Sentences with phrase «few skeptics in»

I expect that having a few skeptics in the list of reviewers adds to the appearance of diversity, but in all the areas I reviewed the process carefully insulates the final text from influences that depart in any substantive way from the Lead Author's prior views, chiefly by putting the text through 3 re-writes after the close of scientific review.

The few skeptics in academia and think tanks didn't even have enough support to work full - time on the issue.

Soon, one of few skeptics in the climate science community, described the paper that was published in the journal Physical Geography as «fairly significant scientifically in that this is the first successful formulation of a sun - climate connection.»

One refreshing element is that there are very few skeptics in the film; the Warrens are treated as legitimate experts, with only the occasional crack at their expense.

Not exact matches

The skeptics were few, and in addition, the seemingly unstoppable upward march of stock prices served to discredit them.

Just a few days ago, Josh sent me a link to an article in the New York Times featuring new iPhone applications that allow both believers and skeptics to quickly access points and counterpoints should they find themselves in any impromptu debates.

It's interesting to compare the very, very few «fair» responses that they get, compared to the nasty, sarcastic ones that are from skeptics but then, it takes a «tall» person to share their perspectives in a polite way without slighting anyone.

With a few exceptions — for example, skeptics, religious individualists, and anarchists — we are all inclined to agree that there is and must be authority in religious matters.

Woods may well have borrowed the idea from his Nike stablemate of wasting few words (just two: «Progressing nicely») in replying to his skeptics.

Perhaps this is all obvious and is in fact a description of the approach that many parties, particularly climate skeptics, have been using for the past few decades.

The skeptic in me did wonder, but I went through and placed a few orders and now I just can't stop gushing about the many many good things about it.

When in the 1990s computers became big business for schools and technology providers, a few skeptics such as Todd Oppenheimer (author of The Flickering Mind) urged caution and thrift, marshaling evidence of hype and waste in the purchase and use of tools in the classroom.

Because we all know that only a few of you are clicking this link (ahh skeptics), I'd love it if you'd keep the hype alive by commenting in the article about how amazing these fake «stocks» are and how you're taking action today.

In the last few weeks since Microsoft's controversial Xbox One reveal, we've seen a lot more buzz from skeptics about a «console - ized» Steam machine and the very successfully crowd - funded Ouya.

There are a few «skeptic» sites, but most of them are not run by scientists, and the «science» presented there is only of value in terms of entertainment.

It is notable that while the climate alarmist movement is funded by billions of public funds and the skeptic side is funded by a few million at best and the alarmists are losing badly, the explanation is found in credibility.

7:22 p.m. Updates below Quite a few professional climate skeptics have been crowing in the last few days about a 20 - percent downward shift in the short - term forecast for global temperature (through 2017) from Britain's weather and climate agency, best know as the Met Office.

It is noteworthy that relatively few of the skeptics arguments appear in peer - reviewed journals simply because their «results» can not be repeated.

The arc of Lynas's fascinating career is in some ways neatly encapsulated by two acts at Oxford — throwing a cream pie in the face of Bjorn Lomborg, the skeptic of eco-calamity, at a book signing there in 2001, yelling «pies for lies» (see photo below), and now echoing more than a few of Lomborg's assertions in his lecture at the Oxford Farming Conference on Thursday.

Interesting how «skeptics» keep pounding the few articles back in the 70's that talked about cooling, when they launched the same idea themselves, just two years ago.

The fact that hurricane events are relatively rare leads to a limitation in the amount of data available — fewer events, and that's why the «skeptics» have to rely on statistical rather then mechanical arguments (notice also that the media seems to avoid any mention of the fact that hurricanes operate as «heat engines»).

A prime instance of Schneider in action came just a few weeks before his death, on a trip to Australia to discuss climate change with 52 self - described climate skeptics on the television program Insight.

In a few years, as we get to understand this more, skeptics will move on (just like they dropped arguments about the hockey stick and about the surface station record) to their next reason not to believe climate science.

The purveying of propositions like these by a few scientists who do or should know better — and their parroting by amateur skeptics who lack the scientific background or the motivation to figure out what's wrong with them — are what I was inveighing against in the op - ed and will continue to inveigh against.

My interest in climate change began innocently enough --- some «vigorous discussions» with a few in - law family members who happened to be staunch global warming skeptics.

A few so - called skeptics got a peer - reviewed paper published in a journal.

