Sentences with phrase «valid science even»

Second, the CIC has never proven that this hypothesis is valid science even though they are the ones arguing for huge public expenditures to implement their desired policies.

Not exact matches

I seriously doubt you understand science or even basic math, since what you post is so easily shredded, they do not have valid math, nor any valid science, and misrepresent science and twist logic.

It's always amusing to read in the «skept - o - sphere,» the thousands and thousands and thousands of comments on the subject of whether there is a «consensus» and even more interestingly, precisely how big that «consensus» is, from people who say that the noting the existence of a «consensus» is not only a fallacious argument, but that in fact noting that there is a «consensus» is antithetical to the valid practice of science.

Lacking valid SCIENCE «temperature reconstruction» can only remain a concept, as a THEORY requires valid construction, which even the «Greenhouse Theory» does NOT have, and it is NOT sufficient to cite «validation» of that theory incorporated as the USE of such needs Theory also requires to REMAIN valid.

There is also NOTHING to validly produce ANY link of, or even a natural process of, a «greenhouse effect» or related concepts to ANY «warming» process, and most certainly NOT any valid link to «climate change» that utilises the SCIENCE of the materials such «greenhouse opinion» attempts to involve.

The tragedy is, that if you really do have evidence of AGW, this will forever be doubted if you can't apply the normal rules of science to weed out past mistakes — even if they did show a trend that you think is valid!

There is not infact even any valid «historical temperature record» beyond ~ 250 years that is made within the requirements of valid SCIENCE.

We could debate, until the cows come in, whether law's «valid» is, needs to be, or even ought to be, the same as science's (writ large)» valid».