Sentences with phrase «much scientific interest»

Without that assumption (and hence tacit endorsement), the paper is as of much scientific interest as 19th century papers about how long it takes for ants to wander outside circles of specific diameter.

Coby, I have as much a scientific interest in climate change as anyone else but it doesn't seem to me that after the NAS report the «Hockey Season is over» at all.

Not exact matches

Following events in both locations with much interest, I encountered many people who believe that I.D. is a viable scientific alternative to evolution, when thus far (at least) it has been only an interesting philosophical critique of the explanatory efficacy of Darwinian evolution.

Scientific history can shed much interesting light on the historical circumstances surrounding the great events upon which our hope is founded, and critical historical work can even become a necessary and corrective ingredient in a community's recalling of its foundational moments.

Few scientific endeavors captured as much public interest as the race to identify BRCA1, a gene responsible for inherited predisposition to breast and ovarian cancers.

Nili Fossae trough is already of scientific interest because the crust in the region is thought to date from when Mars was a much wetter place.

Sharp - eyed reader Paul Marks spotted the following interesting paragraph in the Office of Science and Technology's Forward Look report on government spending on science: «Despite enormous progress over the past decade, software engineering still suffers from being too much of an art and not enough of a science and much remains to be done to establish it on a firmer scientific basis.»

But Huxley's influence was much wider than his work in ethology and evolution, in embryology and eugenics, his other main scientific interests.

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.

Depending upon how much information you get, you might be able to look up individuals and find out about their scientific backgrounds and interests.

Gimeno, Añel's former Ph.D. adviser, partly attributes Añel's early success to «his great interest in and liking for the scientific endeavor, which prompt [s] him to dedicate amounts of time much greater than average to work.»

The database was developed by identical twin brothers, Obi Griffith, PhD, and Malachi Griffith, PhD, whose interest in pairing drugs with genes is as much personal as it is scientific.

It's just amazing that, you know, you could capture that much information and it's interesting in the scientific perspective because what we are finding right now with issues like climate change and conservation is that we really need fine - grained samples from very large geographic areas to really understand the dynamics of species range movements and how fragmentation is occurring and many biogeographic questions, and literally, the only way we can do this is through voluntary networks like this because it would cost billions and billions to send professionals out at that finer scale to understand it.

In recent years he has become interested in the paucity of scientific evidence that underlies much of medical practice.

Both Paul and Leonidas deserve much credit for generating interest in the scientific community to press ahead with various Europa missions.

This scientific area has attracted much interest due to its potential to write small magnetic elements with a low - power electric field rather than magnetic fields that require high - power charge currents.

I have never met any person, scientist or engineer, who has been as much engaged and as much successful in representing interests and achieving aims of a scientific organizations in biomedical engineering as Prof. Nagel.

I think it is also important to point out that much of the drive for acceptance of these questionable papers comes, not from the scientific community, but from interest groups and the media.

-- We believe that CRU did a public service of great value by carrying out much time - consuming meticulous work on temperature records at a time when it was unfashionable and attracted the interest of a rather small section of the scientific community.

Much more often than not, scientific research leads to results that are not particularly interesting or enlightening.

Science 256 (1992), 74 - 79 ------------------ Notes * How much they can be expected to absorb in the long run is an interesting and important scientific question, discussed in some detail in Chapter 3 of the IPCC report.

The interesting thing about scientific revolutions is how much knowledge is retained.

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.»

I do agree that the effect is very minor in comparison to the much larger GHG - based AGW signal, but explaining it is an interesting scientific problem.

But what's interesting in the scientific literature in that last few years is that there has been much more attention to imperfections in those assumptions.

• There is much scientific and historical evidence that the reported recent warming in the Arctic is not unprecedented, for instance the 1920/30's are recorded to have been relatively warm as in this 2006 paper, and this newer paper is interesting if challenging, but there are still other similar papers and much widespread history of the Medieval Warm Period.

And in fact when you look at the scientific literature, it's an interesting disconnect because the modelers who study emissions and how to control those emissions are generally much more comfortable setting goals in terms of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas concentrations because that comes more or less directly out of their models and is much more proximate or more closely connected to what humans actually do to screw up the climate in the first place, which is emit these greenhouse gases.

Yes, they were interesting (and educational) times, before Climategate I didn't think much about the reasons for the great big new taxes but when Climategate occurred I took an interest and since then have become a skeptic or denialist or whatever the current word is Perhaps what Politicisation has done in the name of science is demonstrate that there are inquiring and courageous scientific and other minds that do not close And where's Bulldust (I think he is Australian as I am) and the coiner of the phrase «Climategate» Happy anniversary everyone, thank you Anthony for a wonderful site

It remains the case that first attempts at describing a difficult truth are of much greater scientific interest than a pedestrian attempt to disprove an evident reality.

There's probably an interesting story to be told about why scientific reality has generally triumphed at website that can be edited by anyone who speaks English, when it's a much closer question among English - speakers in general.

I don't consider myself to be an expert by any means but in the few years I have been taking an interest in the subject of climate change I have tried to educate myself as much as possible about the various scientific arguments surrounding the subject, and one thing that has constantly been impressed upon my mind is that when there is a long term trend caused by increasing GHG levels there will periods when it is masked (or accentuated) by short term natural variability.

You have to take much more of a backseat role in advising governments and understanding intimately what they're interests are and how to provide policy - relevant scientific analysis for them that meets their needs when they need it.

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.

(The reaction of the scientific establishment to the Swindle has been so much more interesting than the film itself.)

If your answer is YES, then it just might be possible that a much larger reforestration (land reclaimed by high - density, fast - growing Neotropical biomass from that used by 50M people doing low - density agriculture) might have had an effect... One more time: the relevant - to - this - post interesting scientific question is whether or not a cooling that certainly happened would have had different * regional * fingerprints depending on the relative contributions of:

Because the Kyoto Treaty and much of the suggested environmental legislation would decimate jobs in southern California, constituents may be interested to learn of the growing scientific consensus that global warming is not manmade, if it is in fact even occuring.

Much of this increased interest is being fueled by results from scientific and clinical studies that are increasing our understanding of how the practice of mindfulness can help with stress, chronic illnesses and specific mental health issues such as depression, prolonged periods of sadness and anxiety.

Here's an interesting link: (Header: The era of blind faith in big data must end) «Algorithms decide who gets a loan, who gets a job interview, who gets insurance and much more — but they don't automatically make things fair, and they're often far from scientific.