Sentences with phrase «scientists reached this conclusion»

Scientists reached this conclusion by transferring microbes from bypass - treated obese mice to a group of lean mice raised in sterile conditions that left them with no intestinal bacteria at all.

The scientists reached their conclusions after making a detailed study of a number of the dark gas clouds in which new stars are formed.

The scientists reached the conclusion that «subjects with hypervitaminosis D (severe deficiency) are at higher risk of insulin resistance» (study).

By analyzing mice poop, scientists reached the conclusion that firmicutes are better at extracting energy from food when compared to bacteroidetes.

Scientists reached this conclusion after contrasting observed changes to different types of drivers.

Not exact matches

Simply opining that scientists have reached the wrong conclusion is childish.

Professor Michael King states: «The conclusion reached by scientists who have investigated the origins and stability of se - xual orientation is that it is a human characteristic that is formed early in life, and is resistant to change.

Professor Michael King states: «The conclusion reached by scientists who have investigated the origins and stability of sexual orientation is that it is a human characteristic that is formed early in life, and is resistant to change.

Unfortunately, there are examples of at least one study, which claims 97 percent of climate scientists agree global warming is happening and is manmade, which may have done a not - so - great job of reaching such a conclusion.

I can't prove God's existence just as much as scientist can't prove the big bang... there is evidence of both but to reach a conclusion takes faith... one side leaves hope and the other does not... maybe I'm agnostic too because I don't claim to know everything about why I'm here, I have to have faith... Honestly, I'm sick of the extremes on both sides... the conservative judgmental Christian, who never thought through things as to why the believe what they do (ie Dinosaurs, cavemen, evolution, etc.) and the intellectually arrogant atheist and humanists.

Which raises the question: How can respectable scientists see the same data and reach such different conclusions?

Even the scientists who program neural networks often don't understand how they reach their conclusions.

Some scientists have followed cases like Charles Whitman's down the slippery slope, reaching the most extreme conclusion: that by uncovering the biological causes of behavior, neuroscience shows that «free will, as we ordinarily understand it, is an illusion».

Other scientists have reached similar conclusions.

The scientist from Tübingen reached the conclusion that, on the one hand, modern man was the cause of these giant terrestrial animals» extinction, and on the other hand, humans took over part of the animals» ecosystem functions.

That is the conclusion reached by Kun Yuan and Vi - Nhuan Le, both then behavioral scientists at RAND Corporation, a nonprofit think tank.

Scientists in Canada have reached similar conclusions about their western region.

«The Working Group considered that information in the review article and its supplement was insufficient for independent evaluation of the individual studies and the conclusions reached by the Monsanto scientist and other author,» he added.

Oren is not the first scientist to reach this conclusion.

To reach their conclusions, a team led by Urs Kormann, a post-doctoral scientist in the College of Forestry at Oregon State University, surveyed bird communities in 49 forest fragments near the Las Cruces Biological Station in Costa Rica.

This was the dramatic conclusion reached last week at a workshop in Dahlem, Berlin, where top atmospheric scientists got together, including Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen and Swedish meteorologist Bert Bolin, former chairman of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

[Response: A similar conclusion to the one cited by Gavin above was reached independently by a panel of scientists (of which I was a member) convened to report on these issues by the National Academy of Sciences last year, resulting in the NAS report «Radiative Forcing of Climate Change: Expanding the Concept and Addressing Uncertainties (2005)».

That neural pathways from the mouth's receptors to the brain are beginning to be mapped; that beyond the key role of flavour in survival, flavour also allows us to imagine; that the appearance of food and the words describing a menu can modulate our perception; that satiation is not at odds with the desire to eat more when a person is presented with a new and distinct flavour... These are the some of the conclusions reached during «The sensory Logic of Gastronomic Brain» symposium where some twenty world - class scientists and chefs gathered between October 24 and 26 at the Basque Culinary Center (San Sebastian).

In order to reach that conclusion, scientists looked at genetic diversity in caribou and whether that diversity was linked to stable habitats.

The scientists therefore reached the undeniable conclusion that «sunflower seed intake appears to aggravate acne vulgaris ``.

The scientists reached the same conclusion.

If social scientists can reach opposite conclusions from the same data set, then research, even from randomized field trials, may do little to inform policy debates.

