Sentences with phrase «author of the report commented»

Professor Robert West, lead author of the report commented «The death and suffering caused worldwide by tobacco far outstrips anything that terrorists have been able to inflict.

No associations were observed in the other cohorts, and the authors of the report commented that during the early 2000s father involvement might have been more closely linked to socioeconomic status in the UK than in the other three countries.

Not exact matches

«The author of the EIU's report has told me that he did not mean to suggest that Vancouver's fall from grace was a result of the closures of the Malahat highway on Vancouver Island, though many have understandably interpreted it this way and commented to this effect, both on this article and elsewhere.

«Interest in entrepreneurship among people of color is quite strong, but access to the resources to do it successfully is often a challenge,» commented the report's author Algernon Austin.

I was paid by the Fraser Institute for anonymous comments provided to the author of one of their reports.

Post reports display all your posts in chronological order and gives you information about dates, the types of post, authors, statistics about shares, comments and likes and a content preview.

Dave Sawyer, one of the authors of the National Round Table on Environment and Economy report, and blogger at EnviroEconomics.ca, makes some pertinent insider comments on the efficacy of a carbon tax in reducing emissions from personal transportation, a major source of emissions: While the carbon tax will â $ œdriveâ $ some reductions in vehicle kilometers traveled, -LSB-...]

All authors had access to all data sources, contributed to the interpretation of results, commented on the report, and approved the final version for publication.

comments Cédric Blanpain, the lead author of the Cell Reports publication.

The drilling industry was highly critical of the draft and its authors and pressed county officials to delay issuing its final report by extending the period for public comments.

Nature» snews team has asked the paper's corresponding author, stem - cell scientist Yong Fan, for comment, but had not heard from him by the time of this report.

«Inorganic arsenic is considered a first level carcinogen and its long - term exposure has negative effects on human health,» comments Dr Iva Hojsak of University Children's Hospital Zagreb, Croatia, lead author of the Committee report.

«Our controlled study shows that, used as part of breast reconstruction, lipofilling is a safe procedure that does not increase the risk of recurrent or new breast cancers,» comments ASPS member surgeon Dr. Steven J. Kronowitz of Kronowitz Plastic Surgery, Houston (formerly of M.D. Anderson Cancer Center), lead author of the new report.

Luke Sibieta, Programme Director at the IFS and author of the report, commented: «School spending in England has been one of the most protected areas of public spending under the coalition government.

John Cater, author of the report, commented: «There are worrying signs that the profession is failing to attract enough entrants and failing to retain existing teachers in sufficient numbers and with appropriate specialisms to deliver the revised curriculum to a rapidly increasing school - age population.

The report's author, Professor Keith Topping comments: «This year's findings reveal that, strikingly, children read their favourite books at a much higher level of difficulty and with a greater level of comprehension than those recommended to them.

Asked by Education Week to comment on our findings, the lead author of the NCES report freely acknowledged the problems with some of the variables used in the NCES analysis, but asserted that our alternative models may be «underadjusting for the disadvantage in the public sector» because we do not control separately for mothers» and fathers» education.

Author Elissa Nadworny notes, «The latest national numbers suggest that more than 6 million students are «chronically absent,»» and emphasizes comments made by Phyllis Jordan, who authored a recent FutureEd report on the subject, that, «Research tells us that kids shouldn't miss 10 percent or more of the school year, that's the tipping point for kids, but there isn't really research that tells us how many chronically absent kids are too many for a school.»

Authors, writers, publishers of eBooks, audiobooks and short texts can... A) sell their eBook through their author page on XinXii - without author contract - in real - time, without technical skills - with an own authorpage and online shop - enter all information such as description, tags, cover, price... - upload an eBook in one or multiple formats: PDF, ePub, mobi, doc, xls... - high royalties per download - consolidated real - time sales reports - keeping full editorial and copyright control or B) sell their eBook through their author page on XinXii and additionally on major eBook retailers - we convert eBooks to the ePub and mobi format for free - we distribute to the leading eBook - shops all over the world for free - we provide consolidated sales reports Readers have... - the opportunity to discover new titles in all categories and genres - an easy access to a huge variety of content - can instantly download after purchase - have the opportunity to rate and comment on eBooks

It's also worth noting that the author of the AE report, Hugh Howey, admitted in comments on Chuck Wendig's blog (fourth down) that actually he earned more from trad pub last year that he did from Amazon.

In return for their $ 100, writers» manuscripts «will be considered carefully, and a report, of at least one page, will be sent to the author, providing a critical assessment of the manuscript, comments on commercial possibilities, and suggestions for next steps (including, where appropriate, publication by Liberties Press)».

The report's author, Professor Keith Topping comments: «This year's findings reveal that, strikingly, children read their favourite books at a much higher level of difficulty and with a greater level of comprehension than those recommended to them.

The bonus: the event site is still getting hits and comments two weeks later and all of the featured authors reported back either an increase in sales, «likes,» or traffic on their websites.

[June 16, 12:45 a.m. Updated A lead author, Dan Kammen, has defended the report below, and the co-chairman of the climate panel working group dealing with climate policy, as well as Greenpeace representatives, have added comments, as well.]

