Sentences with phrase «much scientific debate»

After much scientific debate, the Indian Academy on Climate Change has announced its unconditional support for the government's recently announced plan to build another 500 coal - fired power plants.

There is much scientific debate over how much Earth has to warm before reaching a tipping point.

The change — a subject of much scientific debate at the time and since — made no sense, says Runyon, lead author of a short paper making the pro-Pluto argument that will be presented next week at a scientific conference in Texas.

Not exact matches

What bothers me so much about the homebirth debate is that we have ample scientific evidence to show that homebirth is safe for low risk women.

So much debate and scientific research has sprung from that far - sighted, seminal work of genius, which has stood the test of time.

As the editors write in this month's Scientific American, the ruling failed to define what «unreasonable» discrimination of Internet content is, leaving too much up for debate — «the only certainty it gives is of the tens of thousands of billable hours to be spent arguing over the meaning of «unreasonable» in federal court.»

In the end, its staying power may derive from the fact that the debate rests not so much upon numbers as upon an abiding faith in the value of a robust scientific enterprise.

We feature a small number of dissenting voices in our coverage, not because we seek to be impartial between «scientific fact and sceptic fiction», as Bob Ward suggests, but because reflecting the different sides of an ongoing debate is very much in the public interest.

The findings of the study are part of a much larger, fiercer debate within the scientific community over the megafauna extinction.

This sounds a little like the much - debated argument that scientific thought advances through the acceptance of successive paradigms.

M. O'BRIEN: Well, but there really isn't much of a scientific debate anymore.

In scientific circles much of his renown came from a pair of debates conducted under the auspices of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).

People in the climate research community resisted doing this for years, believing that they were only involved in a scientific debate, where, after much back and forth, and a fair amount of snark, reality would eventually win out.

Thus, in the past five years, much of the scientific and ethical debate about somatic cell nuclear transfer has focused on its two potential applications: 1) for reproductive purposes, i.e., to produce a child, or 2) for producing a source of ES cells for research.

People in the climate research community resisted doing this for years, believing that they were only involved in a scientific debate, where, after much back and forth, and a fair amount of snark, reality would eventually win out.

Anyone who suggests otherwise simply does not understand the relevance of the scientific debate [think about Al Gore and claims that the debate is over and that anyone who disagrees too much with him apparently is a fraud or payed by oil companies or whatever...].

Scientists should embrace the open scientific debate, and anyone who challenges that should be made very, very clear that without open debate, there simply is no science, no matter how much one is in favor of or opposes to particular people, statements and actions.

Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political «cause» rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

ExxonMobil is responsible for much of this bogus scientific «debate» and the demand for what the deniers cynically refer to as «sound science.»

(2) In any scientific debate, it's always possible to make lots of (not necessarily consistent) criticisms of a model, but this isn't of much value unless there is an alternative, better model.

How much «climate disruption» global warming causes, however, is a matter of legitimate scientific debate.

Michael Mann (see linked article) writes, «Much as lions on the Serengeti seek out vulnerable zebras at the edge of a herd, special interests faced with adverse scientific evidence often... attack those researchers whose findings are inconvenient, rather than debate the findings themselves.»

From «How much «climate disruption» global warming causes, however, is a matter of legitimate scientific debate» to «totalitarians Trojan horse».

The debate over climate change has a much longer history than most people realize, CRC has assembled a collection of scientific predictions of climate disasters — both hot and cold — from the last 122 years.

Drawing on case studies of past environmental debates such as those over acid rain and ozone depletion, science policy experts Roger Pielke Jr. and Daniel Sarewitz argue that once next generation technologies are available that make meaningful action on climate change lower - cost, then much of the argument politically over scientific uncertainty is likely to diminish.26 Similarly, research by Yale University's Dan Kahan and colleagues suggest that building political consensus on climate change will depend heavily on advocates for action calling attention to a diverse mix of options, with some actions such as tax incentives for nuclear energy, government support for clean energy research, or actions to protect cities and communities against climate risks, more likely to gain support from both Democrats and Republicans.

When the anointed leaders of the AGW (Climate Change) view will not attend events where they've been invited to debate the scientific issues I place them on a much different pedestal than the one they have adopted for themselves.

Most experts in the Kilimanjaro debate accept three things: for more than a century, its ice has been in a retreat that is almost assuredly unstoppable and was not caused by humans; so far, there is scant data on conditions there; and the main scientific question now is how, and how much, climate shifts driven by heat - trapping emissions are accelerating that trend.

