Sentences with phrase «using junk science»

The snake oil salesman will not accept science that says his product is worthless, nor will the climate scientists accept that they are using junk science to produce fear mongering.

You are just another militant group who is using junk science to promote a false premisse.

We did not get to the moon in the 1960s by using junk science!

The evidence and the grassroots have for years been consistent about federal overreach, obvious pay - for - play and a regrettable revolving door that recycles corporate puppets of elite donors to experiment on live children using junk science while ignoring proven educators.

Consensus Climate Theory uses junk science to make it cold and then they create snow while water is already frozen and there is no source for snow.

Not exact matches

We use science in our daily lives and actual scientific proof for almost everything we do in life, but we accept an imaginary friend such as God as the absolute truth and want to make everyone eat that junk like it's the universal truth.

And in my kids» science class I often hear of junk - food - based projects like the one that used corn syrup, red hots, and other candy to demonstrate the circulatory system.

The American Statistical Association and other research groups have issued serious cautions about using test scores to measure teacher effectiveness, with some concluding it is junk science.»

The weight of evidence demonstrates that the use of standardized tests in teacher evaluations is junk science.

This policy happens to be the linchpin of Race to the Top, and its use is now commonplace in most states, despite the fact that the research base for it is not only weak but indicates that the current use of VAM is junk science.

Today our Measures of Student Learning Committee met to decide precisely how thoroughly invalid junk science measures will be used to rate teachers in Francis Lewis High School.

By the way, if you guys really believe that, as an expert told you, «newspapers essentially never use op ed space for op eds directly rebutting other op eds,» then maybe it'd be better to offer to engage the denialists» larger themes anyway: their junk science, their tarring of you all as «alarmists,» their idea that what's genuinely alarming is really only the concoction of a «science - journalism complex.»

The political agenda set back in the 1970s was to demonize CO2 using unproven, junk science and, knowing that we can not stop using carbon - based fuels, commandeer our energy while claiming to save the planet.

Junk science is even being invented to justify the alleged existence of environmental problems and then used to attack anyone who dares to differ from the «environmental» orthodoxy.

Often justified largely on the basis of junk science they have come up with such wonderful policy prescriptions as using only unreliable sources of energy because they are «sustainable,» keeping natural resources in the ground rather than using them to meet human needs, having government tell manufacturers what requirements their products must meet to use less energy rather than encouraging manufacturers to meet the needs of their customers, all in the name of «energy efficiency,» substituting government dictates for market solutions on any issue related to energy use, and teaching school children junk science that happens to meet «environmentalists» ideological beliefs in hopes of perpetuating these beliefs to future generations even though they do not conform to the scientific method, the basis of science.

Its use to explicate the actions of individuals is junk science.

In February, climate analyst and MacArthur «genius» grant recipient Peter Gleick admitted using a false identity to obtain and distribute files that provided a detailed picture of the finances and plans of the Heartland Institute, an anti-regulatory think tank that calls climate research «junk science.»

A closed circle of EPA and IPCC reviewers — accompanied by a massive taxpayer - funded public relations and propaganda campaign — must no longer be allowed to rubberstamp junk science that is used to justify federal diktats.

Even using the term «denial,» PROVES it is junk - science; since science NEVER «denies» a proposed hypothesis; it simply REJECTS it in favor of the Null Hypothesis if not scientifically demonstrated.

This is the kind of Junk Science you would SCREAM about if it were used to debunk AGW!!

Admission: NASA's Gavin Schmidt acknowledges apples - oranges fakery in Marcott «new» hokey stick — Via Junk Science: Insufficient data used as an excuse (again) for fakery.

Via Junk Science: Insufficient data used as an excuse (again) for fakery.

According to its 2010 Prospectus, Heartland opposes ``... junk science and the use of scare tactics in the areas of environmental protection and public health».

Otherwise, we junk up the argument with stuff that has nothing to do with climate science and it's use in proving CAGW warming in the future.

It is not how we are using the Nuclear Power Plants that we have, it is how we are not building the ones we need because of junk CO2 science.

But, the «Original Sin» associated with the heterogeneous mess of the surface temperature record was perpetrated by James Hansen et el in the early 1980's when they decided to use the surface temperature record to prove and / or justify their «junk science» claims of CO2 causing Anthropogenic Global Warming / Climate Change.

Notably, the term «Junk Science» was often used by by Steve «The Junkman» Milloy.

But this is not what's being said by many / most Republican members of Congress who are using terms to the American Public of hoax, junk science, and quoting the Bible (in hearings on science of all places).

The Climate change lie isn't the only lie out there, the anti-tobacco plan of attack is what these climate nutz have been using of late to push their agenda and the use of epidemiology and its junk science results........

Not only did you attack my comment on the basis of my fairly offhand reference to hydrocarbon formation, (my intial comment primarily related to the dead zone off the Oregon coast and its possible causes and effects) you used my comment to claim that this website, which is one of the few places where unbiased scientific discussion of global warming appears outside of strictly academic circles, has «way too much junk science».

He has a young son, so this is most unfortunate as he has an excellent bully pulpit, but uses it for giving voice to the most amazing junk science.

The term «junk science», as used in political and legal disputes in the United States, brands an advocate's claims about scientific data, research, analyses as spurious.

For example, the tobacco industry has used the term «junk science» to describe research demonstrating the harmful effects of smoking and second - hand smoke, through the vehicle of various «astroturf groups».

This is junk science that will be used maliciously.

The JunkScience.com describes «Junk Science» as «faulty scientific data and analysis used to advance special interests and hidden agendas.»

He says prosecutors used many fire science myths to convict Lee, and that the conviction was «the ultimate triumph of junk science.»

But there's still no assurance that junk science won't be used in court to convict an innocent person of an arson - related offense.

One expert quoted in the article calls this use «junk science».

In other words, a «junk science» approach to decision - making was used to prevent the claimant from being recognised as refugee.

You can convey my equal displeasure at the hackneyed and stilted language in this article, dead metaphors and the gratuitous use of junk science.

Bringing you fun and educational ideas to use with your children: kids activities, kids crafts, art and creativity, sensory and messy play, junk modelling, kids cooking, kids gardening, science, maths and literacy ideas, homeschool.

The terms used in this piece (real father, etc.) are utter junk science.