Sentences with phrase «believed by other scientists»

See here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw Thus, according to Richard Fenman and the scientific method (as believed by all other scientists as well), your above statement is false.

Not exact matches

I want to be clear about what I mean by this, because many people believe this issue relates to current skilled labour shortages; some think it applies to our need to attract more professionals such as doctors, engineers and scientists; while others focus on the glass ceiling that many existing immigrants and visible minorities experience.

Atheists: I know many there are many people that practice religion just by fanaticism, I've seen many people in my opinion stupid (excuse the word) praying to saints hopping to solve their problems by repeating pre-made sentences over and over, but there are others different, I don't think Religion and Science need to be opposites, I believe in God, I'm Catholic and I have many reasons to believe in him, I don't think however that we should pray instead of looking for the cause and applying a solution, Atheists think they are smart because they focus on Science and technology instead of putting their faith in a God, I don't think God will solve our problems, i think he gave us the means to solve them by ourselves that's were God is, also I think that God created everything but not as a Magical thing but stablishing certain rules like Physics and Quimics etc. he's not an idiot and he knew how to make it so everything was on balance, he's the Scientist of Scientist the Mathematic of Mathematics, the Physician of Physicians, from the tiny little fact that a mosquito, an insect species needs to feed from blood from a completely different species, who created the mosquitos that way?

PDX — It doesn't take a Genius to realize from my statements that i have read things other than the Bible you moron i have spent many hours reading and listening to scientists about their theories on the big bang, i have listened to ideas from the most revered scientists including Hawking and others, and they all admit that there are holes in their theories, that nothing fully explains their big bang theory, the physics doesn't add up let alone the concept, there are plenty of scientists hard at work trying to make the numbers fit and the theory hold weight but if you ask any of them they can not give you the answers and the reason being... there are none, the theory doesn't work, If by the observable laws of Physics, Matter in this Universe can not be created or destroyed, you can only change its state, i.e. solid to liquid, to gas... to energy... There is no explanation for how an entire reality full of Matter can be created out of nothing... Scientists know this... idiots that are atheists and simply would rather NOT believe that their lives and actions they take within their lifespan are being witnessed by an Omnipotent God do not WANT to believe... but Your belief in God does not change whether or not he exists you will scientists about their theories on the big bang, i have listened to ideas from the most revered scientists including Hawking and others, and they all admit that there are holes in their theories, that nothing fully explains their big bang theory, the physics doesn't add up let alone the concept, there are plenty of scientists hard at work trying to make the numbers fit and the theory hold weight but if you ask any of them they can not give you the answers and the reason being... there are none, the theory doesn't work, If by the observable laws of Physics, Matter in this Universe can not be created or destroyed, you can only change its state, i.e. solid to liquid, to gas... to energy... There is no explanation for how an entire reality full of Matter can be created out of nothing... Scientists know this... idiots that are atheists and simply would rather NOT believe that their lives and actions they take within their lifespan are being witnessed by an Omnipotent God do not WANT to believe... but Your belief in God does not change whether or not he exists you will scientists including Hawking and others, and they all admit that there are holes in their theories, that nothing fully explains their big bang theory, the physics doesn't add up let alone the concept, there are plenty of scientists hard at work trying to make the numbers fit and the theory hold weight but if you ask any of them they can not give you the answers and the reason being... there are none, the theory doesn't work, If by the observable laws of Physics, Matter in this Universe can not be created or destroyed, you can only change its state, i.e. solid to liquid, to gas... to energy... There is no explanation for how an entire reality full of Matter can be created out of nothing... Scientists know this... idiots that are atheists and simply would rather NOT believe that their lives and actions they take within their lifespan are being witnessed by an Omnipotent God do not WANT to believe... but Your belief in God does not change whether or not he exists you will scientists hard at work trying to make the numbers fit and the theory hold weight but if you ask any of them they can not give you the answers and the reason being... there are none, the theory doesn't work, If by the observable laws of Physics, Matter in this Universe can not be created or destroyed, you can only change its state, i.e. solid to liquid, to gas... to energy... There is no explanation for how an entire reality full of Matter can be created out of nothing... Scientists know this... idiots that are atheists and simply would rather NOT believe that their lives and actions they take within their lifespan are being witnessed by an Omnipotent God do not WANT to believe... but Your belief in God does not change whether or not he exists you will Scientists know this... idiots that are atheists and simply would rather NOT believe that their lives and actions they take within their lifespan are being witnessed by an Omnipotent God do not WANT to believe... but Your belief in God does not change whether or not he exists you will be judged.

Inspired by Albert Einstein and others, Claude believes that the education of young scientists and health professionals must be bound by a social contract that safeguards their freedom to travel, associate, and communicate freely, but asks in return that they do no harm and direct their talents toward caring for all human beings and the earth we inhabit.

Many scientists and historians believe that the Taino — indigenous Caribbean people — were wiped out by disease, slavery, and other brutal consequences shortly after European colonization, without passing down any genes to people in the Caribbean today.

We believe things simply because they're relayed to us by other scientists.

Many scientists believe the extinction was caused by an asteroid impact; some think regional volcanism was to blame, and others suspect it was due to a combination of the two.

Some scientists believe the amygdala doesn't have its own discrete storage system for emotionally charged memories but rather marks memories created by other brain systems as being somehow emotionally significant.

We are lazily willing to believe scientists» explanations of their own work, or interpretations of it by others.

Under the AIA, academic scientists (and others) will now have 6 months from the publication of a patent application (by others) to submit prior art (e.g., disclosures, publications) that they believe the examiner should consider.

