Sentences with phrase «actually studied this topic»

Read Jerry Coyne, Dawkins, anyone who has actually studied this topic.

This will help you visualise what is anticipated by many scientists who have actually studied the topic, as opposed to «sceptics» who spend their time denying that there is any kind of a problem at all.

RE: The Over-whelming scientific Consensus on man - made CO2 caused Global - warming - 97 % of the climate scientists surveyed believe «global aver temps have increased» during the past century [So do I]-- Your quotes: How «significant it is that 84 % of climate scientists have reached a «consensus» that «human - induced warming is occurring» «--RCB- 84 % «personally believe» [implies they may NOT have actually studied this topic — IE: may NOT be experts on this particular matter] human - induced warming is occurring -LCB--... — «In 1991 only 41 % of climate scientists were very confident that industrial emissions of greenhouse gases were responsible for climate disruption.

Not exact matches

Hi Sharel, I actually just saw mention of a study on that topic yesterday.

But this recent study actually shows this boost in confidence in its survey of baby boomers on the topic.

Fortunately Mary, there are people out there who actually understand evolution, who have studied evolution and who have doc.umented and taught evolution, so that those of us with even a rudimentary education on the topic can dismiss your comment as nothing more than the desperate and childish attempt to cling to religion even as the rest of the world grows up and embraces reality.

Hi, I'm actually doing a research thesis for my undergrad studies at ucsd and my topic pertains to vegan food blogging.

While we certainly do not claim to utter the last word on the topic, we imagine that the focus will shift away from the big structural accounts surrounding inequality and democracy to more micro-level studies of how autocracies actually function.

LA Times had an insightful article on the topic: «Polls may actually underestimate Trump's support, study finds», which contradicts the accepted answer's theory to an extent, and is much closer to your question's theory # 1 (Having said that, I agree with @bobson that at this point we probably don't have enough hard data to be sure what the causality is).

However, researchers at Northwestern University reviewed ten studies on the topic and found that there's actually no evidence that eating your placenta can help with anything at all — be it depression, lactation, maternal bonding, or pain relief.

There have been several studies done on the topic of whether walking actually burns fat.

Actually, as a dermatology resident, I studied the relationships between acne and emotions and published several papers on the topic.

Kris - Etherton noted that fiber - rich foods tend to help people feel full on fewer calories, but whether a fiber - enhanced diet would actually help people lose visceral fat was a topic for future study.

TPG: I was at a sports nutrition conference recently (and actually speaking on this very topic) and one of the presenters mentioned her study showing that elite female swimmers who were not menstruating ended and in an energy deficit had poorer performances relative to their menstruating teammates.

So neither of the studies you mentioned actually cover the topic of this article.

According to the only study I've found on the topic, it's actually the younger managers who tend to have better performance.

according to several studies, this compound is actually in the fish... a quick google search for «polybrominated diphenyl ethers, fish» brings up a wealth of information on the topic, and from the looks of things it's been recognized as problem for awhile, but the link to thyroid disease in cats is disturbing.

My advice would be to undertake tertiary studies in oceanography, then you actually understand the topic you erroneously think you know so much about, and can make some of the basic calculations yourself.

Among the contrarians affiliated with the site are Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon, astronomers, lead authors of the recent «Harvard study» a survey of historical studies of climate which yields findings totally contrary to those reported by scientists who are actually qualified to study the topic.

----- You trust your own skills of evaluation versus the majority of those who have actually spent their lives studying this topic?

You don't have to agree with it, but if you actually paid the slightest attention to studies on the topic you'd know there was a solar maximum during the period: largest since the present day.

It seems likely then that the knowledgeable non-expert, one who studies the full debate, may actually have a better grasp than someone who is merely expert in some specific narrow technical topic.

For Skeptical Science readers wondering what Trump has to do with climate science, note that this article is actually about critical thinking and inoculation, key topics in our Denial101x online course (Trump is just a case study).

We know evolution happens, and I'm tired of people insulting the ones who actually study and work on the technical nuances of these topics under the Galileo - dressed «science is about questioning!»

There you have to prove you actually know about the topic, before you become entitled to talk about it — years of study, years of hard work, scrutinised by others that put in even more years of possibly even harder work.

97 % of the climate scientists surveyed believe «global average temps have increased» during the past century 84 % say they «personally believe» [implies they may NOT have actually studied the matter — IE: are NOT experts on the topic] human - induced warming is occurring, & 74 % agree that «currently available scientific evidence» substantiates its occurrence.

I know of one researcher who stopped studying a particular topic of interest to the naysayer squad, because he was actually shocked at how nasty the sub-field is.