Sentences with phrase «more skeptical scientists»

Not exact matches

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.

One more skeptical voice came from graduate student Juan Pablo Ruiz of Bethesda, who asked whether NIH's abandonment of the GSI — which many young scientists supported — was a response to complaints from senior scientists.

«One has to be skeptical of [senior] scientists who say we need to educate [or import] more scientists, because they have a great self - interest,» says labor economist Paula Stephan of Georgia State University in Atlanta.

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.

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.

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

Other scientists were more skeptical.

And I am very skeptical of even some of the more well - respected skeptical scientists, e.g. Richard Lindzen's «infrared Iris effect» (I have posted detail elsewhere on this site).

Meteorologists may be more skeptical than climate scientists, but it doesn't mean the majority of meteorologists are skeptics.

But the newly obtained documents show that Dr. Carlin's highly skeptical views on global warming, which have been known for more than a decade within the small unit where he works, have been repeatedly challenged by scientists inside and outside the E.P.A.; that he holds a doctorate in economics, not in atmospheric science or climatology; that he has never been assigned to work on climate change; and that his comments on the endangerment finding were a product of rushed and at times shoddy scholarship, as he acknowledged Thursday in an interview.

More and more Americans are joining the increasing number of scientists across the planet skeptical of Gore's doomsday predictiMore and more Americans are joining the increasing number of scientists across the planet skeptical of Gore's doomsday predictimore Americans are joining the increasing number of scientists across the planet skeptical of Gore's doomsday predictions.

«More than two - thirds of all authors of chapter 9 of the IPCC's 2007 climate - science assessment are part of a clique whose members have co-authored papers with each other... the majority of scientists who are skeptical of a human influence on climate significant enough to be damaging to the planet were unrepresented in the authorship of chapter 9.»

A critical reason why this approach is faulty is that skeptical climate scientists are significantly outnumbered by scientists who are more confident in human - caused warming and in future warming scenarios.

«Not only is the data used in the report flawed and suspect, but even more egregiously, the IPCC authors — very few of whom indeed are scientists — refused to consult with scientists who are skeptical of the IPCC's defining hypothesis: that the Earth faces a crisis from rising global temperatures and that human activity played a significant role.»

Well those who are neither feeding off the AGW teat nor pursuing a hypocritical anti-industry agenda can easily interpret the pause or standstill as evidence that skeptics were right to be skeptical and that too many climate scientists have pretended for far too long to know much more than they actually do.

Actually, a number of mainstream scientists who are growing more skeptical all the time continues to grow.

In a world where the sea - level is rising, the oceans are heating, and the polar ice is melting — all without pause or evident limit — it's no wonder that more - and - more serious yet formerly skeptical scientists — like Dr. Petr Chylek and Adm David Titley for example — are embracing James Hansen's climate - science consensus!

Many more scientists who were once skeptical have over time become convinced by the accumulating evidence for human induced climate change.

(35) This singular approach got a skeptical response from other scientists who pursued the well - established study of pollens, for they were accustomed to seeing more gradual transformations of forests and grasslands.

Rather, that partial list was provided in order to assist those who want a better understanding that, in fact, there are many more legitimate scientists who are are skeptical of the AGW / climate disaster hypothesis than the number who believe in it.

Earlier we read that engineers (all branches) are generally more skeptical of this premise than academic scientists.

Hence the rise is attenuated; the notion of a «scientific consensus» is undermined by the true nature of the phenomenon, and of course as their skeptical knowledge deepens they also become more aware of the scientists who certainly aren't in the consensus (regarding calamity), plus the fact that the majority of themselves would be inside it if the definition remained limited to the properties of CO2.

Actually, it was more like a string of guest columns and long letters to the editor since it is hard for skeptical scientists to get published in the cabal of climate journals now -LSB-...]

Talking socially to my academic colleagues it's pretty clear that many of the scientists, with the exception of those directly involved in climate science or renewable energy, are more or less skeptical about the «consensus».

It proved more convincingly, they said, that the skeptical scientists were a fringe element that had to rely increasingly on industry money and peripheral scientific journals to promote their work.

Here's why you should be skeptical - Chris Mooney (Nov. 5) NASA Scientist Warned Deniers Would Distort His Antarctic Ice Study — That's Exactly What They Did - Media Matters (Nov. 4) More on Antarctic Ice Melt - ClimateCrocks (Nov. 3) Is Antarctica Gaining or Losing Ice?

I am finding that some commenters here, which I initially take as more or less experts, also need the eye of a truly skeptical scientist lifetime student.