Scientists believe that by looking at Mercury, they will learn not only about planets in our solar system, but also about the increasing number of rocky planets being found around other stars.

While some scientists believe there was indeed an explosion of diversity (the so - called punctuated equilibrium theory elaborated by Nils Eldredge the late Stephen J. Gould - Models In Paleobiology, 1972), others believe that such rapid acceleration of evolution is not possible; they posit that there was an extended period of evolutionary progression of all the animal groups, the evidence for which is lost in the all but nonexistent precambrian fossil record.

The bodies looked to be buried on the same day as others in the nearby Bedlam cemetery with headstones reading 1665, further leading scientists to believe those in the burial pit were killed by the plague.

Some scientists (that aren't influenced by big business) believe that GM corn, soy, and other GM crops could cause major long term health issues for our entire population, even if acute health issues are not observed.

I believe that Jaminet's diet can improve one's health, but if you want to go to the next frontier, to that frontier where it is possible to slow down the effects of aging and reverse to a great extent many of the chronic diseases of aging, as revealed by calorie restriction and other elegant studies being done by scientists around the world studying the biology of aging, such as Cynthia Kenyon, you will have to take the next step that my diet will take you to.

Watch the first 1 to 2 minutes section of the UP Stream Pt 4 doco / research prject specifically being directed at all Climate Scientists about how important Values are, and why Listening to the community (the target market) is absolutely critical: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyRKTqsXfjM Watch how people (the general public) are treated by others (climate scientists included) on all climate blogs when they indicate they are not yet convinced of AGW or can't work out who to believe is telling the truth and in doing so reference someone else's «opinion»... and try and measure the level of paranoia exhibited by pro-agw folks about such negative comments about thScientists about how important Values are, and why Listening to the community (the target market) is absolutely critical: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyRKTqsXfjM Watch how people (the general public) are treated by others (climate scientists included) on all climate blogs when they indicate they are not yet convinced of AGW or can't work out who to believe is telling the truth and in doing so reference someone else's «opinion»... and try and measure the level of paranoia exhibited by pro-agw folks about such negative comments about thscientists included) on all climate blogs when they indicate they are not yet convinced of AGW or can't work out who to believe is telling the truth and in doing so reference someone else's «opinion»... and try and measure the level of paranoia exhibited by pro-agw folks about such negative comments about the science.

Just as a hypothetical example: If climate scientist will tell me that recent pause in global warming is due to the effect of an inactive sun (which is the reality as reported by following) http://www.spaceweather.com and that they will go back and improve their models to account for this, then I would be more inclined to believe their other claims... Instead the IPCC doubles down on their predictions and claim the future effects will be worst than they originally thought?

On what basis are scientists permitted such manipulation of publicly funded research so as to make it acceptable by theirs and others standards and beliefs and to drag the research into what is a politically correct and acceptable form to conform to some ill defined ideological belief that a group of their peers might believe in.?

The majority of the British public is still not convinced that climate change is caused by humans — and many others believe scientists are exaggerating the problem

Other respected scientists believe that the scenarios have been overtaken by events.

There are numerous other scientists who believe CET to be a reasonable but by no means perfect proxy for global and or NH temperatures.

The policy has bipartisan support and is endorsed by over 50 University of Washington climate scientists, Audubon Washington, Citizens» Climate Lobby, and numerous other groups and individuals who believe we must take action now on climate change.

This is an example of what he believes is an incorrect way of thinking that is due to the hubris of and an unfair caricature of other scientists by, the putative writer of such a sentiment:

If the general public doesn't understand this then it might be in part due to poor communication by climate scientists and journalists, but what the general public might believe is not the issue here — this is a forum for people who actually take an active interest in the subject so there should be an expectation that they are rather better informed than the average man on the street, especially if they are going to make confident pronouncements about the supposed flaws in the IPCC position (and other things).

Maybe the other climate scientists have other reasons to believe the climate is pretty sensitive to forcing (i.e., dominated by positive feedbacks.)

If you are a scientist or engineer and believe the AGW part of climate change is well described by the models, then I will ask you to explain how the hypothesis is calculated and how independnently validated by others experiments, over the time periods predicted ex ante, not ex post, how the forcing variable from CO2 to water vapour was hypothesisied and then proven.

Then there is retiree and former scientist (among other things) Oliver Manuel, who believes that climate science is the result of «secret, fear - driven agreements by the winners of the Second World War in 1945.»

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?

I only mention this, because you and some other warmists pretend that if only we just do the right thing and «believe» in AGW, everything will be all right --- when the truth is that a country like ours stands to lose its prosperity, our children's futures and our standard of living for the foreseeable future --- all on the strength of the scientific conclusions that your AGW scientists have so little confidence in, that they're afraid to have them scrutinised and questioned by other scientists.

The Paris accord, agreed by nearly 200 countries in 2015, seeks to limit planetary warming by curbing global emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases that scientists believe drive global warming.

Thus, who is supposed to believe that Lennart Bengtsson was threatened by other scientist?

They determined, however, that this volume had now increased by a further 3 cubic miles each year, prompted by an acceleration in the rate at which the ice caps and glaciers are melting.Unlike what many other scientists have said — including, most prominently, NASA's James Hansen (who believes that a rise in 17 inches by 2100 will be mainly precipitated by the melting of ice sheets)-- the authors of this study believe that the loss of ice from glaciers and ice caps will account for the majority of the expected rise in sea levels.

So, in other words, his history is that for years he believed every story he was told by the likes of Watts regarding the honestly and professionalism of climate scientists.