Sentences with phrase «where consensus science»

Not exact matches

This situation is witnessed to by the fact that the only metaphysical issue where there is a virtual consensus among mainstream twentieth century Catholic thinkers, apart from the reality of human subjectivity mentioned above, is the claim that the discoveries of modern science should not have a significant influence upon metaphysics.

The area where the NBPTS ought to have the easiest time creating straightforward standards is high - school math and science teaching, where there is widespread consensus as to what teachers are supposed to do.

Climate science is so politically charged that is approaching an atmosphere where the consensus may rule with that same lack of logical rigor.

In any case, that comment creates doubt where in fact there is not a lot of controversy in the consensus view based on the best science available.

Sandalow sensibly suggested that the National Academy of Sciences be used to inform the Senate on where the consensus of the science is, and Benedick made some excellent points about how legislation can be successful in the face of scientific controversy and uncertain predictions.

In order to improve public understanding, the weight of the science coverage should be where the scientific consensus lies, not where a potential for controversy can be found.

I remember the Nurse documentary where he showed the same type of people demonstrating against GM foods and not trusting the scientific consensus were the same people that totally trusted the so called science consensus when it came to AGW.

After providing numerous examples of castigated, consensus - condemned scientists who turned out to be right, Crichton cut to the matter's heart, saying, «Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough.

Meanwhile, the consensus isn't even robust enough to discipline the academy, where wild green speculation and fantasy get passed off as «The Science».

House Science Committee Hearing: where the so - called «deniers» behave like scientists and the defender of the establishment consensus... lies.

Issuing statements of «consensus» or «authority» is antithetical to good science, and especially so in circumstances where the originating organizations have been established with political intent, have acted to restrict public debate or have a financial conflict of interest.

According to the respected tradition of science, the scientists will soon come to a sober and reliable consensus on AGW 1980 - 2010, where soon is somewhere between 2050 and 2100.

Penetrating both the pretense that the consensus arguments are «all about the science,» and the exaggerated claims of certainty, is a great service, regardless of where one sits on the political spectrum.

This phrase is a direct reference to the findings evaluating the 5 trend - setting mainstream news organizations where coverage — with the exception of the WSJ opinion page — was found to overwhelmingly portray the consensus views on climate science.

While the Kyoto Protocol had already been set into place as the primary solution to climate change, the historian of science Stuart Weart marks the point at the year 2001 where climate scientists had actually reached a consensus that human activity was warming the planet via GHG emissions and land - use changes, the former largely from fossil fuel use.

However when speaking of «consensus» it is wise to remember that science is not a democracy where truth is determined by a majority.

Now, it doesn't go in the direction it sounds like you prefer, the long series of discussions on the science end up endorsing much of the core of the modern scientific consensus around the physics of greenhouse and global warming (though pointing out places where public media frequently argues well beyond the science).

In a world where the sea - level is rising, the oceans are heating, and the polar ice is melting — all without pause or evident limit — it's no wonder that more - and - more serious yet formerly skeptical scientists — like Dr. Petr Chylek and Adm David Titley for example — are embracing James Hansen's climate - science consensus!

And that's before we even get to his science, where IPCC colleagues refer to Mann's «misrepresentations», and where fellow members of that 97 per cent consensus call his work «scanty», «sloppy» and «sh*tty».

(h / t Tom Nelson) Welcome to the wacky world of «consensus» science where anything and everything is tied to global warming.

When it comes to protecting an ongoing enterprise of corrupting science — the Cook paper is only one recent example of an ongoing school of concocting studies claiming Leninist - election - style 90 + % levels of consensus, and the protectors of this school have every reason to expect that their protection will help the corruption to continue with more papers in this vein — we are out of the too - late - to - prevent realm where charity is appropriate.

Phil in his blog entries mentioned some National Academy of Science panel, and more generally, I think it makes sense to respect expert consensus, especially if, as with Phil, you have a sense of where the expert consensus is coming from.

Good points Chris, with all these different sciences, makes you wonder where all the «scientific consensus» comes from?

Only in a closed truebeliever mindset such as your own, where any disagreement seen as FUD, and consensus is seen as science.

There are areas where acceptance of consensus opinion is rational, but science isn't one of them.

A 2010 article by Guardian columnist George Monbiot sums up the history of Rose's many errors, where the «special investigations writer» first gets it wrong on the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and goes on to get it wrong on the consensus of the science on climate change.

These lead to a situation in which those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus where it exists, but communicating to outsiders that consensus has been reached can be difficult, because the «normal» debates through which science progresses may seem to outsiders as contestation.»

Bender, there are no doubt many sharp minds that participate at RC and they do provide a view of where the consensus climate science comes down on important issues and explanations for it.

Unfortunately, we have reached a stage where consensus is driving the science, rather than science shaping the consensus.

I shake my head and can't continue to waste my time on discussions of uncertainty where the ordinate of some «degree of consensus», where most of the 2,500 scientists are of the soft sciences.

RE: «Evidence and transparency is important in science» Appreciating your good and thoughtful reasoning, as your concern that «we have reached a stage where consensus is driving the science, rather than science shaping the consensus.»

It's like when people comb the history of science to show the exceptions that prove the rule where «consensus» was wrong.

I did not say science operated by consensus but rather that consensus is the loosely accepted idea that it's a waste of time to rehash areas where agreement is broadly reached.

It sets out to explain the current situation in climate science, including where there is consensus in the scientific community and where uncertainties exist.

On remand from Daubert, the lower court's unease with this new task was clearly evident: «Our responsibility, then, unless we misread the Supreme Court's opinion is to resolve disputes among respected, well credentialed scientists about matters squarely within their expertise, in areas where there is no scientific consensus as to what is or what is not «good science,» and occasionally to reject such expert testimony because it was not «derived by the scientific method.»