Sentences with phrase «by qualified scientists»

A collection of biological samples and clinical information used by qualified scientists to advance the field of psoriasis genetics.

It appears to be solely his own opinion, and is unsupported by any qualified scientist.

Not exact matches

The study was funded by EnCana, the drilling company whose wells the EPA had initially blamed for the contamination.Though the role of fracking remains contested, the advising scientists recommend that the EPA should qualify its conclusions about the risks posed by acknowledging gaps in the existing data and concerning cases like Pavillion.

Other qualified scientists with no vested interest in seeing a given theory succeed or fail attempt to find flaws in the methodologies described in the source paper by replicating the processes themselves to see if they get the same results.

A traditional way to maintain integrity in science is through peer review, the anonymous examination of a scientific paper by qualified, competing scientists before publication.

The first will be to help identify scientists, engineers or physicians who are highly qualified in the area of expertise sought by a judge who has requested assistance from the project.

Such departments are staffed by a mixture of clinical scientists, biomedical scientists, and medically qualified staff.

At CFS, I was trained by senior scientists and qualified technologists in 1) theory and operation of analytical instruments and techniques (e.g., liquid chromatography, gas chromatography, mass spectroscopy, ELISA); 2) their application to forensic toxicology; 3) interpretation of results; and 4) advantages and limitations of these methods.

The funding is most likely to come by expanding existing programs at the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, the National Institutes of Health, and elsewhere that could financially support a lot more qualified scientists than they currently do.

The new virus, officially known as Mimivirus (because it mimics a bacterium), is a creature «so bizarre,» as The London Telegraph described it, «and unlike anything else seen by scientists... that... it could qualify for a new domain in the tree of life.»

Five candidates per year are admitted to the program as apprentice scientists working in laboratories headed by qualified mentors.

Just remember to indicate (by checking YES in item 1 of the form PHS - 398 Cover Page Supplement — the link is to a Microsoft Word document) that you qualify for consideration as an early - career scientist.

Qualifying entries (those that meet eligibility criteria and abide by all competition rules) are scored by a panel of judges, consisting of scientists, engineers, astrophotographers, and other professionals from NSF.

Well - qualified and savvy Ph.D. scientists could very likely land substantially more lucrative offers on their own, but the program serves a useful purpose by aiming to ease the way to a first industrial position for scientists unfamiliar with or intimidated by the nonacademic job market.

Despite what Joe Bast and Heartland comms director Jim Lakely claim, their false report is not peer - reviewed, a formal process conducted by editors at actual scientific journals have other qualified scientists rigorously review and critique submitted work if it is to be approved for publication.

In criminal matters, scientific analyses and tests conducted by qualified forensic scientists can exonerate as well as convict an accused person.

Regardless of the type of legal proceeding or which side uses scientific evidence, the forensic scientist must be able to write a report and testify under oath about: what facts or items of evidence were analyzed or tested; what tests or analyses were used; how valid or reliable those tests or analyses have been found to be by other courts; why and how the forensic scientist was qualified to conduct those tests or analyses; and, what the results of the tests or analyses were and how those results are relevant to the issues in dispute.

In civil cases, such as a lawsuit for damages from a vehicle accident or from a medical problem, testing and analysis by a qualified forensic scientist may be used by either side to address the validity of the allegations in the suit.

The VAF provides funding for grants in support of research, by qualified animal health care professionals and scientists, into the elimination of ocular diseases causing vision loss and suffering in animals

Government bureaucrat «scientists» guarantee themselves lifetime employment by claiming CO2 is going to cause a climate catastrophe... that only they can see coming... and only they are qualified to study.

If we pick a nice round number like 2100, the most likely future as predicted by our most qualified scientists will be laid out for all to see - and, who knows, maybe even act upon.

Outside of this lone exception, the dispute has involved people who are not climate scientists whose flawed work slipped through a sloppy peer - review process (as discussed in False Claims by McIntyre and McKitrick) and elsewhere on this site, or highly qualified people like Michael Crichton.

It seems to me from checking Dr. Cowtan's publications that he offers an expert's statistical analysis offering insights into a problem that was posted by the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society — a body of qualified scientists.

As a little experiment I tried posting on RealClimate (on the Mountains and Molehills thread), pointing out that I was a highly experienced and well qualified scientist who was less than entirely convinced by the AGW orthodoxy.

Our work on climate change is produced by a network of more than 200 highly qualified scientists, economists, and policy experts.

