Sentences with phrase «by scientists about»

Revkin argues that journalists should resist the urge to tie climate change stories to natural disasters like hurricanes, since there is legitimate debate by scientists about whether such a connection exists.

A story in The Times of London examines new expressions of concern by scientists about the perils of overstating the links between extreme events and climate change.

I think for a while there was some concern by some scientists about nitrates in vegetables (judging from a quick search) but I figure those are the same scientists who once advised women not to nurse their babies.

Sven Hemlin from the University of Gothenburg in Sweden has been studying the judgements made by scientists about quality of research.

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.

So when the social scientist was first called about the job by a search consultant, Blount resisted every entreaty to meet.

StarTalk Radio is a podcast and radio program hosted by astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, where comic co-hosts, guest celebrities and scientists discuss astronomy, physics, and everything else about life in the universe.

Lang and Stackpole have heard about ROV units being used by a wide range of people, including aquaculturists, conservationists looking for invasive species, teachers, engineers who need to inspect pipes and, yes, even marine scientists.

When researchers out of Russia examined the sleep and wakefulness rhythms of 130 study subjects (by keeping the obliging participants up for a full 24 hours and quizzing them periodically about how they were feeling), the scientists found that some folks really didn't prefer early or late hours.

What it's about: Marty McFly is sent 30 years into the past un a really nice car invented by his friend, a kooky local scientist.

When asked about the other «tools» Facebook uses internally, Goler points to Quip — the document creation and collaboration service created by Facebook's former chief scientist Bret Taylor and recently acquired by Salesforce.com.

Over the last few days, posts by Bill McKibben in the Guardian and by NASA scientist Dr. James Hansen on his own website at Columbia have again brought forward the statistic that, «the tar sands are estimated to contain at least 400 GtC (equivalent to about 200 ppm CO2).»

I totally understand your view about Roth IRAs not being worth it either — but as inefficient as the government is, it does fund some worthwhile endeavors (as a former scientist supported by government funds) that private sectors will never do (as someone who works in in the industry).

Long despised as a craft of the lazy and unproductive, spontaneous thought (including nostalgic trips down memory lane and fantasizing about the future) is now viewed by brain scientists as a critical aspect of healthy functioning.

The approach was based on a technique pioneered at Cambridge University by data scientists who claimed it could reveal more about a person than even their parents or romantic partners knew.

As early as the 1930s, scientists were alarmed by the degradation and were worried about erosion and plants dying off.»

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.

· B.C. Liberal MLA Kevin Krueger expressed his support for the plant by saying «I know that various people are saying very emotional things about it, but we trust scientists and engineers when we get on airplanes.

David had also come across a speech by former BP chief executive, Lord Browne, in which he spoke of the warnings company scientists had sounded about climate change, and how their arguments convinced him that it was wrong to side with climate denial.

The Black Church in the African American Experience by C. Eric Lincoln and Lawrence H. Mamiya Duke University Press, 519 pages, $ 47.50 When we cut through the many good reasons that lead social scientists to study religion, we find ourselves in the end confronting questions about politics.

If you hear a scientist say he believes in god, it's pretty likely he's lying (and there are a million reasons why he would be pressured to lie about it) or he's financially backed by religious dollars.

= > I have no idea what point you are making with «I would take something by just its word and a scientist telling me to believe it» what book are you talking about?

If new evidence is produced that indicates something else, scientist will consider it, publish articles about it that will be reviewed and critiqued by others, revise their opinions and create a new theory.

a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.

Oh, by the way pretend scientist, the story you lamely hijacked was really more about the misery of alcohol dependence.

One is reminded of a remark made some years ago by political scientist and former ambassador George F. Kennan about the East - West conflict.

The debate about its age by scientists concerns differing opinions on how MANY MILLIONS of years old it is.

Philosophy has to take notice of what is established by natural scientists but, equally, philosophy enables usto judge some of the things said by scientists, for example, about the nature of matter.

Catholic scientists are puzzled now by sudden calls to «rescue Darwin from Darwinism» and are no longer sure what their own Church believes about the theory.

