Sentences with phrase «than scientific agenda»

It underscores the political rather than the scientific agenda.

I never read anything that guy says because I long ago concluded that he was driven by a political rather than a scientific agenda.

The IPCC failures are no surprise and inevitable because of the political rather than scientific agenda exposed in the first 6000 emails.

Not exact matches

However, he says, pharmaceutical giants often have their own agendas and sometimes offer less scientific freedom than do universities.

Having published more than 50 peer - reviewed scientific articles, Brody and the Institute are generating a body of evidence that supports a policy agenda for breast cancer prevention.

The lead scientist played by Michael Stuhlbarg certainly has a different agenda than the military, whose focus seems to be more on preventing the Russians (closer than you think) from stealing the asset than in actually seizing the rare scientific opportunity for advancement.

It is you, far more than the Royal Society, who are guilty of putting a rigid political agenda ahead of scientific integrity.

Better than most works on the subject, which tend to assume too much knowledge on the part of the reader, Steele's very readable book makes clear the workings of natural weather and climate processes, in turn making clear the extent to which global warming alarmism is based on opportunistic hype and the relentless pursuit of a political — not a scientific — agenda.

It is agenda - driven, a political rather than scientific body, and some allege it is corrupt.

If you think I have an agenda other than working the scientific and systems angles, you are sadly mistaken.

I will not go into depth here but for anyone wanting some real and honest science rather than cult faith you should look into the whys and wherefores of clouds, and not just the work of Svensmark but all reputable scientific sources who do not have an agenda of self - interest (usually income or reputation based on past work — pride is a great influence on perception) with regards to the ever variable climate.

What makes a question about the reasoning of someone who believes that ID is a «scientific theory,» based on «scientific evidence» become more or less of a «red meat diversion» than someone who believes that a climate scientist is driven by a «pissant leftist» agenda, or career aspirations, or a dogmatic devotion to the «religion of AGW?»

Republican Lamar Smith, chairman of the committee, opened the hearing by saying «alarmist predictions amount to nothing more than wild guesses» and that «much of climate science today seems to be based more on exaggerations, personal agendas and questionable predictions than on the scientific methods.»

But we can't, as they have categorically proven to be driven by agendas other than scientific truth.

There is a big difference between a private company employing a leading expert, and the IPCC employing a political activist who reviewed and published his own work grey literature (non peer reviewed) which amounted to little more than an advert for his own industry and by doing so helped push the IPCC's political agenda and fill his own bank balance, but also failed to provide any independent scientific evidence of a way forward.

The reason that we are having these mud wrestling contests, primarily divided along political lines rather than scientific lines, is because while the data hasn't cooperated with the premise (TOE up, down and sideways while CO2 increases monotonically), one political faction has proceeded exactly as if the «causality was settled» decades ago and, conveniently, provided justification for the political actions that have been and continue to be taken to advance its agenda while citing the «settled causality» as justification.

Here we have the empirical proof that the positivist should welcome: institutional science is evidentially more easily influenced by politics than are an array of independent researchers, whether or not they are scientifically trained, because they are free to speak out of turn without fear; institutional science can not check itself for political prejudice and deviation from scientific consensus; climate sceptics can and do successfully challenge institutional science; the problems of the climate debate are problems caused absolutely and entirely by the excesses of institutional science and its proximity to political agendas.

«It is clear that some of the «world's leading climate scientists,» as they are always described, are more dedicated to promoting the alarmist political agenda than in scientific research.

While universities are much more liberal than govt and it would be pretty astonishing for a faculty member not to get tenure owing to «stepping up», the time drain alone might be sufficient to diminish the faculty members publication list, and scientific peers tend to become somewhat suspicous of scientists that «step up» and may consider them to be light weights, have an agenda, etc..