The numerous other biases described above were also observed in the brain - imaging results.
Not exact matches
And as
numerous others have already pointed out, nobody calls indie musicians or filmmakers «self - produced»; it just so happens that indies in those fields have never faced the same stigma and
bias as self - published authors have.
PS:
Other cautionary considerations science ignored were the
numerous unanticipated side - effects within the climate system, the scantiness of known facts about climate, the unreliability of many of the supposedly known facts, the
bias of many of the curators of those facts, and the vested professional interest in alarmism (i.e., CAWG elevates climatology out of the academic backwater).
I guess my limited intelligence is the reason that I can't understand why you seem obsessed with me, yet fail to point out to the
numerous other commenters who discuss
bias related to partisan influences that they, too, are «IDJTs» and «feeble - brained.»
Having worked with many of the scientists in question, I can say with certainty that there is no grand conspiracy to artificially warm the earth; rather, scientists are doing their best to interpret large datasets with
numerous biases such as station moves, instrument changes, time of observation changes, urban heat island
biases, and
other so - called inhomogenities that have occurred over the last 150 years.
The question is: given this was M&M, and the
numerous other anti-science memes and
biases, what is he probability that this is simple error or purposeful?