Sentences with phrase «scientists are right about»

It infer that climate scientists are right about CAGW because so many of them have the same belief.

On the other hand, if the climate scientists are right about AGW happening, and the contrarians are wrong, and we act as if AGW is not happening, then not only will we lose all those other benefits, but we will allow the world to sink into great catastrophe (greater than you may think, when we figure how people may start turning nasty against each other as their material lives deteriorate — Katrina gave us a microcosm of that).

Not exact matches

You can find out right now -------- First, you are not going to find the facts — I said facts ---- not your opinion about what some gay scientist / theologian says.

These religious right extremeists who get all up in arms about scientists are hypocrits and don't follow their own teaching.

In citing the fact that many religious scientists believe in evolution, I was not saying «gee, they must all be right» because «all those good people seem to agree about....

Religion was right about the earth being the center of the universe until scientist actually looked up and figured out what was happening up there.

Scientists may be right about chemical and physical facts of this life but their knowledge gives birth to Cyclone - B and Hiroshima.

Guess all those scientists telling us about gravity are frauds now, right?

~ Wow... guess the fact that I clarified my statement about the atheist sheep that would believe a scientist just because they are one went right over your head eh?

Well, for one, if I lived in the lower Bible Belt, I would be very thankful right now that between now and — well at least before Teddy R., people in the US of A were at least smart enough to let people be educated about the best that science had to offer at the time to allow this wonderful country to have great scientists in many fields.

It was a welcome piece, but what struck me was that while scientists are beginning to ask questions about gluten, they aren't always necessarily asking the right questions — at least for those of us with celiac disease.

Fifth, the right wing websites, who would never be caught dead reading a hostile left wing website and who would never read anything written by actual scientists (who they consider to either be part of the liberal elite or part of an ill - defined conspiracy), never hear about what poor science the study they're celebrating actually is, and go right on believing that their anti-global warming position is so obviously correct that everyone else must either be fools or conspirators.I believe the link pfft posted is step three.

Drawing on a wealth of new data — from surveys of UKIP voters to extensive interviews with party insiders — in this book prominent political scientists Robert Ford and Matthew Goodwin put UKIP's revolt under the microscope and show how many conventional wisdoms about the party and the radical right are wrong.

If you thought that being a scientist is all about publishing papers, giving talks and submitting grants... you were right, last century.

When Goswami worked at Amnesty International USA, he partnered with DataKind, who convened a group of data scientists to analyze a 30 - year archive of Urgent Action bulletins that contained information about prisoners of conscience, detainees, and other individuals whose human rights were being threatened.

About The Science and Human Rights Report (SHRR) is a monthly newsletter intended to keep scientists, engineers and human rights practitioners informed of news, program updates, upcoming events and new resources relevant to the intersection of science, technology and human rRights Report (SHRR) is a monthly newsletter intended to keep scientists, engineers and human rights practitioners informed of news, program updates, upcoming events and new resources relevant to the intersection of science, technology and human rrights practitioners informed of news, program updates, upcoming events and new resources relevant to the intersection of science, technology and human rightsrights.

Are you a scientist, engineer, or health professional interested in learning more about how you can volunteer your time and expertise to support human rights projects?

ne = the number of habitable planets around each star In days gone by, scientists would speak solemnly about our solar system's «habitable zone» — a theoretical region extending from Venus to Mars, but perhaps not encompassing either, where a planet would be the right temperature to have liquid water on its surface.

I disagree that it's a waste; yet, these scientists are right when they say that a good attitude doesn't provide a solution to problems inherent in today's scientific culture, and they have also got a point about being misled.

«I think [that is] right but it is hard to prove,» said Kevin Trenberth of the US National Center for Atmospheric Research, when New Scientist asked him about this.

Scientists have been watching mitosis through a microscope for about 150 years, but new views are fleshing out the less - detailed pictures of the past (bottom, right).

Later, the scientists pored over the scans, looking closely at the activity in people's brains right before they were asked about their state of mind.

UTHealth scientists working to learn more about the fundamental causes of sickle cell disease are from left to right Anren Song, Ph.D., Kaiqi Sun, Yang Xia, M.D., Ph.D., and Yujin Zhang, Ph.D..

Well the science would still move right along because the scientists are all going to see it in the actual journals, so we are not interfering with the progress of science, and by the time we would actually write about this stuff there would be a much clearer opinion about whether or not this was a real finding and whether or not it held up in any sort of way.