All attempts by a long list of rather well qualified scientists from both sides of the debate to point out to you that there has been a century of physics since then have been futile.

davidmhoffer says, January 26, 2013 at 8:42 am: «All attempts by a long list of rather well qualified scientists from both sides of the debate to point out to you that there has been a century of physics since then have been futile.»

But you also said, «But let me try and make it even clearer: consensus by a vote of qualified scientists is not a valid basis for arriving at a logical, scientific conclusions about AGW — that's true» You have clearly contradicted yourself.

Medical doctors are quite entitled to comment on science in an area they have studied formally or informally...... anybody is, indeed hugely important work is done by non qualified scientists such as Steyn and Delingpole.

Courts make a VERY clear distinction between free speech and deliberate libel; and equating a respected scientist (respected by his peers; he doesn't need the respect of the rubes) with a most reviled pervert and convicted criminal does qualify as deliberate slander.

If you (and the editors of this blog) really believe that most of the world's climate scientists are involved in some kind of cosy conspiracy to cover up or exaggerate the facts, then I suggest you take an open - minded look at realclimate.org, where «the science per se» is debated critically and in depth by well - qualified people.

So individuals such as Gavin Schmidt (who is a computer scientist by education) would also qualify as scientists in my analysis.

If you can still convince yourself that your odd theory that heat somehow trapped by greenhouse gases is causing sea level rise or fall, and that you can somehow account for things like totally unknown vertical displacements in sea beds in your measurement, you can probably qualify as a climate scientist.

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.

* (For a good reason, too — there are so inordinately few somewhat qualified or learned and somewhat credentialed individuals on this subject who take the manufactured «anti Climate Change theory: view one that should be pursued by nearly every scientist on the planet were it to have merit, as it is a far better end result if true, yet nevertheless is not, but persists in fact due to the enormous ideological, macroeconomically frightened (and myopically presumptive), and «good thing going» industry based pressures, behind it.)

You've been pointed at a variety of articles by well qualified scientists on this matter, all you need do is read them.

Despite what Joe Bast and Heartland comms director Jim Lakely claim, their false report is not peer - reviewed, a formal process conducted by editors at actual scientific journals have other qualified scientists rigorously review and critique submitted work if it is to be approved for publication.

The above «Climate of Doubt» program qualifies as such with its blatant insinuation about skeptics corrupted by illicit money, as does its prior 2008 program «Heat», in which only unidentified skeptic scientists were shown while the narrator said «Not only have big oil companies not invested much in renewables, but for years they were among the largest contributors to so - called climate change denier groups, groups like the Heartland Institute, the organizer of this 2008 convention.»

I was responding to claims that those outside the «climate science» community are not qualified to judge the validity of statements made by «climate scientists.»

Because if I'm not qualified, then you should not be trusting the tools, methods and calculations used by climate scientists and others to do their work, nor the results of that work... because I had a role in developing and refining some of the very fundamental tools they (and you) use!

Your comment presented @ 20 apparently at me seems to be excusing Paterson by suggesting that only scientists are qualified to talk in depth on the subject of climate change.

But the blog was populated by many of the «qualified scientists» that we're being asked to store so much faith in, and who posted to the blog to register their support of the AGU statement.

In particular, climates scientists often get very «creative» with statistical methods, and often create results which don't stand up to review by qualified statisticians outside the field.

It does not qualify as a Black Swan, since it claimed ascendancy only by ignoring conflicting evidence and blackballing climate scientists who had such evidence.

Is insulting what is by now a very large group of people, many of them qualified, respected scientists, an effective way to persuade them?

said Coeur d'Alene environmental science teacher Jamie Esler, who served on a state committee of award - winning educators, parents, and scientists that developed the K12 science standards.The science standards developed by the highly qualified committee, over painstaking months of work, maintain «integrity around the science of climate,» and will enable Idaho science teachers to fully educate their students about human - caused climate...

Consider some of the arguments that are proposed and promoted by well - qualified scientists in the denialist camp: Global warming stopped in 1998.

She has been informed by many highly competent scientists that are apparently much more qualified than herself in how to separate the short term natural variation from the human change signal based on changes and influences of increased radiative forcing.

Then there's this juicy bit of «communication»: ``... it suffices to say that the climate scientists have little doubt about the human impact on the climate...» Of course, like so much science non-communication, this is followed up by some vague qualifying about extent etc so you don't really know if the first bit is a sly consensus message or just a truism.