Sentences with phrase «skeptical science»

Skeptical science refers to a mindset where people doubt or question scientific claims, theories, or findings before fully accepting them. It involves taking a cautious and critical approach towards scientific information to ensure its accuracy and reliability. Full definition
If you feel there is a problem with an article on Skeptical Science then post a comment on the relevant thread with supportive citations.
The quality of most of the «expert» testimony was quite poor, and as mentioned above, will result in numerous Skeptical Science blog post responses.
GCMs have oceanographic components — see Kate's Skeptical Science post for a useful and accessible discussion of the architecture of climate models — which surely include currents as part of their «dynamical» modelling.
The research for the paper was done by a team of unpaid non-specialist volunteers of students and industrial and academic scientists, along with other enthusiasts and the funding for its publication was raised by donations from Skeptical Science readers.
Cook launched the popular Skeptical Science website in 2007, which debunks arguments spun by those questioning the validity of climate change and its root in human activity.
To pay the open access fee, in keeping with the citizen science approach, we asked for donations from Skeptical Science readers.
In the continuing quest to find excellent descriptions of the greenhouse effect, Eli has come across J.S. Sawyers Nature article from 1972, Man Made Carbon Dioxide and the Greenhouse Effect, which was commented on by Skeptical Science and warehoused (bunnies can read it there) by the Weasel.
Thanks to the generosity of Skeptical Science contributors we are happy to report that Cowtan and Way (2013) is now open access and freely available to the public.
# 19 David Beach: Specifically on WW2, yes, it could be — due to the role of aerosols (among other things), described in the article on mid-20th century cooling at Skeptical Science linked @ 22:
Will aim to do it tomorrow» - John Cook [Skeptical Science], November 23, 2011
(see why this is a lie) and referencing the «medieval warm period» as false proof that current temperature anomalies are normal (they aren't, see Skeptical Science for a proper debunking).
Popular debunking website Skeptical Science also looks in detail at climate sceptic myths and ranks «climate has changed before» as the most popular of all denier talking points.
It adds worthy social science topics, such as implicit denial and postmodernism, to the discussion, paired with a taste of what Skeptical Science does best.»
-LSB-...] I think there is a good chance he's going to be looked at very very differently 5 - 10 years from now» - Rob Honeycutt [Skeptical Science], September 28, 2011
I hadn't gotten around to reading Mark Richardson's «New study by Skeptical Science author finds 100 % of atmospheric CO2 rise is man - made» until this afternoon.
That World Ocean Database was brought to my attention by Ari Jokimäki over at this post at Skeptical Science where Lyman et al is also being discussed.
While we are still attempting to verify the authenticity of the file, initial scans seem to indicate the hacker has included the entire database of Skeptical Science users.
Australia About Blog Skeptical Science examines the science and arguments of global warming skepticism.
Skeptical Science provides an invaluable resource for examining each individual piece of climate evidence, so let's make use of these individual pieces to see how they form the big picture.
Otherwise you can end up in endless seesaw debates about what's going on — with this recent Skeptical Science graph demonstrating the importance of a longer view:
A History of Climate Science Skeptical Science takes a different approach to Naomi Oreskes» Science paper who sorted her papers into «explicit endorsement of the consensus position», «rejection of the consensus position» and everything else (neutral).
Skeptical Science notes that while Linzen has published a large body of peer - reviewed work, some of his points remain disputed.
In 2012, several Skeptical Science contributors teamed up with John Church to publish a paper (Nuccitelli et al. 2012) in response to a flawed publication by Douglass & Knox (2012).
Skeptical Science previously examined Epstein et al. (2011), which arrived at a much higher estimate of the external costs of coal combustion, mainly due to a higher estimate of (non-CO2) air pollution damages.
a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z