The atheistic scientists oppress other
scientists against evidences.
Not exact matches
Mr. Hawking wins easy battles
against uneducated (in science) religious persons, but taking his statement on perspective, He is based on assumptions with serious underlying problems, basically everything from mathematics, to the incompatibility of quantum mechanics and relativity, and the lack of proof and
evidence for string theories, he is launching a very aggressive statement, probably his last effort on life to counter the anthropomorphic ideas of God, and this is very common in all
scientists.
Scientists, for their part, especially those in the scientific community with burdens
against religion, need to understand that the nature of scientific
evidence, method and hypotheses and the nature of theological
evidence, method, and hypothesis have more in common than they might imagine.
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.
No, I wasted 5 hours listening to him rehash the same old and tired lines about why he believes and how everyone will burn in hell and how there is all this «real» scientific «
evidence,» but the
scientists and the media won't talk about it because they want us to turn
against god.
BRC, there is no
evidence?!?! what an uneducated statement, there are hundreds / thousands of books and studies, research by thousands of
scientists, some christians some not... evolution is REAL... it's a proven theory and i would put that
against your ONE book that was written when everyone thought the earth was flat.
When Time magazine senior editor Jeffrey Kluger contacted the authors of some of the studies cited by William Sears for an article he wrote in May 2012, the
scientists said it was unfair that Sears had used their work as
evidence against sleep training.
Ornstein called on
scientists to be vigilant
against false information and
evidence - free arguments.
Generally
scientists have thought autophagy protects
against cancer, although some
evidence suggests it can help tumor cells cope with nutrient scarcity and other stresses.
But the
evidence may be thin: «The indictment
against Xi details activities that seem commonplace to people familiar with the interactions between overseas Chinese
scientists and their native land.»
«Our results provide the first
evidence that blood promotes T cell responses
against the brain,» says first author Jae Kyu Ryu, PhD, a staff research
scientist at the Gladstone Institutes.
When powerful people of any political leaning go
against the
evidence, New
Scientist can not turn a blind eye
Ivermectin, the established drug which successfully treats the infection, is known to be effective
against minor damage caused to the front of the eye by the worm, but until now
scientists had very little clear
evidence about the drug's role in preventing more serious effects of infection, in particular damage to the optic nerve.
This fresh
evidence could help
scientists and breeders especially in arming crop plants
against a swathe of emerging diseases.
A jury assessing
evidence against a defendant, a CEO evaluating information about a company or a
scientist weighing data in favor of a theory will undergo the same cognitive process.
Heuer also suggested that
scientists who engage with the public emphasize what principles they are for, such as striving for verifiable
evidence, rather than what they are
against.
All I can do is to say a few things (as above) about what I consider to be a feasible astronomical model which might fit
against the YD event
evidence, if the latter survives verification by
scientists who do understand its basis.
Heat trapping greenhouse - gas emissions are the obvious culprit, since they've increased dramatically over that same 50 years, but
scientists prefer hard
evidence to presumption, so a team from the British Antarctic Survey has been drilling into ancient ice to see how the current warming stacks up
against what happened in the ancient past.
«Some
scientists believe there is not enough
evidence to recommend for or
against taking a daily multivitamin, because there isn't yet enough data from randomized controlled trials.
«The 1999 FDA - approved health claim pleased big business, despite massive
evidence showing risks associated with soy, and
against the protest of the FDA's own top
scientists.
There is a growing body of
evidence from serious
scientists like Dr. Ravnskov and medical research professionals that show the whole war
against cholesterol to be completely misguided.
Against Kingsley Amis» skeptical assertion that «time travel is inconceivable,» Gleick adduces impressive
evidence that the phenomenon has tantalized novelists, philosophers, poets,
scientists, moviemakers, and even cartoonists as a transformative possibility.
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.
Especially when going up
against the overwhelming
evidence compiled by a consensus of 97 % of
scientists who study climate as their career.
This also goes
against the idea of
scientists» opinions being entirely based on objective analysis of the
evidence, and concurs with previous studies that have shown
scientists» opinions on topics to vary along with their political orientation,» writes survey author Neil Stenhouse of George Mason University.
Lesson 3 examines how
scientists gather data about climate change and finally lesson 4 examines the
evidence for and
against global warming.
It makes the
scientist weigh
evidence against renown instead of relevance, and the framing of key questions
against prudent self - preservation.
