Sentences with phrase «on weak science»

It is based on a weak science Framework that aims at replacing teaching science into developing science consumers.

Not exact matches

Because weak minded fools who do not believe in science and proof must have their crutch to lean on.

; it is weak in science and technology education often mass producing ill - educated or barely literate graduates in arts and humanities; ignores the critical role of economics, management and entrepreneurship education in the context of developing nations; destroys innovation and creativity through outdated teaching methods instead of focusing on fostering the student's own independent learning and creative thinking; and is insufficiently focused on adult, vocational and technical education.

The researchers, led by Dr Vinay Prasad at Oregon Health & Science University, say their findings «raise concern that the NCCN justifies the coverage of costly, toxic cancer drugs based on weak evidence.»

In the paper «Banning Smoking In Parks and on Beaches: Science, Policy, and the Politics of Denormalization,» published in the July issue of the journal Health Affairs, researchers at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health analyzed the evidence for these claims and found them to be far from definitive and, in some cases, weak.

The belief that «those in power knew best what was good for the vulnerable and weak» led directly to legal actions based on questionable Malthusian science.

Speaking at an annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Barnett said climate models based on air temperatures are weak because most of the evidence for global warming is not even there.

Furthermore, her research on evaluating oversight through a multi-criteria analytical approach indicates that the US system has strengths in its use of natural science data, but is weak in transparency in operation, inclusivity of a broad range of stakeholders and perspectives, and capacity of regulatory agencies to dealing with changing environments and technologies.

Technically and dramatically much weaker than most slick science - fiction films, Soylent Green is still more realistic on one terrifying point: the ecology will deteriorate, through misuse and overuse of plant and animal life as well as overpopulation, much sooner than human technology and architecture will advance to accommodate it and create the oppressive - but - neat world of domes, interplanetary travel and multi-leveled cities that characterize most movies of the s.f. genre.

Looking at the undergraduate colleges attended by both types of computer - science students at Georgia Tech suggests that online students are, on average, somewhat weaker academically than their in - person counterparts.

Yet troubling statistics persist: On the latest round of testing for the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), only 40 percent of fourth graders nationwide were found to be proficient in math, and students at all grade levels were especially weak in inquiry - based science.

Indeed, the science behind these benchmarks is so weak that Congress insists that every NAEP report include the following disclaimer: «NCES [National Center for Education Statistics] has determined that NAEP achievement levels should continue to be used on a trial basis and should be interpreted with caution»

• Almost a third of the tests are based on weak standards: 11 percent of the math testing, 12 percent of the science testing, 38 percent of the English testing, and 48 percent of the social studies testing.

Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political «cause» rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

We have every right to point out that they have weaker credentials in science than those who are convinced on the basis of the forty year record and longer that the scientific community has been successively examining, year after year after year.

But what in fact appears to happen is that the concerns at least of some of those worried about these types of actions, have led them to try and convince society by attacking the science of the majority of climate scientists and to use scientific arguments that on the whole are rather weak and unconvincing, and nearly always involve the cherry - picking of data.

Not only that but what a really weak edifice our science and scientific institutions must be on that that the mainstream institutions are likewise hoodwinked into supporting flawed science and that they have persuaded even Bush and co â $ «who are rolling back environmental regulations left right and center - that they can no longer contest the science.

Even now, as nations commit to spedning literally hundreds of billions on policies that are obvioiusly not going to work because the science underlying those policies is weak, they still demand we go forward.

The reports of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), several of which I gave to McKenna, cite hundreds of references published in leading science journals that show today's climate is not unusual, and evidence of future climate calamity is weak.

This is the tribe's real problem here — the «logic» on these boards is demonstrably weak and the «science» is markedly simplistic and amateurish.

Since doing so is singularly inappropriate in an article discussing logic and reason and science and how foolish people are who «believe» in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming on the basis of weak but positive evidence, I think that it is absolutely appropriate to criticize this as a serious weakness in the overall presentation.

# 62: What has been glossed over, or completely ignored in media reports about this study is that Tim Barnett told an annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science «climate models based on air temperature are weak because most of the evidence is not even there».

That signals that progress in these lawsuits isn't going to hinge on the science so much as an untested legal theory, and that's where the plaintiffs are on weak footing, according to Boutrous.

R Gates Yeah I do trust my own evaluation»cause apparently I'm an «individualist» not a «communitarian» Also I read Tonyb, Judith Curry, the Pielkes and many others who aren't part of the «consensus» but really, reading damn near everything on Sks and Real Climate turned me into a «denier» plus, my weak mind was warped by the Koch bros. and fossil fuel industry propaganda... and don't forget Limbaugh perhaps if I audit John Cook's class on the «science of climate change denialism» I can rehabilitate myself

When policymakers are still being told by experts today that the connection is somewhere between weak and tenuous, that would be just misleading them on the science.

The RICO proposal does show desperation and a very weak hand on the science.

The Hansen paper in particular is weak on science and long on supposition and alarmism.

«Matt Ridley's climate science based on weak foundations,» The Carbon Brief, April 7, 2011.

Damn that weak and insipid science that pretends that changing ocean and atmospheric circulations can have any impact on climate at all.

The supposed link between sunspots and global warming is so tenuous and has so many problems in its science, any effect sunspots have on our planet are likely to be very weak:

I like the verdict of the Economist, which found the critique «strong on contempt and sneering, but weak on substance,» and noted the strange attitude in the headline: «Science defends itself against the Skeptical Environmentalist.»

Agree, and what can help drive that is a science establishment and a political norm that treats people with respect and does not manipulate our rather weak animal brains (we are genetically very close to all other mammals, who is surprised a dog runs in a pack — then you shouldn't be surprised humans do too)-- of course I truly believe that is beyond us and our current limited evolution, we are just talkin» dogs — so... lets dream on and hope we can get better despite our great organic limitations.

These standards will prevent Wisconsin state courts from being bogged down with cases based on «junk science,» and will discourage cases of questionable merit from being brought in Wisconsin because of weaker expert opinion evidence standards.