Sentences with phrase «pseudoscientific victorianisms»

Because they often are shut down, suspicious, or aggressive they now receive pseudoscientific diagnoses such as «oppositional defiant disorder,» meaning «This kid hates my guts and won't do anything I tell him to do,» or «disruptive mood dysregulation disorder,» meaning he has temper tantrums.

At least one independent scientific organization has called the syndrome a pseudoscientific theory.

From racist pseudoscientific theories that suggested we were the missing link between apes and humans to the notion that we were a retrogressed or dying race.

Was * any * real work actually done on the report, or was it an unfiltered list of criticisms already made by M&M padded out with copied texts and pseudoscientific social network theory?

It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.

Pseudoscientific concepts: Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims Over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation Lack of openness to testing by other experts Absence of progress Personalization of issues Use of misleading language http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

To sell them, the advertising industry had to create pseudoscientific maladies like «bad breath» and «body odor.

As Hal Lewis said, «trillions» of dollars are what is moving this global warming scam, the biggest «pseudoscientific fraud» in his long life as a physicist.

Many skeptics likewise consider homeopathy, a growing CAM approach, as pseudoscientific «mumbo - jumbo.»

The American Physical Society strenuously disagreed, saying «In light of the significant settled aspects of the science, APS totally rejects Dr. Lewis» claim that global warming is a «scam» and a «pseudoscientific fraud.»»

I have been waiting for a decade for anybody to explain to me why IPCC «illustrative scenarios» can be considered as being anything other than political propoganda generated by pseudoscientific trash.

No introduction needed to this Driessen masterpiece, other than to say the article sums up nicely how modern environmentalism has nurtured a regime of government funded, pseudoscientific endeavour that has fuelled man - made global warming hysteria.

I mean the temperature manipulators at NASA GISS, NOAA, BoM et al., and the sycophant mainstream, climate - obsessed media who spruik their «Super-Hot Arctic», «Hottest Year Evah» pseudoscientific propaganda PR BS.

Except of course is far less of a leap than any linear extrapolation, such as Monckton's really simple (and really pseudoscientific) linear projections.

Max, the fun on the blogsites is dwarfed by seriousness of the politicians who want to waste perfectly good resources tilting at windmills and funding the pseudoscientific IPCC.

It is a sure sign that one side has lost the argument in the scientific journals when they instead try to move the scientific debate out into the public sphere where they can more easily bamboozle people with their pseudoscientific arguments.

What has disturbed me for a long time is that this pseudoscientific nonsense may have a backlash that will discredit science in general, which would be tragic.

The poverty in question is energy poverty...» It is an energy poverty created by pseudoscientific advocates of global warming to fight a non-existent AGW.

You do contribute comic relief and very often great entry points for counter arguements on dumb pseudoscientific arguements.

The AAAS goes further by providing methods and mechanisms for perpetuating «the most successful pseudoscientific fraud.»

You say of Lindzen and Christy; «It is a sure sign that one side has lost the argument in the scientific journals when they instead try to move the scientific debate out into the public sphere where they can more easily bamboozle people with their pseudoscientific arguments.»

This, of course, goes beyond «health care freedom» (which itself is dubious) and is asking for taxpayer dollars to be spent on unproven and pseudoscientific treatments.

Any time you hear that phrase or see it used, call it out as pseudoscientific sophistry.

Archer and Lavie refer to one of their own studies from December 2015 in Mayo Clinic Proceedings, titled «A Discussion of the Refutation of Memory - Based Dietary Assessment Methods (M - BMs): The Rhetorical Defense of Pseudoscientific and Inadmissible Evidence.»

What honor should be bestowed on first rank scientists and other esteemed professionals in possession of well - established science who pose as if they «see no truth, hear no truth and speak no truth» regarding known causes of the clear and present danger while mainstreamed, false (preternatural, pseudoscientific) knowledge is deliberately allowed to stand unchallenged as if it represented the best available science?