As Justin Pulliam's article makes clear, much of the debate at Union College — particularly at the counter-meeting that I attended — was with the professor of environmental sciences, who did not seem to have read the scientific literature or the IPCC's reports widely or with close attention.

In March he was asked to lead an inquiry into the CRU's main scientific findings, a matter of much debate ever since apparently hacked e-mails from the unit were made public less than five months ago.

But facts matter very much in scientific debates.

There has been so much confidence placed in the greenhouse effect theory, that most people seem to have thought that «the scientific debate is over».

Jelle Bijma http://www.awi.de/People/show?jbijma seems to have a sufficiently solid scientific background, even if his research interests — Ocean Warming and Acidification; Proxy Development and Innovation; The Earth System on Long Time Scales — are ones we see too much confidence about in the broader debate.

This phenomenon is partly attributable to the fact that economic interests opposed to US climate change policies have skillfully and successfully framed the US climate change debate as a matter about which there is insufficient scientific evidence or too much adverse impact on the US economy to warrant action.

I mean if, as Nurse is now suggesting, the scientific mainstream understanding of global warming is that it's happening but that it's open to debate how significant it is then doesn't this completely contradict pretty much everything he, the Royal Society, and its two previous presidents Lords Rees and May have been doing this last decade or more to stoke up the Anthropogenic Global Warming scare for all they're worth?

I have been focused pretty much exclusively on getting us past the «scientific» debate.

Is it too much to ask to have a regular forum for true scientific debate, as opposed to the soapbox sound bites that seem to epitomise most sceptical commentary to date.

Critics say that Exxon and these groups continue to muddle the debate even as scientific consensus has emerged, and as much of the industry has taken a more conciliatory stance toward the reality of global warming.

Put differently, attribution proves to be a good experimental method to show how much of the climate debate is political rather than scientific in any Feynman sense.

There is continuing debate in the scientific community over the likely rate of future change: not «whether» but «how much» and «how soon.»

«I think that, in the long run, the policy issues will be decided by the full set of scientific knowledge, in the US and internationally, after much debate and experimentation with this and that at local levels.»

The fact of the matter is that Japan's whaling activities are in all likelihood done in violation of the international ban against whaling (the scientific objection being pretty much ludicrous...); there's more and more evidence that cetaceans should probably be granted non-human person status, making killing them doubly wrong; and debate about whether Sea Shepherd's actions (which have proven quite effective in cutting the number of whales killed) are or are not permissible and are or are not truly in the spirit of non-violence which Watson and Sea Shepherd have publicly espoused will no doubt go on.

What I am talking about is, that it seems to me that with regard to climate science, this blog spends far too much time responding to the phony, trumped - up «debate» fueled by denialist drivel, and not enough time addressing the legitimate scientific question as to whether it is in fact too late to prevent global warming and climate change that will be catastrophic to human civilization, not to mention the entire Earth's biosphere.

The study upended a prior consensus that any major climate - induced changes to hurricanes would be much further in the future, and ignited a furious scientific debate — one that was only amplified by the intense hurricanes that soon began slamming the U.S. coastline.

Which brings me to the point that surely you can agree with Jennifer on: In general the public debate should involve a lot more looking at the actual data (cf. business & economics reporting) than the «meta - debate» we so often see currently, and specifically that «ultimately, good policy is going to require that a much larger percentage of Australians have a higher level of scientific literacy.»

Ned says «a prominent member of the audience with much experience in the on - going AGW debate suggested to me that NAS management altered the task in order to pre-determine the outcome of the committee's report, so as not to upset the status quo in the scientific community.»

It; s presumably aimed at those who are outside the debate and don't quite know how much agreement there is or isn't within the scientific community.

The Heartland conferences have done much to demolish the false «scientific consensus» claims (see here, here, here, and here) that are aimed at stifling all dissent and debate and silencing all critics.

With regard to the above comment by the House Science Committee chief of staff, a prominent member of the audience with much experience in the on - going AGW debate suggested to me that NAS management altered the task in order to pre-determine the outcome of the committee's report, so as not to upset the status quo in the scientific community.

Secondly, the HS debate doesn't say much about the impact of 2xCO2, but neither is there a scientific consensus on the best action to be taken.