Sentences with phrase «against scientists getting»

Not exact matches

It seemed extremely improbable to me that all of these scientists had gotten together and conspired against the faith community.

The scientists in London got the same result in a similar experiment using mammalian kidney cells, showing that healthy and mutant cells compete directly against each other in mammals.

To get a feel for what scientists are up against, start with the photos, a gallery of rogues that poison their enemies — such as the dinoflagellate Alexandrium tamarense — or stab them to death — including a Chaetoceros species that plunges its serrated spines into the gills of fish.

Historically, scientists who needed an antibody against a protein would either make it themselves or get it from a colleague.

If one were keeping score in this game, which has lined up skeptics like Soon against most climate scientists, 2009 would be the year when it got rough.

LA JOLLA, CA — Cold viruses generally get a bad rap — which they've certainly earned — but new findings by a team of scientists at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies suggest that these viruses might also be a valuable ally in the fight against cancer.

First, the team tried placing toads with beetles that were unable to release chemicals: The scientists got the beetles to prerelease their spray by tugging on their legs so that once they were swallowed, they would be chemically defenseless against the toads.

Up against far superior competition for the «Pirate of the Year Award», he is desperate for a get - rich - quick scheme when he boards the bootyless HMS Beagle and takes young scientist Charles Darwin captive.

G&T managed to get their work out there; publishing it in Nature or Science would not have changed the fact that they're arguments just don't hold any water (they didn't do any new science, they just took what was already known, and then tried to use that to argue against what is already known — a search for logical inconsistency, which might have been worthwhile if they'd known what they were doing and if they'd gone after contrarian «theory»)-- unless it were edited, removing all the errors and non-sequitors, after which it would be no different than a physics book such as the kind a climate scientist would use...

There is no doubt that governments try to get changes made to the Reports to suit their political views... In my view this has not succeeded as the scientists have held firm against such changes.

Most scientists who go against «the consensus» get labelled as mavericks, sceptics or denialists.

The Democratic Senators had every opportunity to go directly to JC and the other scientists to get an inventory of the ideas and questions on the minds of skeptics or lukewarmers, they not only didn't do it, they did ends around the science guests and at times chastised them with the very group think that the scientists were warning against.

The plain simple truth is that decent scientists whose only «crime» is to happen to find evidence against doomsday global warming are constantly being prevented from publishing, from getting grants and are then being libelled by people such as this ******.

As a recent study from the University of Bristol documented, climate scientists have been so distracted and intimidated by the relentless campaign against them that they tend to avoid any statements that might get them labeled «alarmists,» retreating into a world of charts and data.

Wouldn't that be more interesting than getting people — who are quite frankly in denial and in the minority — to argue against scientists about whether the greenhouse gas effect is even true?

That in turn has prompted a slew of news stories on the case, the general gist of which you can get from the headlines: Media and rights organizations defend National Review, et al. against Michael Mann (The Washington Post) Climate scientist faces broad array of foes in suit vs. National Review (Reuters) Groups rally around think tank, publication being sued for global warming views (Fox News)... and of course:...

«Trees across the tropics are getting bigger and offering help in the fight against climate change, scientists have discovered.

I've argued against the sloppy work shown in Harry's read me, and been told that busy scientists are under pressure to get results, they don't have time at the cutting edge of academe for the careful software engineering and quality control of industrial science.

We skepitcs didn't start this war, the climate scientists did when they got their backs up against the wall with the questions and challenges.

More «shoot the messenger» ad hominems against climate scientists, it gets boring after a while.

Without getting into the specifics of this particular paper, or the science for or against, what would you think of any scientist complaining that it would be hard to dismiss a critical argument because it appeared to be correct?

You make unjustified and untrue ad homimem attacks on excellent scientists whose work provides doubt to AGW although their work has often been challenged but never faulted: e.g. you say «I have never argued against people like Lindzen and Christy and Spencer continuing to do their work and attempting to get it published in reputable peer - reviewed journals, even if their work does seem to become increasingly sloppy and desperate.»

Broad - brush character assassination against a host of unnamed (but readily identifiable) scientists: is this really the way you plan «to get the public perception of climate science back on track?»

Many of the scientists I'm sharing the pages with here have paid a high price for speaking out against Mann and his fellow Warmanos - most recently Willie Soon, whom Dr Mann's mini-me Greg Laden has been trying to get fired; and Richard Lindzen, one of those targeted by the thuggish Grijalva.

And why would these scientist agree to work under those conditions if went against getting the best result?

But where were you when climate scientists and climate campaigners were getting rape threats against their children?

The first time he got on my radar was when Marc Morano's Climate Depot «s linked to an article on climategate.com by O'Sullivan, saying that he and climategate.com were working with fraud lawyer Joel Hesch and ex-CIA agent Kent Clizbe (both in Virginia, if I remember correctly) to find scientists to turn whistleblower against Prof. Mann.

The only way to get an accurate picture is through the work of many scientists, peer reviewed and scrutinized over decades and tested against multiple lines of evidence.

That's one reason why yesterday I launched my shameless attempt to get Mann, whose defamation suit against me is now in its fourth year, to amend his complaint to the DC Superior Court yet again and this time demand the death penalty - for having the impertinence to publish a book full of what other scientists say about him: