Sentences with phrase «case against the scientists»

Seismic uncertainty The case against the scientists and De Bernardinis states that they did not do their duty in communicating risk to the citizens of L'Aquila and holds them responsible for manslaughter.

Not exact matches

The point is illustrated by the logic which the National Academy of Sciences employed to persuade the Supreme Court that «creation - scientists» should not be given an opportunity to present their case against the theory of evolution in science classes.

Gardner lists five ways in which these paranoid tendencies manifest themselves: (1) the pseudo-scientist considers himself a genius and (2) regards his colleagues as ignorant blockheads; (3) he believes himself unjustly persecuted and discriminated against; (4) he focuses his attacks on the greatest scientists and the best - established theories; and (5) he often employs a complex jargon and in many cases coins words and phrases (neologisms) of his own.

The case is just the latest in a series of actions against scientists, including a writ against Peter Wilmshurst, heart specialist at Royal Shrewsbury Hospital, by American firm NMT Medical, for suggesting medical trials into one of its devices had been described inaccurately.

The paper will provide a human rights framework and case examples to support Coalition members» advocacy against travel restrictions that are imposed on scientists, engineers, and health professionals (e.g., scientists being prohibited from traveling abroad to participate in meetings; bans on nationals from specific countries traveling into a country to attend conferences or pursue research; etc.) The Project Leader will develop the project plan, invite co-authors to contribute, and coordinate with the Secretariat regarding editing and dissemination.

Not all scientists think the case against MT adds up.

They then compared the gender balance — or imbalance, in this case — against the mix of male and female senior scientists and trainees to gauge whether misconduct was more prevalent among men.

They have campaigned against animal research even when it remains necessary, in some cases committing violence against scientists.

Decades of additional work may be necessary before scientists clinch the case for or against neutrinos being their own antiparticles.

The panel's report, released today by the National Research Council — part of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences — is expected to weaken further what many scientists feel is an already shaky case against the harmful effects of EMFs.

The Prosecutor General's office in Moscow has dismissed the case against Vil Mirzayanov, the scientist accused of revealing state secrets about Russia's chemical weapons programme.

Just from the high number of deaths and severe cases, scientists and public health experts battling Germany's massive E. coli outbreak knew they were up against something unusual.

In a case brought by environmentalists against Tehri Dam, the Supreme Court of India sided with government scientists to dismiss safety concerns.

LUMC researcher and Worldwide Cancer Research scientist, Dr Jeroen van Bergen, explained: «the immune system is seen as an ally in the battle against cancer, but that isn't always the case.»

This confirmation came as no surprise (scientists have been building a case against Zika for months), but it could be just the push Congress needs to authorize emergency funding for Zika research and response.

To check how well this process works, and to understand why it fails in some cases, scientists compare organoids against both fetal and adult tissue samples.

Some scientists disgree but have yet to prove their case against dietary Maillard products.

But for today, we'll leave all that aside and take a look at McKitrick's hasty attempt to buttress his weak case against IPCC scientists by quoting from the latest dump of stolen emails.

The legal case against 3M was helpful in giving scientists more information on the topic and also increasing public awareness of PFAS contamination, said University environmental law professor Alexandra Klass.

Antidemocratic, hateful, and coal - backed smear campaign against a scientist I've sometimes disagreed with but who has every right to state his case at Penn State or anywhere else.

Another way of saying it: Although we are seeing less outright false balance in climate coverage than a decade or two ago, bias against mainstream science understanding persists in the relatively subtle form of selective reporting of eyebrow - raising claims, which strengthen the impression that scientists are always changing their story, in which case, shrug.

In any case, as one of those rare contrarian climate scientists, Spencer is in a good position to present the best arguments against the global warming consensus.

He said he did not know the details of Dr Pearman's case, but if a scientist were to join a group that argued against government policy as the Australian Climate Group did on carbon trading he or she would contravene CSIRO's media policy.

