Sentences with phrase «of open scientific debate»

So don't be surprised when it produces unhinged zealots who try to use the power of the state or harassment by frivolous lawsuits to subvert the rules of open scientific debate.

Not exact matches

«We certainly need an open debate with the aim of establishing common criteria for device certification involving certification laboratories, research groups but also scientific journals,» says Unger.

Further to your debate on open access publishing (23 June, p 26), many mortals have instant access to all manner of misinformation and pseudoscience, and only paid or delayed access to peer - reviewed scientific papers.

«Twenty - two brilliant and experienced leaders coming from the scientific community, policy - makers, industry, and NGOs from both sides of the Atlantic, sitting together in a small room for a day, engaging in a lively, open debate without any taboos, and coming up with recommendations on the do's and don'ts in providing science - based advice to policy - makers.

The very lively debate on scientific publishing and open access is spreading beyond the scientific and publishing circles as shown, among others, by the announcement by the European Commission of «a study on the economic and technical evolution of the scientific publication markets in Europe» and by the publication of the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report «Scientific Publications: Free for ascientific publishing and open access is spreading beyond the scientific and publishing circles as shown, among others, by the announcement by the European Commission of «a study on the economic and technical evolution of the scientific publication markets in Europe» and by the publication of the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report «Scientific Publications: Free for ascientific and publishing circles as shown, among others, by the announcement by the European Commission of «a study on the economic and technical evolution of the scientific publication markets in Europe» and by the publication of the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report «Scientific Publications: Free for ascientific publication markets in Europe» and by the publication of the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report «Scientific Publications: Free for aScientific Publications: Free for all?»

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.

The question of whether climate change is influencing hurricane strength is still open and debated within the scientific community.

Those people not contrarian to open scientific debate will be fully aware of the differing views and uncertainties in the field of climate change.

In the same post Dr. Mann once again demonstrated his engaging, open - minded and civil approach to scientific debate with one of the more knowledgeable commentators recently on RC (Martin Lewitt).

Lets abandon the scientific consensus seeking approach in favor of open debate and discussion of a broad range of policy options that stimulate local and regional solutions to the multifaceted and interrelated issues surrounding climate change.

The conclusion appears to be to abandon seeking where the center and range of scientific opinion is on this uncertain issue, and just have some kind of «open debate» whatever that means without quantifying uncertainty ranges, worst case and best case scenarios, etc..

The notion that professional scientific societies need to be provided with incentives to encourage and facilitate open debate of competing ideas strikes me as pandering.

He also addresses the deceit, suppression and obfuscation of Mann, Jones et al from an historical perspective and strongly advocates open scientific debate rather than the personal attacks that are occurring now.

As an example of how active the debate over his theory is in the scientific literature, Sloan & Wolfendale, 2013 (Open access), which criticises the theory, was published in the journal Environmental Research Letters on 7th November 2013, but coincidentally, on the next day, a new paper by Svensmark — Svensmark et al., 2013 (Abstract; access to ArXiV preprint)-- was published in Physics Letters A.

He told me that after the climate change debate had opened, he vowed that he would make no contribution to it unless and until he had satisfied himself that he had achieved sufficient understanding of the scientific issues involved.

Though scientific consensus must always be open to responsible skepticism given: (a) the strength of the consensus on this topic, (b) the enormity of the harms predicted by the consensus view, (c) an approximately 30 year delay in taking action that has transpired since a serious climate change debate began in the United States in the early 1980s, (d) a delay that has made the problem worse while making it more difficult to achieve ghg emissions reductions necessary to prevent dangerous climate change because of the steepness of reductions now needed, no politician can ethically justify his or her refusal to support action on climate change based upon a personal opinion that is not supported by strong scientific evidence that has been reviewed by scientific organizations with a wide breadth of interdisciplinary scientific expertise.

The scientists among you, start finally accepting offers for real debate with «skeptical» scientists on scientific grounds a. (People like Judith, von Storch and a handful others are certainly open for this, although some may consider them «heretic» or even «skeptic» because of their openness or because they don't declare every single bad weather event as proof of AGW).

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?

But the report is also disconcerting, because it suggests that the agents of climate denial have largely succeeded in equating the spread of disinformation with «open debate» — and in convincing educators that to teach the uncontested truth about climate change is to violate the spirit of scientific inquiry.

In a depressing illustration of how IPCC partisans reject the sort of open debate that is the hallmark of genuine scientific inquiry, Paltridge describes the response:

The challenge is to open the scientific debate to a broader range of issues and a plurality of viewpoints and for politicians to justify policy choices in a context of an inherently uncertain knowledge base (e.g. Sarewitz 2004).

If you are able to properly confute a proposed theory, you have plenty of resourses to do it in the proper way in the open scientific debate with valid and objective arguments by writing a proper comment / rebuttal.

In pushing to open up climate change debates to non-scientific disciplines, Hulme runs the risk perhaps of attracting accusations of not only «denier», but also of «relativist», which is almost as dirty a word in scientific circles.

If indeed targeted, the level of violence aimed at shutting down scientific dissent and open debate reaches a whole dimension.

He refers to the nuclear debate as»... a natural experiment in the politicization of science,» and optimistically bets that anti-nuclear liberals will be more open minded and respectful of the scientific evidence than conservatives.

Clearly the last thing that any of the many vested interests want is for the debate about the scientific evidence and its interpretation to be opened up.