Sentences with phrase «skeptical view of the science»

Bate countered environmentalists» global warming assertions with a skeptical view of the science [2].

Not exact matches

Deservedly celebrated is Frederick Crews of the University of California who, in the New York Review of Books and in his book Skeptical Engagements, has been smiting Freudians hip and thigh, no doubt putting many psychoanalysts back on the couch to dream of the days when their declining business was viewed as a science.

But the board took a more skeptical view of the Christian Science Reading Room project, which its developers, Peter and Rebecca McCauley, already estimate will generate a nearly 11 percent return on their investment without any tax breaks, and a nearly 28 percent return if the IDA approves the $ 35,000 in incentives they are seeking.

It shows the number of articles along the y - axis, the total number of citations along the x-axis, color codes whether an individual is one of the «concerned signers» who signed any of 20 declarations affirming the mainstream view of human impact on climate and the need to limit greenhouse emissions, was one of the 619 contributing authors to IPCC AR4 wg1 (2007), «non-signer» who is one of the non-AR4-wg1 authors on climate who signed neither statement a statement of concern nor skepticism, or one of the 495 individuals who signed any of 16 declaration skeptical of mainstream climate science or of the need for GHG cuts.

In this wide - ranging, humorous talk, Seth Shostak takes a look at Star Wars and other science fiction films from the point of view of a skeptical scientist, tells stories about the movies he has been asked to advise, and muses about aliens from space and how we might make contact with them.

But the newly obtained documents show that Dr. Carlin's highly skeptical views on global warming, which have been known for more than a decade within the small unit where he works, have been repeatedly challenged by scientists inside and outside the E.P.A.; that he holds a doctorate in economics, not in atmospheric science or climatology; that he has never been assigned to work on climate change; and that his comments on the endangerment finding were a product of rushed and at times shoddy scholarship, as he acknowledged Thursday in an interview.

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:

Until the science can understand to a great degree all of these factors, I will have a skeptical view of «definitive» or «incontravertible» statements concerning climate change.

The skeptical / denier views are disparate critiques of the IPCC supported so - called «consensus / settled» climate science.

It surprises me what you say; «Accepting most of the main stream climate science, but being skeptical on EU policies might be considered a rather strongly deviating view here.»

Accepting most of the main stream climate science, but being skeptical on EU policies might be considered a rather strongly deviating view here.

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.

Far more so than, say, Skeptical Science, which prefers to stick strictly to the science (albeit only if it matches their view of it) and strictly edits any off topic discussion (unless it is by one of their acolytes) and will allow no personal criticisms or adhoms whatsoever (unless delivered against an «unbeliever», and more acceptably delivered by one of the moderScience, which prefers to stick strictly to the science (albeit only if it matches their view of it) and strictly edits any off topic discussion (unless it is by one of their acolytes) and will allow no personal criticisms or adhoms whatsoever (unless delivered against an «unbeliever», and more acceptably delivered by one of the moderscience (albeit only if it matches their view of it) and strictly edits any off topic discussion (unless it is by one of their acolytes) and will allow no personal criticisms or adhoms whatsoever (unless delivered against an «unbeliever», and more acceptably delivered by one of the moderators).

It means that it is hard to have confidence that those making such over-confident pronouncements are truly objective about what they are studying, that they are not properly «skeptical» from scientific point of view, always re-examining their assumptions and conclusions which I always believed was the bedrock of good science.

(Skeptical Science) When these politicians are asked about the basis for their positions on climate change, they almost always respond by saying such things as they «have heard that there is a disagreement among scientists» or similar responses that strongly suggest they have informed an opinion on climate change science without any understanding of the depth of the scientific evidence on which the scientific consensus view 0f climate change has beenScience) When these politicians are asked about the basis for their positions on climate change, they almost always respond by saying such things as they «have heard that there is a disagreement among scientists» or similar responses that strongly suggest they have informed an opinion on climate change science without any understanding of the depth of the scientific evidence on which the scientific consensus view 0f climate change has beenscience without any understanding of the depth of the scientific evidence on which the scientific consensus view 0f climate change has been based.

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 the mainstream science of climate change such as the entire scientific basis for climate change that has been completely debunked, and assume the burden of proof to show that emissions of greenhouse gases are benign.

The Skeptical Science page is a disappointment to me because while presenting a warmist's view on issues with a lot of information it is obviously biased and has a clear purpose of influencing rather than informing.

Of the dozens of atmospheric scientists in our state at Texas A&M, University of Texas, Rice, Texas Tech, University of Houston, etc., approximately zero of them are skeptical of this mainstream view of climate sciencOf the dozens of atmospheric scientists in our state at Texas A&M, University of Texas, Rice, Texas Tech, University of Houston, etc., approximately zero of them are skeptical of this mainstream view of climate sciencof atmospheric scientists in our state at Texas A&M, University of Texas, Rice, Texas Tech, University of Houston, etc., approximately zero of them are skeptical of this mainstream view of climate sciencof Texas, Rice, Texas Tech, University of Houston, etc., approximately zero of them are skeptical of this mainstream view of climate sciencof Houston, etc., approximately zero of them are skeptical of this mainstream view of climate sciencof them are skeptical of this mainstream view of climate sciencof this mainstream view of climate sciencof climate science.

If this skeptical view from above average educated respondents prevails and grows we need a discussion about how to repair the damage to the science profession from the bad climate science of past years.

It shows the number of articles along the y - axis, the total number of citations along the x-axis, color codes whether an individual is one of the «concerned signers» who signed any of 20 declarations affirming the mainstream view of human impact on climate and the need to limit greenhouse emissions, was one of the 619 contributing authors to IPCC AR4 wg1 (2007), «non-signer» who is one of the non-AR4-wg1 authors on climate who signed neither statement a statement of concern nor skepticism, or one of the 495 individuals who signed any of 16 declaration skeptical of mainstream climate science or of the need for GHG cuts.

The fact may be that individuals can be skeptical and hold different or similar political views in relation to the mainstream of climate science (environmentalism) and it's adherents has nothing to do with the overarching institutional structure and political persuasion of environmentalism as a social movement.

Dineen is a problem in some respects in that she is spot - on when it comes to her analyses of MHP science and related issues, but she decidedly skews her focus toward an antagonism against women's rights - type therapists without similarly critiquing «the other side», and toward an overly heavy - handedly skeptical view of sex abuse and domestic violence accusations, without any indication of a balanced consideration of the many MHP abuses on «the other side».