Sentences with phrase «go against the scientists»

The sharks take a turn for the worse and go against the scientists, leaving a deadly outcome.

Not exact matches

The reason is because there is no end to certain religious people telling scientists that they are wrong just because some theory or law goes against that person's religion.

The difficulty was, that to say so, even for a scientist with the factsat his fingertips, was to go against a powerful and intolerant conventional wisdom: «We liberals», he wrote, «who work in the fields of global HIV / AIDS and family planning take terrible professional risks if we side with the pope on a divisive topic such as this.

The results scientists obtain may not be what they expected, and may even go against their previous beliefs.

After all god created these illnesses so therefore they must have a purpose and saving that mans life would go against the will of god but wait a tic maybe god put that scientist on this planet to stop that disease and cure that man.

If you're a scientist, you know molecules interacting in space with a volume the size of the universe even in a vacuum is not only improbable but it goes against every law of thermodynamics.

Dr. Austin, the «scientist» in question, is a young earth creationist who went to the site with the stated purpose of finding «proof against evolution,» gathered material which was a mix of newly formed rock and ancient rock which had been ejected from the mountain, dated them with imprecise methods, and then skewed the results, as thousands of actual scientists have already reported.

In recent years, the fight against ocean plastic pollution has gone from a preoccupation of marine scientists to a movement embraced by everyone from schoolchildren to Queen Elizabeth II, galvanized by images of trash - strewn seas and sea turtles choking on plastic straws and other consumer castaways.

«There was no charge against him but obviously it's going to have some negative impact because it occurred on his watch and by somebody extremely close to the governor and the [Cuomo] family,» said Doug Muzzio, a Baruch College political scientist.

Each year, scientists create an influenza (flu) vaccine that protects against a few specific influenza strains that researchers predict are going to be the most common during that year.

Many authors are loath to exclude reviewers because it goes against their ideal vision of what science should be about, he says: «Scientists like to believe that personal factors shouldn't play a role in science.»

And I was first aware of him as I was talking to the scientist and all of a sudden this huge thing slams himself against the window about an inch from my face, and I thought I was going to be killed, and he wouldn't have mind [ed] and...

Women athletes and scientists today marked the 37th anniversary of a U.S. law prohibiting discrimination against women in education at a White House event during which young women were urged to go for the gold.

But this information is vital for scientists who are trying to design vaccines to protect against sexual transmission because inside cells, the virus may go undetected by the immune system.

When powerful people of any political leaning go against the evidence, New Scientist can not turn a blind eye

Moreover, going for the starches instead of proteins seems to delay the moth's ability to mount an effective immune response against this unwanted guest, the scientists report.

«What I can't understand is why we are expected to show respect for good scientists, even great scientists, who at the same time believe in a god who does things like listen to our prayers, forgive our sins, perform cheap miracles,» he said, prompting a burst of nervous laughter to ripple through the audience, «which go against, presumably, everything that the god of the physicist, the divine cosmologist, set up when he set up his great laws of nature.

US entanglement In Europe, scientists can not file patents on human embryonic stem cells because of a 2008 ruling which said it would go against the public order.

With us or against us I was going to follow - up on the last post with a few more comments about scientists taking policy positions but sometimes events and even scientists speak for themselves.

Previous honorees have gone on to drive on - the - ground efforts against infectious diseases like Zika and Ebola, discover new exoplanets and observe gravitational waves, and be recognized with other high honors including the Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists and Engineers and the Breakthrough Prize.

Other scientists just did not believe our results, because they went against conventional wisdom of blood circulation and metabolism in the brain.

The scientist has published numerous papers that go against mainstream climate science.

Denialists sometimes give the Libertarian line against big government, but they mainly go after British / American government agencies, universities, and their scientists.

Based on laboratory experiments aimed at determining the molecular mechanisms involved, scientists knew that pink bollworm could evolve resistance against the Bt toxin, but they had to go all the way to India to observe this happening in the field.

On its own, the color of your linens probably isn't going to inoculate you against an infestation, the scientists point out (though they're not ruling out that possibility yet).

I have been asked if I was «sure I was a scientist,» because I look far too pretty (which, as we now know, goes against the bylaws of the Smart Girls Club).

