Sentences with phrase «scientific argument against»

New Scientist, also known as Nude Socia.list [spam block avoider there] magazine, never misses the opportunity to use the derogatory phrase «climate - change deniers» in order to smear sound scientific argument against an unverifiable computer modelled catastrophe driven by harmless aerial plant food gas.

You have not a single SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT against my paper because my paper is supported by the work of all scientists, like Hottel, Leckner, Modest, Pitts & Sissom, Peixoto and Oort, Serway, etc., etc., etc..

You can try a scientific argument against the ship - buoy bias, and people may listen, but this kind of argument has no substance.

You note that «USA editorialized» — again another newspaper's view is not a scientific argument against WSJ.

And so if climate change raises civilization challenging ethical questions which imply duties, responsibilities, and obligations what questions should the press ask opponents of climate change policies when they make economic and scientific arguments against climate change policies?

Not exact matches

Your arguments, like many other I read against scientific hypothoses, is simplistic, lacking in basic logic, and displaying a vast lack of educational understanding.

Ken Ham challenged Bill Nye to a debate, even while Ken Ham continues to run from me and my proposal that he «come out» and «come clean» regarding his positions relating to my argument that so many of his followers rail against but which quite properly is able to demonstrate why it is, in part, that young - earth creation - science promoters have failed in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges.

Though it is entirely legitimate for a scientist, or anyone else, to present philosophical or theological arguments against naturalistic evolution, it can not properly be claimed that such arguments are themselves scientific ones.

Their goal is to use scientific studies to bolster arguments against giving gay and lesbian people political or civil rights.

The scientific method argument could be used against the M - Theory because some of the required evidence to prove the theory has no possible testing.

Finally, the fact that I treat with respect an idea that has much in its favor, that is believed by the great majority of scientists, that has no decisive arguments against it, and that may well turn out to be true — I am speaking here of the scientific theory called neo-Darwinism — is not «appeasement» but intellectual humility and honesty.

this blog is not working with me... I'll have to catch you guys on another post... it will not accept long post... This is my main point against the scientific method argument; it is consensus in the scientific community that most of our Universe is unseen.

The scientific method isn't an argument against «fine tuning» which is the foundation for ID; the argument to «fine tuning» is M - Theory — essentially stating our Universe isn't anything special, we just happened to evolve in the best suited Universe out of the infinite possible Universes, thus no cosmological need for God.

First, discussion of Intelligent Design's argument against neo-Darwinism is out of place in a high - school science classroom because most scientists working in the area do not accept the Intelligent Design criticism of neo-Darwinism and because understanding the scientific issues involves sophisticated arguments far beyond the capacity of nonspecialists, let alone high - school students.

Animals Australia's representative on the AWAC provided crucial input on the scientific and ethical arguments against confining sows in tiny stalls.

So if you ever want to see if we have a problem in policing related to race, pay related to gender or a problem with violence against transgender individuals, in all of those cases it becomes impossible to make a scientific argument — because if those categories are never recorded in official documents, you can never do the data collection to show what's true.

I am strictly against reproductive cloning, at the same time arguing in favour of a certain research field with the primary argument that it will improve the scientific and economic infrastructure in Germany.

A new argument against the unilateral reduction of SLCF emissions has now been put forth in a study just published in the scientific journal PNAS.

The amount of regurgitated nonsense, logical fallacies, appalling personal comments and smears against the whole scientific community that pass for argument on WUWT and similar, simply preclude most reasonable conversations on the subject.

The argument that a plant - based diet being more the Paleolithic norm is still unconvincing and goes against most scientific studies.

This summary presents the main arguments against a legal ban on declawing (of cats and other animals), and the documented, scientific facts about each one — as opposed to the opinions expressed by the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) and various other...

The amount of regurgitated nonsense, logical fallacies, appalling personal comments and smears against the whole scientific community that pass for argument on WUWT and similar, simply preclude most reasonable conversations on the subject.

The coalition did, however, as the article reported, remove from an internal report by the scientific advisory committee a section that said that «contrarian» theories of why global temperatures appeared to be rising «do not offer convincing arguments against the conventional model of greenhouse gas emission - induced climate change.»

My first degree in is Physics, and I do from time to time comment directly on scientific issues, but nevertheless I think it is fair to say that the main thrust of my posted arguments against people like yourself and, indeed Nic Lewis, is more political than scientific.

It should be abandoned in favor of a more traditional review that presents arguments for and against — which would better support scientific progress, and be more useful for policy makers.»

The basic insights of post-positivist science are common knowledge, and along with other social insights, not an argument against the scientific evidence for AGW.