When I decided to start posting in Real Climate a few months ago, I was actually quite willing to change my mind, which was leaning towards the skeptic position at the time.

Environmental and climate scientists in the U.S. are overwhelmingly liberal; Kerry Emanuel has been identified as one of the very few consensus climate scientists that is Republican (and one of the few that will interact with skeptics, see the EconTalk interview).

Moreover, it is very strange that skeptics — on the one hand claim that there are by far too few GHCN stations when compared their data with satellite data but — on the other hand suddenly think a handful stations in Greenland would give representative material for a comparison with the USA.

For example, some «skeptics» who don't understand anomalies are worried that the dropout of lots of cold weather stations in Siberia over the last few decades has biased the record warm.

Not one skeptic in 3 years has attempted a simple calculation that can be done in 5 minutes in a few spreadsheet columns.

Meaning no, resoundingly and absolutely no; if skeptics other than myself and perhaps a few dozen others have been saying and listening to and thinking about exactly and primarily this all along then the streets are paved in gold and pennies fall from heaven.

«It would be irresponsible,» she adds, «to let a few skeptics stand in the way of doing what we need to do to stabilize the world's climate.»

«Ever since climate change took center stage at the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro, Pat Michaels and Robert Balling, together with Sherwood Idso, S. Fred Singer, Richard S. Lindzen, and a few other high - profile greenhouse skeptics have proven extraordinarily adept at draining the issue of all sense of crisis.

So, if I were a skeptic I would just keep asking the best practices question, cause it's really funny that very few people who believe in AGW can bring themselves to admit that the team did anything substandard.

In the past few months, climate scientists speaking out about the dangers of global warming have come under increased assault, largely because of climate skeptics voicing concerns over the information contained within certain scientists» email messages.

In one of my other recent articles, I describe how the PBS NewsHour's 1996 - to - present bias in its global warming discussion segments presents only four instances where any semblance of skeptic science points were mentioned out of more than 355 on - air broadcast discussions (plus a few online pages directly relating to some of those segmentsIn one of my other recent articles, I describe how the PBS NewsHour's 1996 - to - present bias in its global warming discussion segments presents only four instances where any semblance of skeptic science points were mentioned out of more than 355 on - air broadcast discussions (plus a few online pages directly relating to some of those segmentsin its global warming discussion segments presents only four instances where any semblance of skeptic science points were mentioned out of more than 355 on - air broadcast discussions (plus a few online pages directly relating to some of those segments).

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».

Though the fact that so many psychologists say they want to understand skeptics and so few of them survey the scientists or leaders involved in this is rather significant, methinks.

What we need is skeptics who are regulars on media to throw in a few points on global warming, even if the subject is vastly different.

The researchers acknowledge that skeptics may be slightly over-represented, «it is likely that viewpoints that run counter to the prevailing consensus are somewhat (i.e. by a few percentage points) magnified in our results.»

It is only the last few months that skeptics have made some inroads in the public discourse, and so far mostly on the internet.

Bryson became a leading global warming skeptic in the last few years before passing away in 2008.

It is completely innaccurate to suggest that skeptics have only made inroads in the last few months.

I must admit to having a twinge of self - consciousness when I wrote that, as there are a few items I still have valid concerns about (e.g., the attribution of the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration in the last 1/2 century to wholly anthropogenic sources) which are generally accepted as settled even by most technically oriented skeptics.

Skeptics do not agree about very much except a few generalities: the absorption / emission spectra of gases measured in laboratories; the laws of thermodynamics, etc..

I think there's still a few scrappy skeptics chasing the receding tail lights of the science and policy of this issue making a lot of noise, but they have been rather left in the dust.

With few exceptions, such as the part of McI's response that discusses PCA (as contrasted with the part of his commentary that repeats plagiarism charges against Wahl and Ammann), the focus of discussion among the skeptics at Climate Audit, the Air Vent, and elsewhere is almost entirely on the plagiarism allegations against Wegman, rather than the substantive deficiencies in the statistical analysis in Wegman's report.

I want to commend Micheal Seward for so bravely and articulately weighing in here on a blog with not a few ranking AGW skeptics.

I was criticized for participating in the book «Slaying the Sky Dragon» but did so because they were tackling a question that few, including most of the skeptics, ignore; the actual role of CO2 as a greenhouse gas.