Sentences with phrase «most qualified scientists»

[Response: But these aren't statements about the most qualified scientists, just those who signed public letters calling for action.

If we pick a nice round number like 2100, the most likely future as predicted by our most qualified scientists will be laid out for all to see - and, who knows, maybe even act upon.

«The operation of the LHC is safe, not only in the old sense of that word, but in the more general sense that our most qualified scientists have thoroughly considered and analyzed the risks involved in the operation of the LHC.

On 10 June 2009, a group of organizations representing higher education, science, and engineering, including AAAS, NAS, AAU, and others, outlined recommendations to revise the visa system to both maintain security and encourage the entry of the best and most qualified scientists.

Not exact matches

The system we have now seems to be producing at least as many well - qualified scientists as the most obvious part of our S&T enterprise can absorb, and the energy, knowledge, and skill of those scientists is as high as it has ever been, or higher.

Letters of recommendation from qualified scientists carry significant weight in evaluations for hiring — but most especially promotion — because they provide an external measure that synthesizes all three of the key parameters we emphasize: productivity, recognition, and impact.

The top scientists, the ones most qualified to provide objective and transparent scientific advice to EPA, are of course the scientists who will likely be most successful at obtaining highly competitive federal grants.

The funding is most likely to come by expanding existing programs at the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, the National Institutes of Health, and elsewhere that could financially support a lot more qualified scientists than they currently do.

Among many highly qualified applicants, they search for the exceptional scientists most likely to bring fresh, original ideas to the company.

With all due respect you are a well known (be it controversial) climate scientist but you are not the most qualified person to make that claim.

Strange how every developed country except the US, the vast majority of qualified scientists, and most credible public figures in the US — including Senator John McCain — accept that the balance of risk favors somewhat dramatic action.

Most reporters aren't qualified to make individual scientific assessments, so they have to take some of what scientists, or their detractors, say at face value.

Courts make a VERY clear distinction between free speech and deliberate libel; and equating a respected scientist (respected by his peers; he doesn't need the respect of the rubes) with a most reviled pervert and convicted criminal does qualify as deliberate slander.

If you (and the editors of this blog) really believe that most of the world's climate scientists are involved in some kind of cosy conspiracy to cover up or exaggerate the facts, then I suggest you take an open - minded look at realclimate.org, where «the science per se» is debated critically and in depth by well - qualified people.

Atomsk, Which is the most credible paper you can evidence to a scientist qualified to give expert evidence in a Court, for the way in which natural climate change is currently separated from man - made climate change?

In the meantime, read what another qualified scientist says about most of what you have claimed here: http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/ocean.html

Field scientists warn that damage being done to the Amazon rainforest indicates that most of the world's 40,000 tropical tree species now qualify as being at risk.

Oh please, skeptics are people who question all sides of an issue (like most qualified climate scientists), and climate contrarians are rarely that, which is why many of us call them fake skeptics.

As AGW is a highly politicized field, is it not true that this may simply be a measure that most of the highly qualified scientists are Democrat, or lean to the left?

No, what I'm doing is drawing attention to an important and uncomfortable reality: that scientists from the academies of science of two major global economies (China and Russia — between them responsible for 34 % of global CO2 emissions, more than the US and EU combined (24 %)-RRB--- have a wholly different view of mankind's responsibility for recent atmospheric temperature increases from what seems to be the view of most relevantly qualified Western scientists.