Rise of the Planet of the Apes (PG - 13 for frightening images and intense violence) Prequel to the ever - popular «Gorillas Gone Wild» franchise, set in San Francisco, pits primates against people after a scientist's (James Franco) test of an experimental cure for Alzheimer's leaves millions of chimps with human - like intelligence.

Going further, that one recruits six pilots from Jaleco's arcade lineup from the eighties to step against the mad scientist Yamada who decides to conquer the gaming world by invading the cabinets of a local arcade.

In his recent experience, Obrist went on to say, the improvised discipline of curating has been straining against its confinement to the art world, offering a model of communication and the articulation of knowledge that is increasingly attractive to scientists, architects, and novelists.

Our tendency to question authority, even our own teachers, is a stength for American scientists — we are less reticent than Japanese or Germans, for example, to go against the consensus or are academic mentors.

There's also the risk, a decade or two from now, of a backlash against scientists, as ridiculous as that might be: «Why didn't you TELL us it was going to be so bad??!»

G&T managed to get their work out there; publishing it in Nature or Science would not have changed the fact that they're arguments just don't hold any water (they didn't do any new science, they just took what was already known, and then tried to use that to argue against what is already known — a search for logical inconsistency, which might have been worthwhile if they'd known what they were doing and if they'd gone after contrarian «theory»)-- unless it were edited, removing all the errors and non-sequitors, after which it would be no different than a physics book such as the kind a climate scientist would use...

The first paper was a single lone scientist who was going against the common knowledge as exemplified by this quote from your cited article,

Especially when going up against the overwhelming evidence compiled by a consensus of 97 % of scientists who study climate as their career.

The notion that peer review is biased is not supported by my experience, although scientists can be more critical if a paper goes against well accepted earlier studies and their expectations.

This also goes against the idea of scientists» opinions being entirely based on objective analysis of the evidence, and concurs with previous studies that have shown scientists» opinions on topics to vary along with their political orientation,» writes survey author Neil Stenhouse of George Mason University.

And they have influenced a much larger body of climate scientists (and other scientists) into going along with them, because they are brought into this by working to fight the good fight against the war on science by the dark forces.

The UNFCCC / IPCC treaty made it virtually impossible for climate scientists to act impartially if this meant going against the pre-programmed consensus conclusions supporting the political agenda.

You are asking scientists to go against a social movement.

Most scientists who go against «the consensus» get labelled as mavericks, sceptics or denialists.

It's common for scientists to overlook the possibility of MBPS because it goes against the belief that a scientist or warmer would never deliberately hurt his or her Earth or fellow human beings.

The Democratic Senators had every opportunity to go directly to JC and the other scientists to get an inventory of the ideas and questions on the minds of skeptics or lukewarmers, they not only didn't do it, they did ends around the science guests and at times chastised them with the very group think that the scientists were warning against.

The harm he does — beside what I believe now goes so far as to constitute hate speech against the identifiable group known as scientists — is to the public's comprehension of issues; therefore he harms democracy.

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».

He has spent much of his time as the chair of the House Science Committee going on the attack against climate scientists.

no matter what the evidence against, the theory is correct or the» I am not going to give you my data as you will poke holes in it»... that sort of position indicates the «scientist» has gone missing.

Jim likes to say, «I am not a gambler, so who am I to go against 97 % of climate scientists are telling us that climate change is real and we need to do something about it.

And yet you are asserting to me and other readers that that is somehow asking to «prove a negative,» when I didn't ask Curry to prove anything; I just asked what the basis for this presumption — one that goes against the presumption that most scientists would make, and certainly that I would make — is based upon.

While actual scientists are trying to piece together every little part of an otherwise almost un-piecable long term chaotic and variable system in response now to a massive increase in net lower atmospheric energy absorption and re radiation, Curry is busy — much like most of the comments on this site most of the time — trying to come up with or re-post every possible argument under the sun to all but argue against the basic concept that radically altering the atmosphere on a multi million year basis is going to affect the net energy balance of earth, which over time is going to translate into a very different climate (and ocean level) than the one we've comfortably come to rely on.

The science behind these higher numbers is therefore not settled at all, except in the sense that few scientists are prepared to go against the mainstream.