Defra science chief is among the prominent scientists calling for reforms at IPCC; NASA veteran climate scientist Andrew Lacis says IPCC is right to highlight anthropogenic warming but is too political about it.

It's basically unpaid, and that's a whole trend among scientists right now is that they're dying to, they're excited, they're wired, they know how to set up a blog, and they want to tell you about it.

Climate scientists were often uneasy about discussing it, fearful that any concession would be misunderstood by the public and seen as an admission that climate sceptics are right.

In the series, hear interviews with scientists and human rights experts about whether there is, or ought to be, a human right to access information and knowledge.

One overcast morning in Antarctica, scientists caught a lucky break when they were able to cruise their small boat right into a group of about 40 minke whales.

There are only about 450 North Atlantic right whales left, including 94 breeding females, and scientists are worried that they are dying at a faster rate than they are being born.

As scientists, we tend to pretend that needs, wants, emotions, relationships, ego, and so on, don't matter — it's all about the science, right?

Right now scientists understand far too little about Earth's inner motions to make reliable earthquake forecasts, and the cost of an unreliable forecast could be huge: Millions of dollars of business would be lost by shutting down San Francisco for a week awaiting a temblor that might never arrive.

«There was a financial crisis in Asia right in the middle of the K - STAR project, but the government and fusion scientists were steady and serious about getting the job done, despite lots of hardship,» he says.

Academic scientists are stewing about a recently issued patent that gives a private company the rights to CCR5, a human gene that plays a key role in HIV infection.

Dr. Sylvia Porter made it clear right from the beginning that they weren't going forward: «John, we're not concerned about your science — it's clear you are a terrific scientist.

Pygmy right whales are so rarely sighted that scientists know very little about their lifestyle, and the fossil record is sparse, too.

«Young scientists often ask us questions about reconciling a career and family, and we always tell them that choosing the right partner is important,» said Tabar.

Still, as we have seen in the case of Dr. James Lovelock, scientists with vision can sometimes be very right about one thing, and wrong about another.

I'm Alex Smith, with two of the world's top climate scientists talking about the severe challenges we face right now, and in the future.

Cuccinelli cites the Kremlin organ RIA Novosti to «prove» that western climate scientists are LYING about global warming, but during the 2010 forest fires, Andrei Areshev, a lunatic attached to a Russian Foreign Ministry drunk tank, even claimed right in this same RIA Novosti that those sneaky U.S. climate scientists were CAUSING global warming by beaming secret climate weapons at Russia!

The cod liver oil is VERY important to add; it is not toxic, but provides much needed vitamins A and D. Aajonus is not right about everything, he is not a scientist.

The advice that governments followed about having a low fat diet was wrong... they simply listened to those that shouted the loudest, those scientists who, at the time, had the connections and believed their ideas to be right... unfortunately for us they were not.

In a 2013 article in The Atlantic, pediatrician Paul Offit wrote that although Pauling was «so spectacularly right» that he won two Nobel Prizes, the scientist's late - career assertions about the benefits of dietary supplements were «so spectacularly wrong that he was arguably the world's greatest quack.»

As a scientist, my life is pretty much fueled by coffee — from that first glorious latte made by my beloved each morning, to the second one I grab as I'm settling in to my emails, to the third that usually happens in the afternoon, right about the time food coma has kicked in and I need my second wind.

About the Author: Gregory D. LittleRocket scientist by day, fantasy and science fiction author by night, Gregory D. Little began his writing career in high school when he and his friend wrote Star Wars fanfic before it was cool, passing a notebook around between (all right, during) classes.

Turning to James Hansen's latest pieces (the technical piece, and the non technical piece in New Scientist) 40 % or more of Florida could be under water by 2100, if Hansen is right about glacial melt (which the IPCC explicitly excluded from its forecast).

(1) What proof do government bureaucrat «scientists» provide that they are right about predictions of runaway global warming?

RC and the other climate scientists can not say definitively whether Hansen is «right» about 350; rather, I imagine, they're working as hard as they can to refine the science and the models, and they will be for years.

Some scientists can readily accept that the people, in a democracy, have the ultimate right to decide whether we should take precautionary action, or whether the risk of doing nothing about global warming is an «acceptable risk».

If you're talking about being right, it seems to me that scientists have a pretty good track record.