Lord Monckton, one of the leading scientists battling against the «settled science», has just submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to determine how the U.K. Supreme Court has ruled to support climate change activism in specific legal cases before it.

As they tend to do from time to time in an effort to distract from the climate science consensus, a group of scientists who are also climate «skeptics» have published an opinion - editorial (op - ed), trying to make the case against taking action to address climate change.

Today I offer this post as a «Summary for Policymakers» regarding my series of seven prior blog posts about a smear effort which took place back in 2007 that is a case study for examining other prior and current industry corruption accusations against skeptic climate scientists.

This is against a backdrop of attempts, even on this thread, to pretend there is no issue here, that scientists haven't «proven the case» or whatever as if the recent CO2 rise isn't known or is just typical of past natural changes.

The person who sold his house Frank Cooke above based on AGW advice could have a compelling legal case against the «climate scientists» who assured him (through media or otherwise) it would be under water by now.

I use the word «authority» loosely here in the case of Hertsgaard, as he, like the UCS, is really nothing more than yet another person enslaved to the accusation against skeptic climate scientists most famously first seen in Ross Gelbspan's 1997 book.

As a scientist I've learned — anyone talking percentages is usually trying to make a dramatic case for or against something.

Unlike your ideologically fuelled and baseless smears against climate scientists, Wegman's case involves clear and compelling evidence of misconduct.

Now, because of posts like this, I predict that you and a few dozen others will go down in scientific history on this topic, relative to defense of scientific integrity and freedom on an issue that spent the better part of a generation devolving to the point where RICO cases are suggested against dissenting scientists and corporations and «skeptics» are obliquely likened to Holocaust «deniers».

Meanwhile, the vast majority of climate scientists still agree the data on global warming is solid, despite the setback of «Climategate» — a set of highly controversial, private e-mails among climate researchers that were hacked from a university server that point to possible cases of misconduct and that climate skeptics have touted as the «smoking gun» against climate change, though no scientific fraud was revealed.

From some on the CAGW side they are particularly against it at all and we all wonder if your paper is so sound why in a lot of cases are you so afraid of data and code being examined by other climate scientists no matter what their belief in CAGW is.

5) There are many documented cases available of death threats by «skeptics» against climate scientists available for viewing and all skeptics support them.

That in turn has prompted a slew of news stories on the case, the general gist of which you can get from the headlines: Media and rights organizations defend National Review, et al. against Michael Mann (The Washington Post) Climate scientist faces broad array of foes in suit vs. National Review (Reuters) Groups rally around think tank, publication being sued for global warming views (Fox News)... and of course:...

One that ends up being a case study of how any given corruption accusation lodged against skeptic climate scientists is separated from Ross Gelbspan by three degrees or less.

A brief set of questions and answers illustrates how any sort of examination of the «skeptic climate scientists are industry - corrupted» accusation doesn't reveal a nice, tidy, open - and - shut case against such skeptics, all that's seen is something begging for a deeper investigation of why the accusation exists at all.

Just as an example, I know of 4 cases only in France where a public statement against IPCC recommendations and conclusions by a scientist had triggered open letters and hate propaganda of IPCC members, enviro advocay groups and AGW believers who virtually asked for public lynching of the heretic.

If such one - liners are judged to damage the reputation of a scientist, then I have at least as good a case against Michael Mann for defamation as he has against Steyn; a scientist saying such things about another scientist is arguably more damaging to a scientist's reputation than a journalist saying such things.

Closer to home, a lawsuit filed by 21 youth plaintiffs (including Kelsey Juliana) and world - renowned climate scientist James Hansen on behalf of future generations against the U.S. government cleared an important hurdle in November 2016 when federal judge Ann Aiken rejected the government and fossil fuel industries» motion to dismiss the case.

We also serve as a clearinghouse for information related to legal action taken against scientists, which can inform strategies for — and outcomes of — future cases.

Your missing my point, the issue here is the ability of a scientist to use a cherry picked piece of science as a case against global warming, not regional variability in relation to natural variation.