When I see people acting concerned about the science while promoting far
worse junk science themselves, I will point that out.
Not exact matches
You can not bring yourself to admit that that paper is
junk science at its
worst... because you agree with it.
«I am disappointed that a scientist like Judy would repeat what smacks of
junk science without even raising an eyebrow, and
worse yet, proposing that a perfectly sound name be changed to «Tyndall effect» without bothering to check whether there is any substantive justification for this urban legend that originated with Wood's parody of a physics experiment.»
So true... Fear of global warming has been great for academia and the Left from the beginning because it, «makes industry and capitalism look
bad while affording endless visuals of animals and third - world humans suffering at the hands of wealthy Westerners,» as Van Dyke noticed, plus: «Best of all, being driven by
junk -
science that easily metamorphoses as required, it appeared to be endlessly self - sustaining.»
Those who point out the problems of making arguments for policy on the back of PR stunts and
junk science are labelled as «sceptics» or «deniers», motivated by profit, «ideology» or simple
bad - mindedness rather than the desire for a sensible debate about our relationship with the natural environment and concern about development.
What it is is
junk science and done for the
worst of reasons, namely money.
The claim «that 90 % of AGW warming is going into the oceans» is the
worst sort of
junk science.
Rockland, ME About Blog The latest in fast food reviews,
junk food news, and the
science of finding the best
worst thing you can shove into your gaping face - hole every day.