Sentences with phrase «with false science»

Create a false problem with false science and use bureaucrats to bypass politicians to close industry down and make developed countries pay.

Not exact matches

Before this happens, there will be a «great falling away» from the faith because false science (evolution) along with false doctrines (esp dualism) will fall, thus leaving the truth — Christ and His coming Kingdom which is «not of this world».

With the esteemed position that the earth was at the center of the universe proven false, the church lost both prestige and credibility to emerging science.

I've watched in growing frustration as this false dichotomy has convinced my friends to leave the faith altogether when they examine the science and find it incompatible with a 6,000 - year - old earth.

This false ideology is in a symbiotic relationship with globalization (variants of the term appear 54 times), science (n. 31, 51) and technology (n. 69, 70, 77).

This non-sense of claiming that the Hebrew calendar is irrelevant to science and the «theory» of evolution is just another pig - rear false statement with no quantifiable evidence to back that up.

Insisting that the science of evolution is incompatible with the Christian faith sets up a false dichotomy that is costing far too many Christians their faith.

Hermeneutics, with its emphasis upon tradition and narrative, is central to the philosophy of science now cognizant of the false dichotomies between objectivity and subjectivity, science and ideology, engendered by the modern Enlightenment.

This enterprise sets out to reconcile the sciences of cosmology and geology with the Bible, either by rejecting some scientific findings as unproven or false, or else by re-interpreting the words of the Bible to fit the new facts.

The cultivator of this science has to become acquainted with so many groveling and horrible superstitions that a presumption easily arises in his mind that any belief that is religious probably is false.

there are so many «influential» people preaching false science, especially with regards to health and eating.

Current practices lead to «cherry - picking which analyses or experiments to report on the basis of their P values» and «corrupts science and fills the literature with claims likely to be overstated or false,» he wrote.

This kind of false balance becomes a problem when one side is based on knowledge and the other is merely an opinion, as often occurs when policy problems intersect with science.

«I am also surprised and disappointed that the OGC [Office of the General Counsel] is answering a general letter from the science community with a misguided and false attack on me [assuming I am the «rotator in question» and that no other former female IPA is under a similar attack].»

«This is a tantalizing discovery with a low chance of being a false alarm, but before we can start rewriting the textbooks, we'll need to see more bursts associated with gravitational waves from black hole mergers,» study lead author Valerie Connaughton, of the National Space, Science and Technology Center in Huntsville, Alabama, said in a statement.

We review published claims associated with our technical areas of research and point out false or misleading representations of science to help ensure public and commercial policies are guided by facts based on rigorous scientific exploration.

This article contains the latest findings in this area, with info backed by hundreds of studies with exact science behind them, that will help you get those shredded abs, without some false promises or magic pills that will give you a quick fix in the shortest amount of time.

This fat - phobia is the result of false and biased science which based their results on studies with the wrong context.

People are being bombarded with false heath claims not backed by reputable peer reviewed science and are so confused on what to eat and this podcast made it worse.

Part 3 — FILL IN THE BLANKS (10 questions); students TRY to fill in the blanks with the correct answers; ACCEPT ANY REASONABLE ANSWERS for this section; Part 4 — TRUE OR FALSE (10 questions); students must select «true or false» to answer each question; any FALSE answer prompts a Science Fact to appear and explain why it's false; * VERY INTERACTIVE FOR THE FALSE (10 questions); students must select «true or false» to answer each question; any FALSE answer prompts a Science Fact to appear and explain why it's false; * VERY INTERACTIVE FOR THE false» to answer each question; any FALSE answer prompts a Science Fact to appear and explain why it's false; * VERY INTERACTIVE FOR THE FALSE answer prompts a Science Fact to appear and explain why it's false; * VERY INTERACTIVE FOR THE false; * VERY INTERACTIVE FOR THE KIDS.

To give you a taste of what is coming in Part 2, the arguments can be summarized as: 1) Education does not lend itself to a single «best» approach, so the Gates effort to use science to discover best practices is unable to yield much productive fruit; 2) As a result, the Gates folks have mostly been falsely invoking science to advance practices and policies they prefer for which they have no scientific support; 3) Attempting to impose particular practices on the nation's education system is generating more political resistance than even the Gates Foundation can overcome, despite their focus on political influence and their devotion of significant resources to that effort; 4) The scale of the political effort required by the Gates strategy of imposing «best» practices is forcing Gates to expand its staffing to levels where it is being paralyzed by its own administrative bloat; and 5) The false invocation of science as a political tool to advance policies and practices not actually supported by scientific evidence is producing intellectual corruption among the staff and researchers associated with Gates, which will undermine their long - term credibility and influence.

«Until a more critical approach with standards and oversight are brought to bear in our profession, we will likely continue to be ensnared in false myths despite the presence of sound science».

