Sentences with phrase «here in a scientific way»

I have been thinking about things here in a scientific way.

Not exact matches

Here you will find the ways in which the left embraced eugenics, «scientific» racialism, the campaign to ban Christianity from the public square, and utopian politics, all resulting in the great human catastrophes of the century past.

The more scientific folks can correct or fill in the details here, but I remeber seeing it in Carl Sagan's book and PBS special COSMOS as well as I think Discovery magazine, way back in the late 70's early 80's.

Civil war has nearly broken out among neuropsychologists over this issue, so let me tread lightly here — I will simply say that I have seen no scientific evidence for how such recovered memories might work, no supposed cases of it documented to be legitimate in a way that should satisfy a rigorous scientist, and plenty of scientific explanations for why various claims have not been legitimate.

Whey protein is the undisputed king of proteins, and here's why: whey proteins have the highest biological value of all proteins, which is a scientific way of saying they're the fastest digesting, and best used, protein source in your body.

Sometimes it felt a little bit discombobulated when you were into a book and text «started to look like this» If you want to learn more about Bookerly, in a very scientific way, check out the advanced description HERE.

See, when you're down here where I am and unable to make my own a priori determinations, not being in the profession or in any way part of the establishment scientific community, I am interested not only in reading what conclusions Hansen, Schmidt, Holdren, Ladbury and even Mashey have drawn, just to name a few names.

One may put up all kinds of arguments to discredit this obvious scientific fact of life in 2018 ongoing, and get lost in distractions about mathematical trend lines extracting out la nina and el ninos, but that is entirely IRRELEVANT to what I have written, and am addressing here, in my own way.

The central implication of the allegations here is that in carrying out their work, both in the choices they made of data and the way in which it was handled, CRU scientists intended to bias the scientific conclusions towards a specific result and to set aside inconvenient evidence.

Failures in the Earth system are already beginning to occur in a number of ways at a GMT increase of only 0.8 oC; GMT does not address huge regional differences in temperature increase; a temperature target doesn't even address ocean acidification; and we are frittering our time here (and in numerous scientific papers) addressing 2oC as if it is a reasonable target???

So, indeed, get the text, and then maybe also write something about how this book has really gone off in a biased way here — putting in personal interpretations rather than helping students gain insight into how to approach challenging scientific questions (maybe also cover how the IPCC experience grew out of the CFC - ozone experience and how the Montreal Protocol has worked, etc..

«Indeed, a rigorous, credible and convincing (report)-- at least in terms of the global public — may in part rest on your decisions here in terms of this scientific body and the way it operates and communicates.»

Here is a brief list of scientific papers that describe the correct way in which our atmosphere operates, which is just like a real greenhouse actually: it leaks heat like a sieve leaks water.

There's nothing scientific about it, or even very serious, but here are some eco-cars that we might like in some way or