Professor Curry has recommended that the scientific consensus - seeking process be abandoned in favour of a more traditional review that presents arguments for and against, and discusses the uncertainties.

I have recommended that the scientific consensus seeking process be abandoned in favor of a more traditional review that presents arguments for and against, discusses the uncertainties, and speculates on the known and unknown unknowns.

Therefore, it must also be necessary to argue directly against the world - view that motivated this original goal — and scientific arguments alone can not achieve that.

The fact of the matter is if it was a scientific argument the people that argued for a sensitivity of 2C would be aligned with those arguing for 1C against those arguing for sensitivities of 5C and 6C.

Another argument presented against advocacy implicitly appears in Tasmin Edwards Guardian piece, relating to perceived scientific authority and the potential dangers of promoting values from such a position.

This suggests the scientific community may be susceptible to arguments against climate change even when they know them to be false.

I think Michael Criton has made the best argument and comparison to commonly accepted «truths» of the scientific community, that were later found to be incorrect; most recently the stomach ulcer causes actually discovered against the entire gastroenterological medical community.

These false arguments are used when one has few or no facts to support one's viewpoint against a scientific consensus or against overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Given the magnitude of potential harms from climate change, those who make skeptical arguments against the mainstream scientific view on climate change have a duty to submit skeptical arguments to peer - review, acknowledge what is not in dispute about climate change science and not only focus on what is unknown, refrain from making specious claims about mainstream science of climate change such as the entire scientific basis for climate change has been completely debunked, and assume the burden of proof to show that emissions of greenhouse gases are benign.

If you don't have the scientific knowledge to demonstrate the change will be safe then that's a very fine argument against doing it.

(See, for example, Ethical Issues Entailed By Economic Arguments Against Climate Change Policies, The original organizations that sought to undermine public support on climate policies by exaggerating scientific uncertainty have expanded to include ideological think tanks, front groups, Astroturf groups (i.e., groups organized by industry that pretend to be a legitimate grassroots organization), and PR firm led campaigns.

There's no doubt that the very predetermined purpose of the IPCC was to selectively look for arguments against the carbon dioxide and give these arguments a scientific image.

Drawing on case studies of past environmental debates such as those over acid rain and ozone depletion, science policy experts Roger Pielke Jr. and Daniel Sarewitz argue that once next generation technologies are available that make meaningful action on climate change lower - cost, then much of the argument politically over scientific uncertainty is likely to diminish.26 Similarly, research by Yale University's Dan Kahan and colleagues suggest that building political consensus on climate change will depend heavily on advocates for action calling attention to a diverse mix of options, with some actions such as tax incentives for nuclear energy, government support for clean energy research, or actions to protect cities and communities against climate risks, more likely to gain support from both Democrats and Republicans.

Here, I broaden the enquiry of conspiracism to embrace an analysis of the (pseudo --RRB- scientific arguments that are advanced against the scientific consensus on climate change, and how they contrast with the positions of the scientific mainstream.

With very few exceptions, the US press has utterly failed to cover climate change as an ethical and moral issue while focusing on the scientific and economic arguments against taking action that have been made by opponents of US climate change policies for almost 30 years.

Some of the arguments against climate change policies based upon scientific uncertainty should and can be responded to on scientific grounds especially in light of the fact that many claims about scientific uncertainty about human - induced warming are great distortions of mainstream climate change science.

Jan writes «You can't logically or empirically refute the results of a scientific study, of any scientific study, by applying ad hominem arguments against the authors of the study.»

Later entries in this series will identify questions that should be asked to counter arguments made against national climate change policies on the basis of scientific uncertainty and unfairness or ineffectiveness if China or another large ghg emitter nation do not act.

These questions are organized according to the most frequent arguments made against climate change policies which are claims that climate change policies: (a) will impose unacceptable costs on a national economy or specific industries or prevent nations from pursuing other national priorities, (b) should not be adopted because of scientific uncertainty about climate change impacts, or (c) are both unfair and ineffective as long as high emitting nations such as China or India do not adopt meaningful ghg emissions reduction policies.

I agree that arguments against pollution controls often hinge on the scientific uncertainties, of which there are always many, instead of the body of evidence and the price of doing nothing.

Nominally «scientific» arguments against taking anthropogenic climate change seriously have been publicized to reach informed but ideologically receptive audiences.

Fourth some arguments against climate change policies on the basis of scientific uncertainty often rest on the ethically dubious notion that nothing should be done to reduce a threat that some are imposing on others until all uncertainties are resolved.

For all of these reasons, arguments against taking action to reduce the threat of climate change based upon scientific uncertainty fail to pass minimum ethical scrutiny.

The freedom of scientific research is often cited as an argument against robust governance of geoengineering research.