Sentences with phrase «current scientific knowledge does»

Why has Ban Ki - moon not answered the 134 skeptical climate experts who told him in their Nov. 24, 2012 open letter: «current scientific knowledge does not substantiate your assertions.

Not exact matches

Your recent article on multiple personality disorder (28 September, p 46) doesn't reflect the current scientific and clinical knowledge concerning dissociative identity disorders (DID), nor does it accurately describe the outcome for treatment.

Your recent article on multiple personality disorder (28 September, p 46) doesn't reflect the current scientific and clinical knowledge concerning...

While the techniques draw from the same pool of knowledge, and travel together in scientific circles, many environmental groups do not oppose molecular breeding, while stridently critiquing current GM crops, according to Marco Contiero, the European biotech policy director for the environmental group Greenpeace.

The Commission had answered that: i) the scientific knowledge need animal research, ii) animal experiment remained important for the protection of the human and animal health, and to protect the environment, iii) the commission did not intend to repeal the current directive.

People in the late 19th and early 20th centuries didn't have the scientific knowledge of current canine genetics, but they did understand from years of raising farm animals how selective breeding worked.

It would seem to make more logical or scientific sense not to prejudge their current state of knowledge without doing so first.

Overall, the Panel finds that given the current state of the science and the scope of resources available, the 2013 National Climate Assessment does a reasonable job of fulfilling its charge to inform the President, the Congress, and the nation about the current state of scientific knowledge regarding climate change effects.

On Climate Action: The APS urges physicists to collaborate with colleagues across disciplines to contribute to climate research and to keep any public dialogue on a professional and scientific and does not exaggerate the current level of knowledge.

That's right John, I do not understand how such an absurd figure from aclaimed climate scientists could appear in a supposedly peer reviewed scientific journal and then be reproduced in an IPCC report that purports to publish the current state of scientific knowledge.

And, predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in hydrocarbon use and resulting increases in minor greenhouse gases such as CO2 do not conform to current experimental knowledge or have any scientific basis.

I mention this because it appears that the current deniers of AGW are reading from the same «how to do» manual on how to confuse, intimidate and muddy scientific knowledge and to misrepresent it to «Joe Public».

«75... the Tribunals did not have before them expert evidence which seriously called into question the principle underpinning the EPA's renewable energy project regulatory regime — i.e. that wind turbines which are set back 550m from a dwelling house and which do not generate noise levels in excess of 40 dBA at the lowest specified wind speed do not cause serious harm to human health based upon the current state of scientific knowledge.»