Sentences with phrase «points against scientists»

Midgley is not hostile to religion and scores points against scientists and others who think that theology has not changed since the condemnation of Galileo.

Not exact matches

Indeed, the animal rights movement's fury against the speciesist use of animals» a necessary element for human flourishing, particularly in medical research» has increased to the point that scientists are now under threat of death by the most radical liberationists for daring to experiment on rats or monkeys to find cures for cancer and other human afflictions.

Although scientists behave as if their theories are facts, often arguing ferociously against critics, key paradigms of science can shift rapidly and fundamentally when empirical evidence reaches a tipping point.

The point is illustrated by the logic which the National Academy of Sciences employed to persuade the Supreme Court that «creation - scientists» should not be given an opportunity to present their case against the theory of evolution in science classes.

New Scientist echoed the point in an editorial: «If the purpose of the Microbiological Research Establishment is to learn to make vaccines and devise other measures to protect the country against man - made epidemics — just as we try to protect ourselves against influenza or measles — then there is every reason to bring the establishment under the Ministry of Health» («Porton — the infection spreads», 30 May 1968).

In a verdict that U.K. scientists see as a turning point in efforts to protect animal researchers against illegal attacks, a British court yesterday convicted four people of conspiring to blackmail companies that supply an animal testing laboratory.

These findings point to promising avenues for the development of new therapeutics against MS, report scientists from the University of Chicago in Nature Communications on Mar. 13.

The scientists who argue against an addiction model of obesity make reasonable points, and I also fear that the term «addiction» comes loaded with unhelpful preconceptions.

Other scientists have pointed to coat - color mismatch against snowless ground as a cause for recent range decreases of hares, ptarmigan and other species.

On Monday, a U.K. court convicted four animal - rights activists of threatening companies that supply an animal testing laboratory, a verdict that U.K. scientists see as a turning point in efforts to protect animal researchers against illegal attacks.

On its own, the color of your linens probably isn't going to inoculate you against an infestation, the scientists point out (though they're not ruling out that possibility yet).

While shark - like lawyers and a befuddled mad - scientist play fast and loose with the finer points of facts, Nick is tasked with not so much refining tobacco's image, as changing the premise of the argument against smoking.

Taking «backfire effect» as a starting point — a phrase coined to describe how people often maintain or even strengthen their beliefs when given factual evidence against them — Tillmans has interviewed scientists, politicians, journalists, and social workers in an effort to understand the political climate in recent decades, with a particular focus on right - wing populism and fake news.

Taking as a starting point the «backfire effect» — a phrase coined to describe how people often maintain or even strengthen their beliefs when given factual evidence against them — Tillmans interviewed scientists, politicians, journalists, and social workers in an effort to understand changes in the international political climate in recent decades, with a particular focus on right - wing populism and fake news.

The associations I point to among the man - caused global warming promoters is really just a secondary problem, with the relevance being simply to amplify the core problem: nobody corroborates the corruption accusation against skeptic scientists, and it has been devoid of evidence to prove it true from its inception.

But that will have to wait for other posts, while the basic point comes down to this: no matter which angle Gelbspan's accusation against skeptic climate scientists is viewed, it is full of holes.

Two points: 1) An update on the Lamar Smith affair (which I continue to regard as a politically motivated witchhunt): «About 600 scientists and engineers, including former employees of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), have signed on to letters urging the head of that agency, Kathryn Sullivan, to push back against political interference in science.

Moore has provided an explicit voice in the fabricated non-debate over climate science, where scientists are pinned against industry talking points and cherrypicked data (see clip provided by ThinkProgress).

Seeing their beliefs shaken and a possible victory of the denialists, their words, they started to smash the dirtiest vitriol against scientists that were trying to make their point.

That said, I don't retract my main point which is that the Academy needs to take a much more vigorous line against the attacks on science and individual scientists which have become a pervasive feature of Australian political commentary.

Now, because of posts like this, I predict that you and a few dozen others will go down in scientific history on this topic, relative to defense of scientific integrity and freedom on an issue that spent the better part of a generation devolving to the point where RICO cases are suggested against dissenting scientists and corporations and «skeptics» are obliquely likened to Holocaust «deniers».

Meanwhile, the vast majority of climate scientists still agree the data on global warming is solid, despite the setback of «Climategate» — a set of highly controversial, private e-mails among climate researchers that were hacked from a university server that point to possible cases of misconduct and that climate skeptics have touted as the «smoking gun» against climate change, though no scientific fraud was revealed.

``... it is the method of those on the losing side of the scientific debate (particularly when the debate involves strongly - held ideological positions) to claim that the scientists have colluded against their point - of - view and unfairly excluded it.»

They rely, in other words, on narrowing the range of acceptable public debate to the point that even alleged havens of free inquiry like Columbia University begin endorsing the unleashing of legal force against critics of publicly funded climate scientists.

For people like Borenstein, the one last thing to ask in this whole exercise is what the breaking point must be for him and other mainstream media reporters regarding their faith in Gelbspan's ability to defend his basic accusation against skeptic climate scientists and all his narratives surrounding it.

Since Bookbinder is both currently a litigator in a set of global warming lawsuits against industries which supposedly paid «shill scientists» to lie, and was involved in a similar way back in 2010 as the Mother Jones article points out, those are relevant questions to ask.

Roger Pielke Jr., ever ready to defend McIntyre against real climate scientists exonerated McIntyre, pointing to a belated clarification from McIntyre:

cerescokid, you can put it up against the Paltridge post, where Paltridge goes through all the skeptic talking points but gives no solid science, and this program showing the scientists doing the work and explaining the physical basis.

However, railing against scientists as «alarmists» or religious fanatics merely for pointing out the consequences of their research hardly seems like the attitude of an open mind.

As Spencer points out, climate scientists have redefined the terms on poor electric engineers: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/04/when-is-positive-feedback-really-negative-feedback/ There are good arguments to be made against high positive feedback, but «instability» isn't one of them.

Your missing my point, the issue here is the ability of a scientist to use a cherry picked piece of science as a case against global warming, not regional variability in relation to natural variation.

Meanwhile, a recent study by the Union of Concerned Scientists could provide another valuable talking point in the argument against nuclear power.

One effective (and under utilized) argument against this line of attack is to point out that no professional organization that has adopted a position statement on climate change has dissented from the consensus view of climate scientist.

It also includes a specific response to many false points in Allegre's book (pdf document, 63 pages, in French) as well as a list of denigration against climate scientists (including their control on scientific journals distorting the peer review process!).

At this point the scientist in question is at risk of inserting their value system (or being perceived to do so) and should go out of their way to assure others of the precautions taken to guard against this possible corruption of the outcome.

The scientists» letter points out that forests absorb and store carbon dioxide, playing a key role in the fight against climate change.