Sentences with phrase «scientists disagreed on»

Furthermore, Evolution isn't something scientist disagree on, I mean why get a flu shot every year if there was no such thing.

While scientists disagree on the specific dangers of CO2 levels — say, 350 versus 400 ppm — researchers track their concentration with laserlike focus.

They also brought new diseases, but scientists disagree on the role of infections in the European mink's decline.

But scientists disagree on what drove primates to evolve big brains in the first place.

Scientists disagree on how to define stromatolites.

However, scientists disagree on whether the phenomenon of cancer stem cells extends to different kinds of cancer and what is the best way to target them.

Scientists disagree on exactly how climate change will affect future tropical storms.

What on earth makes you think that the Federal Attorney is even remotely qualified to make such a distinction, when some of the world's better scientists disagree on that very question?

For example, scientists disagree on what, exactly, pre-industrial temperatures were and how best to define them, as well as what dataset to use.

Not exact matches

awandering scott, Unfortunately for you you have presented not one reason to doubt Evolution, and 99.9 % of all the scientists on the planet disagree with you.

You can find a few scientists who disagree, but you will also find that their disagreements are based on their faith, not science.

Amen.The thing is too many people from both sides try to disprove the other, Scientist (well some) will say there is no God Ala Hawkings here and then some believers will say that evolution or anything pertaining to science that they don't understand is false.I don't believe that science and God are mutually exclusive.For me personally science helps to explain a lot of things regarding creation, almost like giving me a window into how creative God is.I believe that God uses science to show us how awesome he is.To me science does not disprove Gods existence it actually reaffirms it on a human logic level, for me.You may disagree, that's fine, but this is just how I see it.

Moreover, the impressive breadth of Ruether's argument makes her susceptible to criticism from a variety of quarters: biblical scholars may disagree with her interpretation of Paul; environmental scientists, with her figures on atmospheric carbon dioxide content; and agricultural and nutritional experts, with her recipe for relying on consumption of seasonal, locally produced foods.

The Board added: «Scientists and policymakers may disagree over the scientific conclusions on climate change and other policy - relevant topics.

Although many scientists disagree with the spin Tsuda and activists have put on the findings, they endorse the screening effort.

But some Chinese scientists disagree with the citation, particularly its exclusive focus on Tu.

Some scientists disagree with the Jackson group's emphasis on «top - down» control of marine ecosystems.

And many exchanges were heated because, despite 150 years of research on the biology of evolution, scientists still disagree about how and why multicellular creatures and plants emerged from ancient oceans that teemed with robust and self - reliant single - celled entities.

«I don't disagree that there were unhappy scientists on all three sides,» says Gehrels.

«While we still disagree that a cap on scientists and engineers is something the government should implement, these proposals should mean that the U.K. can still bring in the necessary individuals from around the world,» says Khan.

When his turn to question Holdren arrived, Rohrabacher began by requesting permission to submit the names of 100 climate scientists who disagree with the consensus on global warming, including people Rohrabacher described as prominent academics.

«For decades, scientists have disagreed over whether menopause causes aging or aging causes menopause,» said Steve Horvath, a professor of human genetics and biostatistics at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA and UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, and a senior author on both studies.

Maynard's presentation, which involved randomly polling audience members and engaging them in debate, revealed that many of the scientists involved in studying how life could evolve beyond Earth disagree on just how much we need to worry about contamination.

President Trump disagrees with scientific consensus on a number of issues, and currently there are no scientists in the Senate.

«A group of US scientists however disagree, and have written an article on their views that is published in The International Journal of Climatology, a publication of Britain's Royal Meteorological Society.

Evidence matched with a sound scientific method and the credibility of them there scientists then leads to agreement and a minority who disagree — that AGREEMENT ON THE EVIDENCE THEN BECAME A GLOBAL CONSENSUS OVER SEVERAL DECADES.

The petition, despite being frequently cited by global warming critics as showing that thousands of scientists disagree with the consensus on global warming, contains almost no people with relevant expertise; and its vetting was so lax that it included fictional signatories such as Star Wars characters and a member of the Spice Girls.

We offered the bet at the time as we were concerned that the failed forecasts would in the end cast a shadow on the credibility of climate science as a whole, so we felt a need to emphasise that other climate scientists disagreed with these forecasts.

(I'll be filing another piece shortly on A. Scott Denning, a climate scientist at Colorado State University who's followed in Steve's wake in engaging with those who deeply disagree with him.)

Mike Hulme, a climate scientist at the University of East Anglia in England and the author of a book on the struggle over climate policy, «Why We Disagree About Climate Change,» said that big gatherings of world leaders were less likely to bear fruit than splitting the challenge into pieces that are tractable, and focusing directly on addressing those problems.

It is self - evident that there will be strong disagreements over the «facts» on an issue such as the causes of global warming — where some scientists disagree.

If you're a scientist who does climate reconstructions, that means that your theories on energy economics are unquestionable «science» and anyone who disagrees is engaging in «denial»?

If it's in peer reviewed journal, it's likely fair game, but just because a few (very, very few) scientists disagree, does not obligate a journalist to offer equal time in every story on climate change more information you read http://www.ukash-tr.com web site

If it's in peer reviewed journal, it's likely fair game, but just because a few (very, very few) scientists disagree, does not obligate a journalist to offer equal time in every story on climate change.

These three headlines seem to be incompatible and one might think that the three scientists fundamentally disagree on global warming's role in the heat have.

We are constantly told that «the science» is settled, that 97 percent of scientists agree on «the science,» and that the benighted few who disagree must be shunned or even prosecuted.

Cupp claims that scientists are «bullying» those who disagree with them, which is exactly wrong; scientists have and do welcome disagreement, but it has to be real disagreement, based on evidence, not baseless doubt sown through ideology and politics.

One reason is that the stakes are incredibly high: On the one hand, mainstream climate scientists and environmental advocates who believe that there are severe consequences to failing to curb greenhouse - gas emissions; on the other, a loose coalition of skeptical or contrarian scientists, conservatives, industry interests, and outright cranks who may disagree on specific issues, but tend to believe the costs, economic and otherwise, of acting are staggerinOn the one hand, mainstream climate scientists and environmental advocates who believe that there are severe consequences to failing to curb greenhouse - gas emissions; on the other, a loose coalition of skeptical or contrarian scientists, conservatives, industry interests, and outright cranks who may disagree on specific issues, but tend to believe the costs, economic and otherwise, of acting are staggerinon the other, a loose coalition of skeptical or contrarian scientists, conservatives, industry interests, and outright cranks who may disagree on specific issues, but tend to believe the costs, economic and otherwise, of acting are staggerinon specific issues, but tend to believe the costs, economic and otherwise, of acting are staggering.

5) Vicious personal attacks continue on scientists, businessmen, politicians and others who disagree publicly with the catechism of climate cataclysm.

Unfortunately, many people are stuck on the idea that scientists disagree whether humans are causing climate change.

-LSB-...] • Silencing the Scientists (and anyone who disagrees with the Harper Government — also see this post) • Lifting the 40 year ban on tankers on B.C.'s -LSB-...]

Of course, I disagree with David on his very next sentence, where he asserts it doesn't matter what scientists say or how we say it.

The climate scientists whose private emails were recently hacked and put on the web for the world to read might disagree.

Given that we do not disagree with the results of the research on the faux «pause» — how could we, having contributed to it — and given that the disagreement between Betts and us seems to boil down primarily to semantics and the imputation of scientists» motivations, does it matter whether or not there is «seepage» into the scientific community?

I never met Carl Sagan but based on his comment in «Cosmos» regarding the theories of Immanuel Velikovsky that the worst thing was not that Velikovsky was wrong but rather that scientists tried to suppress his work, I believe that Carl Sagan would be appalled by the way that «Climate Scientists» try to censor anything with which theyscientists tried to suppress his work, I believe that Carl Sagan would be appalled by the way that «Climate Scientists» try to censor anything with which theyScientists» try to censor anything with which they disagree.

Though the activists have attempted — falsely and improperly — to convey the impression that it is somehow illegal, immoral or damaging to the planet to vote for the Republican party's candidate in the forthcoming presidential election because he disagrees with the totalitarian position on the climate question that they espouse with such religious fervor and such disregard for science, in truth it is not the business of scientists to abuse the authority of their white lab - coats by collectively suggesting that «Science» demands the voters should or should not cast their vote in any particular direction.

«Gore has caused the spread of more pseudo-scientific incompetence on the subject of global warming (I'm sorry — climate change) than any climate scientist could possibly have ever accomplished... No serious climate researcher — including the ones I disagree with — believes global warming can cause colder weather.

ABC Anchor, Dan Harris: There are so many scientists who disagree with what you're saying, the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], NASA, NOAA, the National Academy of Science, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Society - we're talking about scientists all over the globe.

11/30/2015 - Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming 03/31/2014 — Report Finds Global Warming Causes» No Net Harm» to Environment or Human Health 03/24/2014 — Benefits of Global Warming Greatly Exceed Costs, New Study Says 10/15/2013 — Panel of Scientists Says UN Study Retreats, Misleads, and Misinforms 10/14/2013 — The Heartland Institute Replies to Trenberth and Oppenheimer 09/27/2013 — NIPCC, Heartland Institute React to UN IPCC Climate Report Summary 09/16/2013 — Authors of NIPCC Report Discuss Findings 09/06/2013 — Major New Report on Climate Science Says Global Warming Is Not a Crisis

Humans have caused this rapid and unprecedented change in the Earth's atmosphere, and to bring this back on topic, the consensus of > 97 % of the world's scientists and scientific organizations... disagree with * you.