Why has Ban Ki - moon not answered the 134 skeptical climate experts who told him in their Nov. 24, 2012 open letter: «
current scientific knowledge does not substantiate your assertions.
Not exact matches
Your recent article on multiple personality disorder (28 September, p 46) doesn't reflect the
current scientific and clinical
knowledge concerning dissociative identity disorders (
DID), nor
does it accurately describe the outcome for treatment.
Your recent article on multiple personality disorder (28 September, p 46) doesn't reflect the
current scientific and clinical
knowledge concerning...
While the techniques draw from the same pool of
knowledge, and travel together in
scientific circles, many environmental groups
do not oppose molecular breeding, while stridently critiquing
current GM crops, according to Marco Contiero, the European biotech policy director for the environmental group Greenpeace.
The Commission had answered that: i) the
scientific knowledge need animal research, ii) animal experiment remained important for the protection of the human and animal health, and to protect the environment, iii) the commission
did not intend to repeal the
current directive.
People in the late 19th and early 20th centuries didn't have the
scientific knowledge of
current canine genetics, but they
did understand from years of raising farm animals how selective breeding worked.
It would seem to make more logical or
scientific sense not to prejudge their
current state of
knowledge without
doing so first.
Overall, the Panel finds that given the
current state of the science and the scope of resources available, the 2013 National Climate Assessment
does a reasonable job of fulfilling its charge to inform the President, the Congress, and the nation about the
current state of
scientific knowledge regarding climate change effects.
On Climate Action: The APS urges physicists to collaborate with colleagues across disciplines to contribute to climate research and to keep any public dialogue on a professional and
scientific and
does not exaggerate the
current level of
knowledge.
That's right John, I
do not understand how such an absurd figure from aclaimed climate scientists could appear in a supposedly peer reviewed
scientific journal and then be reproduced in an IPCC report that purports to publish the
current state of
scientific knowledge.
And, predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in hydrocarbon use and resulting increases in minor greenhouse gases such as CO2
do not conform to
current experimental
knowledge or have any
scientific basis.
I mention this because it appears that the
current deniers of AGW are reading from the same «how to
do» manual on how to confuse, intimidate and muddy
scientific knowledge and to misrepresent it to «Joe Public».
«75... the Tribunals
did not have before them expert evidence which seriously called into question the principle underpinning the EPA's renewable energy project regulatory regime — i.e. that wind turbines which are set back 550m from a dwelling house and which
do not generate noise levels in excess of 40 dBA at the lowest specified wind speed
do not cause serious harm to human health based upon the
current state of
scientific knowledge.»