Sentences with phrase «make skeptical scientists»

Like a simple parlor trick, the networks are able to make skeptical scientists vanish, at least from the eyes of their viewers.

Not exact matches

Whereas for ordinary theologians this character does not weaken the truth claims we make but deepens and enriches them, most scientist - theologians are skeptical of talk about myth and metaphor.

It indicates that he is far more skeptical of scientists» capacities to make accurate predictions beyond the relatively immediate future than is Hume, who had a strong faith in induction beyond the immediate environment but could not rationally justify it.

Thediscovery of deep microbes has made scientists less skeptical of findingextraterrestrial life.

Now, it is apparent from reading even the first few pages of The Skeptical Environmentalist that Lomborg proposes to make the case that not just environmentalists, but a considerable part of the heretofore respectable environmental - science community, have been misunderstanding the relevant concepts, misrepresenting the relevant facts, understating the uncertainties, selecting data, and failing to acknowledge errors after these have been pointed out in other words, that the scientist contributors to what he calls «the environmental litany» (namely, that environmental problems are serious and becoming, in many instances more so) have been guilty of massively violating the scientists code of conduct.

The difficulty of separating a respondent's true opinions from the influence of others has long made some social scientists skeptical of subjective surveys.

His ability to contrast the fantastical predictions of speakers at the conference with the sometimes more skeptical assessments from other scientists makes his account a fascinating read.

Although the research paper made headlines in the news, scientists were still skeptical.

Some other scientists are skeptical, though, that storing veggies under light for part of each day might make them more nutritious.

In this wide - ranging, humorous talk, Seth Shostak takes a look at Star Wars and other science fiction films from the point of view of a skeptical scientist, tells stories about the movies he has been asked to advise, and muses about aliens from space and how we might make contact with them.

There also was controversy when Rep. Raul Grijalva, D - Ariz., sent letters to seven universities, seeking information on funding for several scientists who have been skeptical of, or have made controversial remarks about, climate change.

INDEPENDENT & FOREIGN FILMS Cool It (PG for mature themes) Eco-documentary chronicling the efforts of skeptical, Danish environmentalist Bjorn Lomborg to debunk the prevailing conclusion of leading scientists that global warming trends are man - made.

In 2004, the Dane made his name as a green contrarian with his bestselling book The Skeptical Environmentalist, and outraged scientists and green groups around the world by arguing that many claims about global warming, overpopulation, energy resources, deforestation, species loss and water shortages are not supported by analysis.

BALI, Indonesia — An international team of scientists skeptical of man - made climate fears promoted by the UN and former Vice President Al Gore, descended on Bali this week to urge the world to «have the courage to do nothing» in response to UN demands.

That is where the problem is, because I am sure that any scientist who makes the effort to understand what is going on with AGW, will immediately turn skeptical.

Like other Republicans skeptical about man - made climate change, he said, «I'm not a scientist.»

«Could turn the climate change world upside down» The rise in skeptical scientists are responding not only to an increase in dire «predictions» of climate change, but also a steady stream of peer - reviewed studies, analyses, real world data, and inconvenient developments have further cast doubts on the claims of man - made global warming fear activists.

The investigations into climategate shut out skeptical scientists and just made the whole global warming enterprise appear even shabbier.

They conferred awards and recognition on each other, excluded skeptical scientists from «peer reviews» of one another's papers, and conspired to blackball editors who permitted the publication of professional papers by Sallie Baliunas, Willie Soon, Patrick Michaels, Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer and other climate experts whose work challenged the Mann - made global warming disaster thesis.

It is such whacko prognostications that should make every scientist very skeptical of the good intentions of global warming alarmists.

The Swiss affair, however, is not the first instance of data «homogenization» catalogued by scientists and researchers who are skeptical of man - made global warming.

The idea is to make it impossible for scientists who are skeptical of global warming to receive any funding or get published in peer - reviewed journals — and then declare that, lo and behold, there are no published scientists who are skeptical about global warming!

NASA's new lead global warming scientist, Gavin Schmidt, has history of belittling skeptical scientists, suppressing debate, condoning making climate data «impenetrable» and many of his scientific claims and his website RealClimate.org, have been harshly criticized by scientists from around the world.

Since judging the status of entire scientific theory is probably one of the most difficult things that a scientist can do without having a very broad and deep knowledge of the field, I am skeptical that you are capable of making such a judgement... and that your judgement is really uncolored by your libertarian biases.

A relatively cool year and a harsh winter in North America and Europe have not helped, inspiring some commentators and a small cluster of scientists to make skeptical remarks about â $ œglobal cooling.â $

While I have read of accounts by skeptical scientists of how they are selectively funneled out of the funding process, the level of coordination it would take to virtually eliminate any funding for good research scientists who might reach findings that diverge with what we are calling «consensus» here seems far too complicated logistically to be doable — particularly when you consider those very same scientists are frequently characterized by the the folks who make such claims about inequities in research funding as being so incompetent they are unable to see «obvious» flaws in their scientific reasoning.

The saga of the global warming movement's jihad against skeptical scientists — including those whose skepticism of man - made climate change orthodoxy is moderate enough to make them dislike the «skeptic» label — has grown to include the formidable Dr. Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology.

However, one of the best ways to make a name for yourself in science is to be right when everyone else is wrong, so there's a real incentive for scientists to be skeptical thinkers.

The idea is to make it impossible for scientists who are skeptical of global warming to receive any funding or get published in peer - reviewed journals â $» and then declare that, lo and behold, there are no published scientists who are skeptical about global warming!

However, He gives no real references in the end, but, as a non-expert, I am highly skeptical about his conclusions, as he is not a scientist and has made some weird claims in the past, as has been discussed here I think.

Many scientists were deeply skeptical of the idea when it was first published, but events in the last few years have made them less dismissive.

From the article:... The saga of the global warming movement's jihad against skeptical scientists — including those whose skepticism of man - made climate change orthodoxy is moderate enough to make them dislike the «skeptic» label — has grown to include the formidable Dr. Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology.

Climate change «skeptics,» including the handful of skeptical climate scientists, such as Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, Judith Curry, etc., have no substantive evidence that undermines the scientific evidence behind man - made global warming.