With a huge assist from the media such as the New York Times which continue to play the false equivalency card with regards to climate change and science as a whWith a huge assist from the media such as the New York Times which continue to play the false equivalency card with regards to climate change and science as a whwith regards to climate change and science as a whole.

One of the reasons the public has a hard time making science - based decisions, to my mind, is the lack of broad understanding that scientific research is not the process of revealing crystalline truths, but rather a journey toward understanding, with lots of bumps, false turns and rarely a final end point.

How many more Katrina's or Iowa floods or petroleum price increases will we witness before we realize that our economic system must be synchronized with natural systems to reflect the laws of natural and physical sciences, and not the lobbyist ($ $ $) driven laws of a false economy?

And since he equated climate science with Environmentalism, AGW had to be false.

To classify carbon dioxide as a pollutant is thus nothing short of scientific chicanery, for reasons that have nothing to do with science, but based purely on the pseudo-science so eagerly practised by academia across the world in order to keep their funding sources open to the governmental decrees, which are in turn based on totally false IPCC dogma (yes, dogma — not science).

This example is a false analogy to the climate science issue, again as I have stated before, your are confusing events with mechanisms.

Given the false science in Trenberth's Global Energy Budget, I would have nothing to do with such a charlatan.

Hulme cites «big science» (the highly political, multi-billion dollar AGW business), sensationalism by the press (plus some scientists turned advocates) or simply «issue fatigue», but there is no doubt that Climategate was a principle factor exacerbating skepticism, as were the discredited Mann «hockey stick» and Al Gore's «IAT» movie, with all its false claims and scientific errors.

With this report out, it's time the media move on from the false - balance discussion of whether climate change is established by science and onto the action and impacts.

If they are doing «research» on the taxpayer's dime, are coming to conclusions which — even on the little data that are available — would be among the falsest and most bogus in the history of science (if the paper had had anything recognizable to do with science in the first place), the question of fraud against taxpayers arises.

So many social science papers you blog on seem to begin with false assumptions.»

With the signature of a former NAS president, and a research paper that appeared to be published in one of the most prestigious science journals in the world, many scientists were duped into signing a petition based on a false impression.

In science, nothing is ever absolutely «proven», it only goes from unknown validity to probably true, with the knowledge that at some future date it may yet be shown false.

Yet, failure to do so represents a double standard, and it is also false equivalence, because «skeptical» science has been subjected to critique, it has repeatedly shown to be seriously lacking in rigor, repeatability (e.g., Loehle and McCulloch — it is impossible to compare their analysis with other reconstructions, and that is just the start of the problems), and has failed to even meet acceptable scientific standards (e.g., works by Douglass, McLane, Lindzen and Choi, Soon and Baliunas, Carter, de Freitas, McIntyre and McKitrick et cetera).

Many people frame debates over climate science with a false dichotomy.

I can't imagine using science to assert false and damaging associations about a political camp I disagreed with.

They took a page from the playbook of the tobacco companies... the same thing is going on now with some, not all, some of the large carbon polluters, putting out false information, hiring pseudo scientists to pretend that they have the lowdown on the science...

From an emailed PRESS RELEASE on March 5, 2010 Climate scientist delivers false statement in parliament enquiry It has come to our attention, that last Monday (March 1), Dr. Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (CRU), in a hearing with the House of Commons Science and Technology -LSB-...]

This finding is consistent with Boykoff's findings that as of 2006, false balance relative to the fundamentals of climate science had virtually disappeared from coverage at the 5 national trend - setting organizations he examined.

In the usual way really, with a combination of bad science combined with false confidence in baseless conjectures, artful omissions and left - wing politics.

Some traditional media outlets responsibly reported the story, beginning with the British newspaper The Guardian; but it certainly hasn't received the same attention given to the earlier false claim that the science of climate change has been fabricated — a story that itself received far more attention when it initially broke than when it was completely and thoroughly (pdf) and beyond all doubt debunked as not only systemic lies, but lies promoted through what appears to have been criminal activity.

First among them is false balance, which the book describes as giving false industry - friendly claims about climate change «an equal place on the media stage with actual science.»

I have been trying to convince scientists that this site presents a level playing field where the true balance of science can emerge, and I've been rebuffed with the idea that this site is another example of «false balance», wherein the politically structured arguments will again take precedence.

That is to say, you make the false analogy, of Newtonian physics with so called «climate science».

The radiation obsessed IPCC science model with its fictitious 33K effect is false.

What we see operating in Hickman's thinking is the tendency to turn the climate debate into sides, or binary, opposing categories: true and false, good and bad, ideology and science... because ultimately, it's easier to lump «policy sceptics» in with «climate sceptics», and link climate sceptics to «ideology» than it is to deal with the arguments in currency.

You have uncovered just one of the many attempts by Real Climate to fool the American public with their false «science.»

Doctors, Craig D. Idso, Robert M. Carter, and S. Fred Singer — three prominent climate scientists affiliated with the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change — write: «This claim is not only false, but its presence in the debate is an insult to science.