Sentences with phrase «sloppy science at»

Not exact matches

«The IAU's planet definition resolution is an example of science at its worst — it's sloppy internally inconsistent, and designed backwards, that is, to produce a desired result that only eight planets are in our solar system.

After following the global warming saga — science and policy — for nearly a quarter century, I've seen the biases at the journals and N.S.F. (including their press releases sometimes), in the I.P.C.C. summary process (the deep reports are mainly sloppy in some cases; the summary writing — read the climate - extinction section of this post — is where the spin lies), and sometimes in the statements and work of individual researchers (both skeptics and «believers»).

That is sloppy science, at best.

I think sloppy science happens because those at the top are letting it happen and I think they do so because the general population wasn't aware of it.

I like when in the transcript he admits that he performed «sloppy science», and then at another point he call the questioner «dude».

-- Muller believes humans are changing climate with CO2 emissions — humans have been responsible for «most» of a 0.4 C warming since 1957, almost none of the warming before then — IPCC is in trouble due to sloppy science, exaggerated predictions; chairman will have to resign — the «Climategate» mails were not «hacked» — they were «leaked» by an insider — due to «hide the decline» deception, Muller will not read any future papers by Michael Mann — there has been no increase in hurricanes or tornadoes due to global warming — automobiles are insignificant in overall picture — China is the major CO2 producer, considerably more than USA today — # 1 priority for China is growth of economy — global warming is not considered important — China CO2 efficiency (GDP per ton CO2) is around one - fourth of USA today, has much room for improvement — China growth will make per capita CO2 emissions at same level as USA today by year 2040 — if it is «not profitable» it is «not sustainable» — US energy future depends on shale gas for automobiles; hydrogen will not be a factor — nor will electric cars, due to high cost — Muller is upbeat on nuclear (this was recorded pre-Fukushima)-- there has been no warming in the USA — Muller was not convinced of Hansen's GISS temperature record; hopes BEST will provide a better record.

I've argued against the sloppy work shown in Harry's read me, and been told that busy scientists are under pressure to get results, they don't have time at the cutting edge of academe for the careful software engineering and quality control of industrial science.

I recall the presentation he gave when he announced this study (I can't find it at the moment but hoping someone else here also watched) where he stated that he human activity is the primary cause of GW, but the current (at the time) science was sloppy, thus he aimed to prove what he already suspected to be true.

«The whole cosmic ray - cloud connection is a result of sloppy science, some of it downright deceptive,» said Raymond Pierrehumbert, a climatologist at the University of Chicago.

First analyses of the report showed that it had glaring errors based on sloppy science and gross exaggerations (most of these critiques remained in the blogosphere at first).