«But more than 15 sections in Chapter 8 of the report — the key chapter setting out the scientific
evidence for and
against a human influence over the climate — were changed or deleted after the
scientist charged with examining this question had accepted the supposedly final text...» — Dr. Frederick Seitz commenting on the IPCC Second Assessment Report, The Wall Street Journal, June 12, 1996
You have claimed to investigate
evidence for or
against AGW, but you have mostly only provided
evidence or
against for GW... bad
scientist, no cookies.
Joe, you mention that «Lewandowsky falsely linked climate skeptics to moon landing hoaxism, and free marketeers to rejection of beliefs they overwhelmingly endorsed» Far worse, his compatriot Prof David Karoly falsely linked skeptics to an (imaginary) «relentless campaign» of electronic death threats
against Australian climate
scientists, none of which Karoly deigned or was asked to produce as
evidence despite the fact that he was alleging the existence of a serious (and despicable) criminal conspiracy.
With most
scientists now recognizing that the jihad
against CO2 emissions was not really supportable by the empirical
evidence, new scientific efforts are being conducted to determine what are the major factors influencing global warming / cooling.
Unlike your ideologically fuelled and baseless smears
against climate
scientists, Wegman's case involves clear and compelling
evidence of misconduct.
50
Scientists:
Evidence Leans Heavily
Against Man - Made Global Warming
The plain simple truth is that decent
scientists whose only «crime» is to happen to find
evidence against doomsday global warming are constantly being prevented from publishing, from getting grants and are then being libelled by people such as this ******.
If I am a
scientist who believes I am right am I more fearful of the possibility of prison from a charge measured a standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, or financial / professional ruin from a charge measured
against preponderance of the
evidence?
There seems to be a popular perception that if a
scientist has an opinion about a scientific topic, then they have carefully analysed the data and rigorously assessed the
evidence for and
against that opinion.
At first, many will argue
against it, but eventually, as
evidence piles up, the
scientists will come to terms with the new idea, and use it as the default position.
Rob I think the difference is that the real
scientist takes on board the
evidence presented
against his theory and either adjusts the theory or abandons it.
no matter what the
evidence against, the theory is correct or the» I am not going to give you my data as you will poke holes in it»... that sort of position indicates the «
scientist» has gone missing.
«It is especially important that, despite a deluge of allegations and smears
against the CRU, this independent group of utterly reputable
scientists have concluded that there was no
evidence of any scientific malpractice,» he said.
But look at the
evidence of those closest to bearing the real costs: private US insurers — those who place real bets indemnifying
against property loss — unlike the supposedly more serious
scientists — are unmoved by ACW: «The American Insurance Association, which represents 400 property and casualty insurers, says the debate about global warming has not been resolved.
Do you think that the fact that there is still considerable debate on the web (including by some people who are
scientists and engineers) in regards to evolution means that there is legitimate scientific
evidence against it?
Yet the very person whose past is exposed is making allegations of deceit and manipulation of
evidence, use of propaganda
against climate
scientists and the IPCC, the NAS and other science orgs, and these charges stand and are repeated!
This abysmal failure to show us all absolute
evidence of illicit money exchanged for fabricated, demonstratively false science papers / assessments is the proverbial «mathematical certainty «that dooms the accusation, and places the whole idea of man - caused global warming in peril of sinking if its promoters can not defend their position
against science - based criticism from skeptic
scientists.
An elemental question begs to be corroborated in more than one way for sheer fairness: When the main pushers of the idea that the «reposition global warming» phrase insinuate it is proof of an industry - led disinformation effort employing crooked skeptic climate
scientists — Naomi Oreskes saying it indicates a plot to supply «alternative facts,» Gelbspan saying it is a crime
against humanity, and Al Gore implying it is a cynical oil company effort — are they truly oblivious to the necessity of corroborating whether or not that phrase and the memo subset it came from actually had widespread corrupting influence, or did they push this «
evidence» with malice knowing it was worthless?
His own citations only seem to fuel the fire regarding a enviro - activist misinformation campaign
against skeptic climate
scientists that's entirely based on just one single set of worthless
evidence.
To recap: Ross Gelbspan accuses a prominent skeptic
scientist of being involved in a global warming «misinformation campaign», and he claims a key «leaked memo» phrase he supposedly found is the smoking gun
evidence for his overall accusation
against skeptic
scientists.
Start dissecting their narratives, comparing them side - by - side while looking for physical
evidence corroborating Ross Gelbspan's «industry corruption» accusation
against skeptic climate
scientists, and a very different picture becomes clear: these people's narratives don't line up right, they collectively have no
evidence backing up their accusation, and this prompts serious questions of whether core leaders of the global warming movement are totally oblivious to this situation, or if they knew their narratives had no merit from the start.