Sentences with phrase «over skeptics if»

Indeed, UKRI can only win over skeptics if it makes decisions transparently and with broad input from stakeholders, says James Wilsdon, a science policy expert at The University of Sheffield.

Not exact matches

If the skeptics are right, Wood writes, Common Core «will damage the quality of K — 12 education for many students; strip parents and local communities of meaningful influence over school curricula; centralize a great deal of power in the hands of federal bureaucrats and private interests; push for the aggregation and use of large amounts of personal data on students without the consent of parents; usher in an era of even more abundant and more intrusive standardized testing; and absorb enormous sums of public funding that could be spent to better effect on other aspects of education.»

Moreover, if winning over skeptics is any indication of success, Hensley points with pride to a comment years later from a veteran teacher who had initially opposed his changes at Atkinson: «She said, «They sent a lot of people here to fix this school.

In other words, these skeptics will say: yeah, a frugal management team is great, but if keeping a lid on costs is the only advantage one company has over competitors, soon those competitors will cut their costs also and erase this edge.

If you really look carefully at the arguments and the science, the skeptics have it all over the true believers.

So if you're interested in bringing doubters / skeptics over to an understanding of the theory, be a little be humble, be as familiar with the limits of the theory as you are with the strengths, and try to resist making calls to ban SUVs, restrict reproductive rights, constrict the economy and other nutty ideas.

If these fine folks are truly NOT manipulating they data, then they should be bending over backwards, doing back stands, doing whatever it takes to respond to the «data credibility questions» of the AGW skeptics.

If you agree with these four please sign up here so that climate skeptics can claim a consensus on the superiority of Rossander's fit over mine.

If they acknowledge the pause, the skeptics are all over it as a validation of their view.

Makes you wonder if any of the «skeptics» were similarly concerned over other lengthy periods when the observed warming was greater than the model projections.

It's often claimed that if climate is discussed as a national security issue, an economic opportunity, or a religious / moral imperative, it will bring skeptics over.

True CAGW skeptic here, so I hope I don't get all climbed over for this post, but It seems to me we're overreaching again, and getting called out for it, again, which I don't know if that does us any good.

c) If skeptics are doing it right and changes should be considered over 100 years, then one simply can not take much shorter term observations and derive from them that the 100 - year forecast is right (i.e. «there has been minimal temperature change overall from 1998 till 2010, so we are right to predict that temperature will not change over 100 years»).

And if I also went out of my way over a long span of time to never even mention the viewpoints of skeptics, wouldn't unavoidable questions arise about my bias?

If skeptics attempted to state the global average temperature of the LIA or MWP within tenths of a degree, and published trends purporting to show temperatures with such precision over decadal and century time periods, then it would be inconsistent with criticisms of the claims of the consensus regarding both current and paleo temperature sets.

Not that this post has anything to do with the various ad hominems tossed at the skeptics, but it seems that comparing climate skepticism to other forms of anti-science cranks and medical quacks seems to be the [not so subtle] M.O. of one blog over at Science Blogs [even if they don't go out of their way to actually make that comparison, having it on their list is enough to give one that impression]: http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/