Of the many pseudoscientific institutions responsible for pushing the pseudoscientific fraud of Man Made Global Warming in recent years, few have been quite so assiduous in promulgating the great lie as our own Royal Society.

[T] he data generated by memory - based dietary assessment methods (M - BMs) of nutrition epidemiology are pseudoscientific and inadmissible as scientific evidence....

---- Or mainly pseudoscientific pablum.

At best, the doubling of CO2 = 1.2 degrees warmer statement is a working assumption, at worst pseudoscientific fluff.

What you describe is exactly the outcome that Exxon - Mobil and other fossil fuel companies desire, and have achieved by their funding of right - wing propaganda mills, disguised as «think tanks», that spew a steady stream of fake, phony, pseudoscientific bunk and employ cranks and liars to create the completely false impression that there is a genuine «debate» about the reality of anthropogenic global warming.

Though nothing new from the alarmist camp, capitalising on any and every weather event to push their pseudoscientific climate agenda.

Are you suggesting there should be some sort of criminal investigation into Dr. Spencer's pseudoscientific practices?

His book Heaven and Earth, which purports to destroy the science of climate change, contains page after page of schoolboy errors and pseudoscientific gobbledegook.

But... Much stuff that is lambasted and declared OT and «pseudoscientific» here at WUWT, actually holds material that is perfectly scientifically valid, and is important for the future of science.

«Climate scientists have done a great job in pursuing their science under great political pressure, and they have tirelessly rebutted pseudoscientific arguments against their work.

As for my interest in the other side, that would be the side of light of course, while the dark side is where we find you groping about, led by the specious prognostications of AGW priests professing doom and gloom from their pseudoscientific crystal balls (aka climate models) if we don't lead a more sustainable life.

In full, pseudoscientific surround stereo: ------------------------------------------ «I take a bit of issue with this comment, ATTP: >> science doesn't work via consensus I guess that depends on exactly what facet of science you're talking about (or what you mean by «work»).»

It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long lif...

This recent post via Real Climate Science on NASA tampering of Sea - level rise highlights the blatant malfeasance that these government funded institutions will undertake in order to push the man - made global warming climate change agenda, and keep the «Greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud in history» rolling and the billions upon billions of taxpayer funds flowing...

On other blogs, one way to identify the climate skeptics is that they're the ones who talk in that dismissively pseudoscientific way.

Climate scientists have done an admirable job pursuing their science under great political pressure, and they have tirelessly rebutted pseudoscientific arguments against their work.

This five minute US congressional video highlights brilliantly the fact - free, pseudoscientific groupthink zealotry that has so dangerously infected the gullible, and inspired a trillion dollar faith - based industry we know as «climate change».

My electricity costs me more than it ought to, because of what Hal Lewis has described as a «pseudoscientific fraud».

The climate alarmist trolls are angry and in meltdown because their cherished CatastrophicAGW - by - CO2 climate cult religion is being exposed for the pseudoscientific scam / hoax / fraud / lie that it is.

This also raises the pseudoscientific question, what difference does this difference in targets make?

I really donâ $ ™ t see how anybody can argue against that (unless one heads into serious pseudoscientific territory).

The real message here is that the folks who produced this official pseudoscientific garbage need to be stopped.

Clearly, you are much more impressed by the pseudoscientific sophistry and outright lies that you have gleaned from ideologically and / or financially motivated denialists.

Could anything be more out of date, backward - looking, or antiquated in spirit than the Carlin report's repackaging of yesterday's denialist illusions and pseudoscientific nonsense about climate — fantasies that have been shot down time and again, that don't have a melting Greenland glacier's chance in a warming climate when exposed to the light of reason, yet which have been presented to the world as if they were a brilliant refutation of the CO2 - global warming link by the sharpest analytical minds in the field of climatological research?

It takes apart Ferenc Miskolczi's pseudoscientific paper which is getting so much play from the denialists lately.