Paul Baer, a climate policy analyst at the Georgia Institute of Technology and contributing author to the panel's next Working Group 3 report (on policy options), posted a comment that's well worth elevating into the main post:

Comparing the clarifications made by the authors of the Science paper with the paper itself, related news releases and the authors» comments in news reports, Roger A. Pielke, Jr., of the University of Colorado posted a tough critique tonight of what he called the authors» (and National Science Foundation's) «gross misrepresentation of the findings» and the credulous reporting that amplified the misrepresentations.

The other features — already mentioned — were the identification of dominant regional concerns, the highlighting of climate change impacts already occurring, and the report's effectiveness as an engagement tool, which Mooney had just commented on, plus one more thing: the focus on extreme events, which are both most noticeable by the public and the primary source of economic damage in the next several decades, as Dr. Michael Hanemann (author of this paper) explained to me for a story I wrote about the California drought.

KE Research GmbH, a German public policy consultancy firm, prepared the report based on interviews and editing assistance from noted German theoretical physicists Ralf D. Tscheuschner & Gerhard Gerlich, authors of the peer - reviewed paper Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects within the Frame of Physics, and numerous other German climatologists, physicists, and scientists — I'd be interested to hear comments http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/06/rescue-from-climate-saviors.html

The Center's role in this project is to recruit lead authors and contributors for the third report; ensure that a steady stream of literature reviews are written and posted on the NIPCC Web site; ensure that the lead authors produce a manuscript; revise the manuscript in response to comments by peer reviewers; and deliver final manuscripts to the publisher in time to meet the publication schedule.

I delt only with the tree ring data, as clearly stated, and dealing with the second half of the document was largely unnecissary as even the authors of that report claim, «Like the work on tree rings this work is strongly dependent on statistical analysis and our comments are essentially the same.»

In comments to reporters, no authors of the commission report said a global treaty to fight climate change would be anything other than a good thing.

People who reviewed the report and who disagreed through their comments or provided materials are included in the list of experts or authors, even if their materials were rejected.

In comments, several readers suggested that I examine a recent report from the U.K. newspaper the Daily Mail that attempts to tie the research of modeller and IPCC author Mojib Latif to the current cold spell in Europe.

It was later speculated that it was Jonathan Overpeck, a lead author of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Reports, but he said he didn» t recall the comment.

As Review Editor of Chapter 6 Paleoclimate of the Working Group I contribution to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, «Climate Change 2007: The Physical Basis», I can confirm that the authors have in my view dealt with reviewers comments to the extent that can be reasonably expected.

This is worrying — if the IPCC reports accurately represent the views of the IPCC authors, then why did so many of the authors feel the need to comment as Expert Reviewers?

According to the IPCC guidelines, Review Editors are supposed to ``... assist the Working Group / Task Force Bureaux in identifying reviewers for the expert review process, ensure that all substantive expert and government review comments are afforded appropriate consideration, advise lead authors on how to handle contentious / controversial issues and ensure genuine controversies are reflected adequately in the text of the Report.»

I believe that WG1 review comments (with names of reviewers), and the author responses, will be published when the full copy - edited report comes out in January, along with the First and Second Order Drafts of the chapters — this will enable people to see what the comments referred to, and how the authors addresses those comments.

While the individuals listed above have provided constructive comments and suggestions, it must be emphasized that responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution.

«The language of denial: Text analysis reveals differences in language use between climate change proponents and skeptics» «Comment on «Climate Science and the Uncertainty Monster» by J. A. Curry and P. J. Webster» «Guidance note for lead authors of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report on consistent treatment of uncertainties»

In keeping with the real IPCC tradition allowing non-experts and experts alike to review their reports, Eli has been charged * with collecting open reviews of this document which can be deposited in the comments and forwarded to the authors, a handy list of which is

None of the authors involved in the report are allowed to comment publicly on the report's contents before its official release.

Here is an comment to the IPCC practice in the Inter Academy Council review report of IPCC: Climate change assessments; Review of the processes and procedures of the IPCC «IPCC authors are tasked to review and synthesize available literature rather than to conduct original research.

Re «Gixxer Boy» comment above, since you have widespread acceptance for impartiality (however grudging and qualified from the Warmists) it it possible that you could act as a collecting and reporting body for compiling conflicts of interest and potential bias among AR5 authors?

So when I asked in the comments section (scroll, baby, scroll) of the Yale 360 article why the authors didn't disclose the RBF - CCS funding relationship, the answer from co-author Sassoon was that they were disclosed — in RBF's annual reports!

The author of the Economist piece makes the following comments: * «Perhaps the most worrying thing about the PBL [Dutch Environmental Assessment Agency] report, though, is a rather obvious one about which its authors say little.

He then ads, «Some Lead Authors ignored valid critical comments or failed to... reflect dissenting views... «The report was therefore the result of a political rather than a scientific process.»

The role of Review Editors in the IPCC assessment process is to assist the Working Group / Task Force Bureaux in identifying reviewers for the expert review process, ensure that all substantive expert and government review comments are afforded appropriate consideration by the author teams, advise Lead Authors on how to handle contentious / controversial issues and ensure genuine controversies are reflected adequately in the text of the report.

It appears mostly sensible and has a lot of useful things to say about improving IPCC processes â $ «from suggesting a new Executive to be able to speak for IPCC in - between reports, a new communications strategy, better consistency among working groups and ideas for how to reduce the burden on lead authors in responding to rapidly increasing review comments.

How well they did so in the body of the renewables report may be revealed when the comments from reviewers and responses from authors are made public.