OTOH, when you don't understand how a particular scientific conclusion is reached, you display a marked propensity to assume nefarious intent on the scientists» part; and to draw alternate conclusions that appeal to you more, at least judging by your dogged adherence to some of them.

If a scientist who does understand AGW science says it is not proof of warming he is not denying science, he's denying the conclusions some have made, or the methodology used to reach those conclusions, etc..

Echoing conclusions reached at the recent Vatican meeting of scientists, theologians and others on sustainable development, he spoke yesterday about the human responsibility for «wise stewardship» of the environment, both for our own sake («If we destroy Creation, Creation will destroy us!»)

There are MANY SCIENTISTS (including some who wrote parts of the IPCC report) who disagree with the conclusions reached by the GW proponents.

There is enough uncertainty that, by weighting the evidence in ways that fit one's gut judgments, scientists can reach opposite conclusions.

It assumes that the expertise of a handful of Exxon scientists somehow exceeded the accumulated knowledge of the global scientific community at the time, and that the Exxon scientists somehow were able to reach definitive conclusions before the science had developed.

«My three years at Nature left me painfully aware that scientists are about the worst people on earth when it comes to confusing their political inclinations with objective fact — and absolutely the worst in the concomitant certainty that one's opponents must be liars, frauds, or corruptly motivated, since (obviously) no honest person could possibly have reached a contrary conclusion through objective reasoning.

He assumed that the scientific method involved induction by sampling, and as everyone knows, scientists and philosophers alike, that can not reach a valid conclusion.

Since, right now, climate scientists can not predict episodes of turbulence in particular latitudes at identifiable altitudes, the researchers could reach only very general conclusions.

Six years after a report from the Royal Society in the United Kingdom reached many of the same conclusions, the American scientists decided to issue two reports — to distinguish as forcefully as they could between two very different approaches that for years have been lumped together under the heading «geoengineering.»

Lord Oxburgh, who led the second investigation, said that many of the criticisms and claims of scientific misconduct were likely made by people «who do not like the implications of some of the conclusions» reached by the scientists in question.

This article first appeared in the St. Louis Beacon, Nov. 15, 2011 - WASHINGTON - When physicist Richard A. Muller reported last month that global temperatures had warmed since the 1950s, his finding was met with a collective yawn among mainstream climate scientists who had reached the same conclusion years before.

That is not to say that some scientists eschew subjectivity and still reach erroneous conclusions.

But, being scientists, they dispute each others conclusions by clearly stating those conclusions and how they reached them, then challenging the underlying data and each others weightings of that data.

A second questions, which is one I had decided to ask you personally already before the remarkable statement you made to the Guardian is: Do you believe that once a paper is published all the data and methods used in reaching the conclusions stated in the paper should be available for scrutiny by other scientists, or even members of the public?

We can only hope that The Post «s editorial board will also reach a reasonable conclusion about their editorial policy: that they should adopt a practice of ensuring their opinion pieces on climate are factual and not misleading, with the operative assumption that the world's scientists actually are right about the subjects that they have spent their lives studying.

The Post «s editorial reaches a reasonable conclusion: that we should adopt a price on carbon and work to reduce carbon emissions for many, many reasons including «insurance» in the event that the world's scientists actually are right about the subjects that they have spent their lives studying.

These are some of the conclusions reached by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) scientist Michael Wehner and his co-authors on the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

DAVID KAROLY: If you consider a victory someone accepting clearly what evidence shows then yes, it is a victory, but I would not consider that to be an important victory because the vast majority of climate scientists around the world have been assessing the data for an extended period and have reached these conclusions more than 10 years ago... SIMON LAUDER: He also says that his conclusions are stronger than the IPCC's.

It was discovered more than a century ago that burning fossil fuels would release warming gases and therefore increase global temperatures, and since then, hundreds of thousands of scientists have independently reached the conclusion that it will have terrible consequences...

It's often been said that once a conclusion is reached, proper scientists set about trying to prove themselves wrong.

When it comes to the politicians, I agree there is no debate, but there are scientists that truly do reach the conclusions that lead them to the conclusions that CO2 does cause warming.

From what I see, we can see a directly proportional relationship between the conclusions a climate scientist has reached and the degree to which they antagonize «skeptics.»