By the way, for those of you impressed with her reference too Fred Hoyle, today, about 93 % of the American Academy of Scientists (THE most prestigious scientific body in the USA) reject the idea of the Judeo - Christian god.

No church I've ever been in has ever said 1 thing about «cheap grace» nor have the changes in society EVER been linked by ONE historian or social scientist to «cheap grace».

I do copy and paste quotes by actual scientists who have impressive credentials that share about their belief in God:

Oh, by the way, scientists don't expect ME to pay money in their honor every week so some guy in a staged ceremony can read from a 2,000 year old book, translated dozens of different ways, written by a bunch of folks whom we know virtually nothing about, where the facts and moral lessons are both flawed and contradictory.

Jay I'm not talking about atheism; what I'm saying is that critics of evolution don't actually read any real books by actual scientists about the subject.

The ambivalence on the part of many scientists about what they ultimately hope for, and the ambiguity of their language about it, is matched by similar tip - toeing by some seasoned science reporters.

So here's what I think about the election: The forecasts — based on complicated models — found in the APSA's PS by real social scientists — with the exception of the one by the astute James Campbell — are, as usual, too timid in terms of picking up the impending surge....

They are so about the coming revenge of the nerds that they forget that even scientists and philosophers have to be animated by erotic longings that could only exist in beings with bodies, minds, and other stuff too — in persons.

For example a century ago, the only transportation was the horse riding or camel or donkey and so on... you can not imagine at that time people would be thinking about travelling the globe in a day or two... and we do not know what is coming as every scientists theory is being abrogated by a new scientist and the old one becomes obsolete... these also proves that human theory can not be perfect and will never be perfect... there will always be modifications...

The research of scientists like José Delgado into the ways in which mental and emotional processes can be produced, controlled, or modified by electrical and chemical means raises profound practical questions about the possible use and misuse of such powers.

One week before the successful flight of the Wright brothers at Kitty Hawk, N.C., the New York Times had this to say about a rival plane builder: «We hope that Professor Langley will not put his substantial greatness as a scientist in further peril by continuing to waste his time, and the money involved, in further airship experiments.

While religious perspectives have nothing to do with the technical content of a lecture, they are relevant to a number of aspects of the academic situation.1 Where appropriate to the objectives of the course and closely connected with the subject matter, some of the questions which we have raised about the effects of an invention on society or the ethical dilemmas faced by the scientist can legitimately be mentioned in the classroom.

Our Sun is one star out of about 200 billion stars that make up our Milkyway Galaxy which is no more or less special than any other galaxy scientists have discovered hurling through a vast unimaginably large expanse of space that we call the Universe (which is about 99 % empty space by the way).

Science is true, god was created by people including scientists who could not be able to explains things when we knew so little about the earth and the universe.

When I read some information in the Bible that is evidence that the person knew about nature, but scientist didn't discover it for hundreds or thousands of years later, I have to ask myself, «How did that (Bibical) person know that without it being revealed to him by some higher power.

The differentiation between «implicit» and «explicit» ontologies is meant to be a gradation — from the statements about reality by the natural subject to those of the scientist and on to those of the philosopher.

Most of us do not trust the scientists employed by the cigarette companies to tell us truthfully about the consequences of smoking for health, nor the scientists who work for oil companies to give us accurate information about global warming.

You probably remember the scene from «Jurassic Park» where the wild - eyed scientist, Dr. Ian Malcom, talks about «chaos theory» and illustrates it by watching drops of water roll off his knuckle.

It's also why I invite comments and critiques from faithful collaborators — pastors, scholars, artists, scientists, doctors, parents, blog commenters, and editors — who often know more about a given topic than I and whose insights improve my writing by miles.

Now I think that in making this distinction Whitehead makes a good and original initial point; because it is the fact that philosophers, by instinct, always think heterogeneously about nature, whereas scientists, equally by instinct, don't, which, more than any one thing, makes the philosophy of science so unreal a subject for actual research scientists.

More generally, though, when one considers the volumes that have been written by political theorists and political scientists on the nature of political institutions, one ought to be struck by how little Bishop Wright actually seems to have thought about these institutions before venturing forth on the sea of political analysis.