Sentences with phrase «by scientists who»

About Blog Anole Annals is written and edited by scientists who study Anolis lizards.

A perfect example of this comes from a study conducted by scientists who created several groups containing three people of different racial backgrounds.

But it is possible to have the wool pulled over ones eye's by scientists who are dishonest.

However, unknown to many consumers urged to buy electric cars and pay higher taxes to subsidize more expensive alternative fuels, this longstanding warning about too much warming has come under assault by scientists who say that a higher concentration of atmospheric CO2 is without risk.

«Already the number of sandstorms has been reduced,» he said, pointing out that the number had fallen to zero this year from 18 in 2001, a figure that has been contested by scientists who claim that 4 sandstorms were recorded in Beijing this past March alone.

They are all real possibilities, but have been discarded by scientists who looked at the evidence and concluded that they were not the causes of the current warming of the thin atmosphere of our planet.

Along the way, they are accompanied by scientists who give them a perspective on what is happening and what we can expect.»

Dubbed the Jacuzzi of Despair by the scientists who discovered it, the brine pool «lake» is like an alien world.

I think the point of the «letter» is that there is a proportion of raw data which has been collected by scientists who are funded by the public... and this data is not publicly available (i.e. they are keeping it to themselves, it's a competitive world out there!).

This is confirmed by the scientists» responses compared with ours: more than half of our «no position» abstracts were rated as «endorsement» by the scientists who actually wrote the papers!

The cautions and provisos of the modellers are swept aside by scientists who want to downplay uncertainty to get political influence, and by politicians for whom the headline is far more important than the small print that few will read.

Yet your words read exactly the opposite — the IPCC abused by scientists who have «used the IPCC» for their own personal benefit.

On the other hand we have the IPCC statement, which is produced by scientists who are «close to the problem» who are clearly stating that the possibility is less than 5 percent.

As for the various «facts» in Swindle put forward to support the thesis that global warming is a giant conspiracy carried out by scientists who want to boost their research funding, every one has been refuted by eminent scientists.

Every text was fact - checked multiple times by the scientists who actually did the original studies (and it's filled with Gary's outstanding photos from around the world of global warming impacts.)

And as always I rely on the website where you will find a constant supply of papers by scientists who debunk global warming at: icecap.us / index.php

I've just uploaded the ratings provided by the scientists who rated their own climate papers, published in our peer - reviewed paper «Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature».

There is some interest among climate scientists in trying to devise a way to discriminate between «better» and «worse» climate models by comparing them to recent climate, but my main point is that the sensitivity of a model is not predictable in advance by the scientists who are writing the model code, because it is too complicated for that.

We are not to believe any papers written by scientists who are associated with any oil companies due to their obvious conflict of interest!!

It has been said time and again, often by scientists who have served as part of the IPCC.

It appears for UCS the only legitimate views are those expressed by scientists who share UCS» values.

Counter claims that volcanoes, especially submarine volcanoes, produce vastly greater amounts of CO2 than these estimates are not supported by any papers published by the scientists who study the subject.

You mean... you're not a teeny bit sceptical of this «ice age», announced by scientists who apparently work for a lobby - group?

We will find that most of these claims are thought to be wild exaggerations even by scientists who support AGW theory.

Then there was the conspiracy to keep peer - reviewed papers by scientists who disagreed with AGW dogma from getting published.

Shame that its been shown to be an artifact of bad mathematics and spin by the authors, and is now widely discredited and discounted, even by scientists who believe in AGW.

The Royal Astronomical Society replied to them and CCed to us and said, «Look, this is the work by the scientists who we support, please discuss this with them.»

There is denial, but not by the scientists who study this.

Once again I'll rely on analyses done by scientists who are not part of the community of skeptics.

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.

In both of these realms policy makers rely on expert opinion, opinion which is supported by data analysis as generated by scientists who employ Option «B» from above or option «C» Policy makers are not interested in folks who preach about the ideal of science.

The end of the paper specifically points out the greater understanding of climate change by scientists who took part in the survey and those without scientific expertise:

All ongoing grants ended, and everyone re-applies — merit to be judged by scientists who have never been on the AGW funding stream.

A critical reason why this approach is faulty is that skeptical climate scientists are significantly outnumbered by scientists who are more confident in human - caused warming and in future warming scenarios.

This book provides a shocking insight into the nefarious workings of the IPCC and should be read by all politicians and digested by those scientists who have sold their souls and abused their professional code of conduct.

It has withstood these attacks, and is no longer seriously doubted by scientists who actually study the climate.

So who are the agreed upon by all scientists who will breathe the last word into accepting its a dinky or die problem!?

Unfortunately, for the public, this science journal and the mainstream press now almost exclusively rely on «plausible» and pure speculations by scientists who are seeking new funding for their research.

Or we can understand that there is a 200 yr body of research that has been looked at, analysed, reviewed by scientists who have published with near unanimous consensus that we are causing what is being observed.

Peter Wadhams has been criticised by scientists who fear that he could undermine the credibility of climate science by making doom - laden forecasts.

(This is supported by the scientists who do each study and naturally feel the importance of their own study.)

If you have a peer - reviewed paper authored by scientists who are involved in the collection of said temperature records and which describes this global cooling trend, I'd like to see it.

I am not very impressed by statistics and studies by scientists who are backing the science that mankind is responsible for climate change, though admittedly I probably have read an insignificant fraction compared with what all of you have read.

You don't seem to have been fooled by those scientists who claim infallibility: --RRB-

He's already called for a moratorium on all regulations, blasted the chairman of the Federal Reserve as «treasonous», and, now, he's stating outright that he believes global warming is a hoax stirred up by scientists who «manipulated data».

This seems really odd: the publlc demand made by scientists who are most alarmed by global warming is precisely not that more money go into reasearch, but rather that money go into research to increase fuel efficiency to develope carbon - emission - free fuel sources.

Dennis Avery of the Hudson Institute cited Doran's study, and claimed that «The American people are being hoodwinked not just by the green activists, but by the scientists who get billions of dollars for creating global climate models that can't even forecast backward, let alone forward.»

One has to wonder how many other papers with incorrect results have been published by scientists who go along with «consensus» views, and have never been corrected.

Wildlife biologists seem to discount those studies because most of them were performed by scientists who are not wildlife biologists.

Doc Truli says, «My experience being taught by scientists who also treat referral patients from around the world is invaluable in my everyday practice.