Sentences with phrase «credibility as scientists»

In the long run, our credibility as scientists rests on being very careful of, and protective of, our authority and expertise.

Do the benefits of engaging in political advocacy outweigh the risks of losing their credibility as scientists?»

We abrogate our credibility as scientists when we cease to question our own dogma.

Anyone who does not want to loose credibility as scientist must adhere to the principles of presenting science correctly.

If you want any public credibility as a scientist your honesty must be comprehensive, not selective.

Not exact matches

The rejection of metaphysics by most modern philosophers and theologians has seen the gap filled by influential scientists, often with little philosophical training but with the credibility that their status as scientists confers on them.

Equally dangerous to science, however, if not more so, are those naturalistic scientists who play essentially the same game as the creationists, i.e., seek to lend credibility to their particular worldview by attempting to clothe it in scientific garb.

The issue is often presented as one of Òresponsible advocacy.Ó But this framing locks us into a paradox: Scientists who advocate aim to be effective in the policy arena, but by advocating lose their credibility.

«I saw a huge unmet need among scientists for this type of training and... as [a] scientist I thought I had the responsibility and credibility to address this need,» he says.

Niwa and Sasai are highly regarded scientists, he says, and their names as authors lent the papers substantial credibility.

Although the scientific credibility of the film drew criticism from climate scientists, the scenario of an abrupt collapse of the AMOC, as a consequence of anthropogenic greenhouse warming, was never assessed with a state - of - the - art climate model.

His work in developing Maq, and his reputation as a scientist, established a wide credibility for Heng in the NGS community.

We offered the bet at the time as we were concerned that the failed forecasts would in the end cast a shadow on the credibility of climate science as a whole, so we felt a need to emphasise that other climate scientists disagreed with these forecasts.

Eric Berger of the Houston Chronicle has weighed in with an excellent post on the letter, noting that none of the complainants are climate scientists; that NASA's position as an agency reflects the brunt of science pointing to a human - heated planet; and that the personal stances of high - profile NASA scientists, Hansen, for instance, are indeed likely to damage the agency's credibility in the eyes of a public divided on global warming.

I do believe that even if we feel that it is better to err on the side of too much fear as is common between concerned scientist we do have to admit this error if we want to have credibility.

This view reflects the fragile nature of trust between science and society, demonstrating that the perceived misbehavior of even a few scientists can diminish the credibility of science as a whole.»

The next stages are easy to predict as well — the issues of «process» will be lost in the noise, the fake overreaction will dominate the wider conversation and become an alternative fact to be regurgitated in twitter threads and blog comments for years, the originators of the issue may or may not walk back the many mis - statements they and others made but will lose credibility in any case, mainstream scientists will just see it as hyper - partisan noise and ignore it, no papers will be redacted, no science will change, and the actual point (one presumes) of the «process» complaint (to encourage better archiving practices) gets set back because it's associated with such obvious nonsense.

None of these individuals has any credentials or credibility as a climate scientist, and Moore is something of a joke among environmentalists.

There's been an ongoing thread on Dot Earth examining whether and how scientists can stake a position on climate policy while maintaining their credibility as objective pursuers of scientific knowledge.

I'd like to understand why the perfect has become the enemy of the good and why Mr. Hansen's credentials as a climate scientist extend him credibility in other areas which are not his field of study.

The delineation between politics and science has become blurred and this has reduced scientists» credibility as experts — especially those that have become strident policy advocates.

But how much longer can her credibility hold together, if even her own friends see her as someone who can't seem to get historical facts correct about her personal situation, combined with her claims of being attacked by US Senator James Inhofe being undercut by her own words, and her apparent failure to fact - check elemental details surrounding a core set of evidence she relies on to indict «corrupt skeptic climate scientists»?

However, Susan could argue that her neutrality on the policy question provides her greater credibility as an unbiased scientist and chair.»

«For scientific knowledge to earn credibility as public knowledge scientists have to work as hard outside the laboratory as they do inside»

It's bad enough that Columbia Journalism Review article writer Robert S. Eshelman made the mistake of labeling Ross Gelbspan as a Pulitzer winner (which the CJR later deleted initially without explanation) in his May 1, 2014 piece, but when Eshelman dutifully recited an oft - repeated narrative of how Gelbspan dived into an investigation of «corrupt funding of skeptic climate scientists» — the narrative itself being one plagued with highly questionable contradictions — he basically handed Gelbspan a shovel to dig a deeper credibility hole.

The corollary to this is that, at the same time, reporters must defend those scientists that need defending because many, such as Ben Santer, have had to endure unreasonable challenges to their credibility in addition to overt threats of violence.

Unfortunately, the questions about the IPCC and its president come at a time when the credibility of climatologists has already suffered, partly as a result of the theft of confidential e-mail messages written by scientists, the content of which has led critics to claim that data were manipulated.

Update: The site Climate Feedback, a network of scientists that evaluates media coverage of climate change, recently rated Holthaus» piece as «high» on the credibility scale and described it as both «accurate» and «alarmist».

To me the credibility of Hansen as a scientist has a direct bearing on whether it is of any consequence what action he feels is our best option.

As in the «settled science» is rife with unsettled contradictions, the accusation that skeptic climate scientists are corrupted by illicit money doesn't have a shred of physical evidence to back it up, and one of the main promoters of the accusation is a person apparently plagued with credibility problems.

And that, I think, is the real lesson here: climate scientists who act as policy advocates lose scientific credibility.

The statement by Mike McPhaden, President of the AGU, comes down pretty hard on Peter Gleick for having «betrayed the principles of scientific integrity» and thereby «compromised AGU's credibility as a scientific society, weakened the public's trust in scientists, and produced fresh fuel for the unproductive and seemingly endless ideological firestorm surrounding the reality of the Earth's changing climate.»

I'd suggest that both are almost certainly untrue in general, even though there may well be some climate science that is bullshit and some climate scientists that are idiots, and in any event, getting the basic physics you're trying to call them on wrong simply destroys your own credibility as a reasoning participant in the debate.

Scientists, and particularly the institutions that support science, should have as its top priority dealing with responsibility, accountability, and credibility.

Although the situation suggests overt dishonesty, it is entirely possible, in today's scientific environment, that many scientists feel that it is the role of science to vindicate the greenhouse paradigm for climate change as well as the credibility of models.

Scientists earn credibility by publishing peer - reviewed articles that over time are accepted and verified as correct.

DEBORAH AMOS: And those are your words, and they used your words as a strategy to undermine the credibility of scientists who - for the most part, there are very few scientists who say that global warming is not a real thing.

But for me his credibility as a climate scientist was most compromised with his assertion that «it would take only one research study to cause the global warming house of cards to collapse.»

I think Marburger lost credibility with non-global-warming-deniers on the Hill and with the science community by giving the impression that, when pressed on global warming, he was speaking more as a representative of Bush - Cheney than as a true intellectually independent scientist.

Formal academic credentials aren't the only measure of a scientists credibility but, since you want to play that game, who do you think should be more knowledgeable about climate - a guy with a PhD in meteorology or an oceanographer and computer programmer (Andy Weaver) who identifies himself as a «climatologist».

As a staff we at Climate Interactive have been discussing this question lately, inspired by a recent research paper on the relationships between a scientist's carbon footprint and his or her perceived credibility on climate change.