreskes and John Cook that have been cited innumerable times to manufacture the «97 percent of scientists agree» myth.

Yes, I'm aware that the new Republican House will be holding hearings trying to «prove» that Mann's work and that of all of mainstream climate science is «fraudulent» leading to global warming being a «hoax», but I'm ever hopeful that you at least one foot in the real world and aren't supportive of that la - la - land crew.

The IPCC is continuing its tradition of fraudulent bogus climate science for the 2013 climate report by utilizing Climategate - style scientists that excel in global warming fabrication and suppressing research that challenges the blatant fabrication.

In a nutshell, the consensus hypothesis that fats and cholesterol cause heart disease is a result of extreme cherry - picking and other fraudulent practices of establishment science.

Indeed the evidence indicates that... these journalists collected, including the distinguished historian of science at Harvard Naomi Oreskes, who wrote the book The Merchants of Doubt,... that they hired several of the very same public relations agents that had perfected this fraudulent and deceitful craft working for the tobacco companies.

If you feel it's wrong for researchers to be suspicious of outliers in such circumstances and to ask questions of the researcher whose work led to the outlier, I'm afraid you're going to find all of science «fraudulent».

If there was a shred of truth to this scam do you really think it would be collapsing so fast and the science proving to be so fraudulent?

But the true climate change deniers first had their way, doing what is unforgiveable (or even fraudulent) in real science, by retrospectively changing old data until it served their ends, by portraying the Earth as a place of Gaian perfection with only modest diversions from the supposed «average» temperature.

Because of the Climategate scientists fraudulent science, and their propaganda of imminent world catastrophes if nothing was done about CO2 emissions immediately, it caused all the focus to be on a questionable, nebulous problem with an impossible political / economic solution, instead of actually focusing on real world climate and environment problems that could be solved.

Even if, for the sake of argument, all science conducted by the CRU was fraudulent, our understanding of global warming would not change.

That's in addition to the Climategate e-mail scandal and dozens of additional scandals that have exposed the «climate science» establishment's use of fraudulent methods, statistical manipulation, censorship, intimidation, and many other unethical and criminal practices

Consensus science, argumentum ad hominem, projection of guilty motives and sponsorship, fraudulent data, models as data, and hiding of facts are all cornerstones of CAGW propaganda practice.

CAGW is a farce of gigantic proportions, perpetrated by incompetant and / or fraudulent science and I have firm and specific reasons for saying that.

The mechanisms such interests use are many — influencing election outcomes by injecting huge sums of money into them (see the NYT editorial on the KOch Brothers and AB32, for example), installing fossil fuel employees in government bureaucracies (BP's ex-chief scientist is currently Head of Science at the DOE, one Steve Koonin, also of Caltech — welcome to the fossil fuel - academic complex), and distorting science to fit their agenda (witness the endless fraudulent claims about zero - emission combustion, despite the persistent absence of any stand - alone protoScience at the DOE, one Steve Koonin, also of Caltech — welcome to the fossil fuel - academic complex), and distorting science to fit their agenda (witness the endless fraudulent claims about zero - emission combustion, despite the persistent absence of any stand - alone protoscience to fit their agenda (witness the endless fraudulent claims about zero - emission combustion, despite the persistent absence of any stand - alone prototypes.)