Sentences with phrase «actual study papers»

I'm never sure if they just didn't understand what they were reading or deliberately try to mislead people, knowing most people will never read the actual study papers.

Not exact matches

In the August 2015 version of their paper entitled «Art as an Asset and Keynes the Collector», David Chambers, Elroy Dimson and Christophe Spaenjers study the performance of an actual buy - and - hold art portfolio, the collection of economist John Maynard Keynes.

Studies of Whitehead's metaphysics usually concentrate on the category of actual entities, and consider the category of nexus incidenrally.2 My aim in this paper is to supplement these studies by focusing on the category of nexus.3 Let me indicate why it is of value to investigate his metaphysics in thStudies of Whitehead's metaphysics usually concentrate on the category of actual entities, and consider the category of nexus incidenrally.2 My aim in this paper is to supplement these studies by focusing on the category of nexus.3 Let me indicate why it is of value to investigate his metaphysics in thstudies by focusing on the category of nexus.3 Let me indicate why it is of value to investigate his metaphysics in this way.

I have seen the discussion portions of these papers in NO WAY represent the actual study's findings.

They have this notion not because of any actual research paper or study that tells them this is so but rather because everyone else is doing it.

Do you think that in the same way that the Solanki et al paper on solar sunspot reconstructions had a specific statement that their results did not contradict ideas of strong greenhouse warming in recent decades, this (the fact that climate sensitivity projections are not best estimates of possible future actual temperature increases) should be clearly noted in media releases put out by scientists when reporting climate sensitivity studies?

At this point since there are papers out there that suggest a negative feedback and the 2.5 + x positive water vapor feedback from the IPCC is clearly a non-starter in view of the pause, CAGW has to demonstrate via real atmospheric studies what the actual feedback is.

And the actual Cook quote you provide relates to * scientists * ie the self - ratings by the authors, which also came in at 97 % - not the papers rated for the study.

None of the scientific papers that NIWA cited in their impressive - sounding press releases contained the actual adjustments... The main objective of our temperature study was not to show that the raw data has been tampered with, even though that opinion was emphasised and can not yet be excluded.

Send me TWO links, one to the paper claiming the detection of solar sunspot - cycle related effects on surface datasets that you think is the strongest evidence for your case, and the second to the actual data used in that study.

However, since you place so much emphasis on qualifications, here was a study done back in 2004 to see how many peer - reviewed papers written by actual experts in climatology disagreed with consensus.