Sentences with phrase «other qualified scientists»

Despite what Joe Bast and Heartland comms director Jim Lakely claim, their false report is not peer - reviewed, a formal process conducted by editors at actual scientific journals have other qualified scientists rigorously review and critique submitted work if it is to be approved for publication.

I do not intend to give her any more weight than any of the other qualified scientists out there, pro and con, but I'm willing to listen.

Despite what Joe Bast and Heartland comms director Jim Lakely claim, their false report is not peer - reviewed, a formal process conducted by editors at actual scientific journals have other qualified scientists rigorously review and critique submitted work if it is to be approved for publication.

Other qualified scientists with no vested interest in seeing a given theory succeed or fail attempt to find flaws in the methodologies described in the source paper by replicating the processes themselves to see if they get the same results.

One of the things that may make Mr. Ham's arguments convincing for some is his use of other qualified scientists.

Not exact matches

EFE This is a statement frm sm1 who is enlightened, pls d writen of d message ie Dr Biodun shld know dat they is a grp called medical Laboratory Scientist & d duty of d CMD is for d medically qualified & all professionals in d health sector are with a high degree of experience & shld also note dat b4 HE Dr Biodun was born Medicine was a deploma progam so allow other who now run degrees to do freely

The visual systems of sea urchins, mantis shrimp and other creatures are broadening scientists» understanding of what qualifies as an eye, Susan Milius reported in «Strange visions» (SN: 5/28/16, p. 22).

LinkedIn, her other tool of choice, includes users who wouldn't qualify as working scientists under ResearchGate's restrictions.

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.

Qualifying entries (those that meet eligibility criteria and abide by all competition rules) are scored by a panel of judges, consisting of scientists, engineers, astrophotographers, and other professionals from NSF.

Lindzen described the signatories as «eminent scientists and other qualified individuals» in his letter.

«We now know that the work done at Climatic Research Unit barely qualified as science; they kept it secret to stop other scientists checking it; thus breaching one of the foundations of the scientific method.»

Regardless of the type of legal proceeding or which side uses scientific evidence, the forensic scientist must be able to write a report and testify under oath about: what facts or items of evidence were analyzed or tested; what tests or analyses were used; how valid or reliable those tests or analyses have been found to be by other courts; why and how the forensic scientist was qualified to conduct those tests or analyses; and, what the results of the tests or analyses were and how those results are relevant to the issues in dispute.

Maintaining our productivity as a nation depends importantly on developing a highly qualified cadre of scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs, and other professionals.

The program aims to fund pilot research so that scientists can test their initial ideas and generate preliminary data in order to qualify for larger grants from other organizations.

Surely it would be correct to say that the «300 eminemt scientists and other qualified individuals from around the world» are actually in total disagreement when it comes to evaluating «climate facts»?

They can then link to their comments and articles, on other denialist websites, and claim credibility due to their association with a suitably well qualified climate scientist.

Ethical scientist would make it clear that the normal standard for scientific publication is «extremely likely», and that other qualifiers are educated guesses that may assist policy maker, but fall short of traditional evidence needed to draw a scientific conclusion.

A huge problem is that many qualified scientists and others are skeptic of the Consensus Science, but they work for Alarmist Media or Government Agencies or Schools, that would get rid of them in a minute if they express their Skeptic Views.

«We now know that the work done at Climatic Research Unit barely qualified as science; they kept it secret to stop other scientists checking it; thus breaching one of the foundations of the scientific method.»

Why, none other than a former tobacco advertising guru; a «scientist» who has no acoustic training or qualifications; who is not a legally qualified medical practitioner; who was used to front up struggling Danish fan maker, Vesta's laughable Act on Facts campaign (see our post here); and who has received scathing criticism in Australia's Federal Parliament on more than one occasion (see our posts here and here).

If the scientist is basing his work on a very small sample size or a survey or some other squishy method, he is ethically bound to qualify his assertions, but training to this effect is not adequate.

There are so many well qualified actual scientists you could appoint to this or other positions like Science Czar, Judith Curry, or John Cristy for instance would be great choices and there are many more to choose from.

Because if I'm not qualified, then you should not be trusting the tools, methods and calculations used by climate scientists and others to do their work, nor the results of that work... because I had a role in developing and refining some of the very fundamental tools they (and you) use!

One scientist presents a position you like, so that trumps 97 other equally qualified scientists who disagree with him?

You said, «If scientists in other fields feel comfortable with the consensus view, why should I think I am qualified to dispute it?»

If scientists in other fields feel comfortable with the consensus view, why should I think I am qualified to dispute it?

Despite the press releases of James Hansen, Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann and others claiming the debate is over, there are a large number of of scientists who are no less qualified and are more qualified in climate science and the atmospheric sciences who strongly dispute such claims.

At Grist, climate scientist Andrew Dessler, has continued running «The «Inhofe 400» Skeptic of the Day» repeatedly identifying some skeptics who were completely unqualified and others who are qualified but not actually skeptical.

Members of organizations such as CalCPA, California Medical Association, and employees (including scientists, teachers, and other trade professionals) can qualify for a discounted quote at Mercury.