Sentences with phrase «overall scientific understanding»

As an open letter from 255 NAS members noted in the May 2010 Science magazine, no research results have produced any evidence that challenges the overall scientific understanding of what is happening to our planet's climate and why.

I think it is a central role of the media to let the public know just how solid the overall scientific understanding of climate science is.

Not exact matches

Stephen Toulmin echoes these sentiments in an elegant statement on the cosmos understood on the model of our «home»: «We can do our best to build up a conception of the «overall scheme of things» which draws as heavily as it can on the results of scientific study, informed by a genuine piety in all its attitudes toward creatures of other kinds: a piety that goes beyond the consideration of their usefulness to Humanity as instructions for the fulfillment of human ends.

There are many reasons for this including the progression of scientific technology, more prenatal and postnatal education for the pregnant mother, as well as a better understanding of infant nutrition, toddler nutrition and overall child safety.

This study gets us closer to understanding the complex food webs that are vital in nutrient dynamics and overall soil fertility,» said study first author Tami Swenson, a scientific engineering associate in Northen's group within the Berkeley Lab Biosciences Area's Environmental Genomics and Systems Biology (EGSB) Division.

The committee has prepared a report that, in my view, provides policy makers and the scientific community with a critical view of surface temperature reconstructions and how they are evolving over time, as well as a good sense of how important our understanding of the paleoclimate temperature record is within the overall state of scientific knowledge on global climate change.

Overall, the committee found that «to optimize the science return for the decade 2012 - 2021 within the anticipated resources, [the United States should] focus on three science objectives» — searching for the first stars, galaxies and black holes; seeking nearby, habitable planets; and understanding scientific principles — «while also considering the discovery potential of a much broader research program.»

In the scientific community, it's long been understood that the eccentric (lowering) phase of resistance training leads to the lion's share of the overall training stimulus, especially regarding hypertrophy.

Usually questions that begin with «why» and «how» have multiple correct answers that require an overall understanding of a historical event or scientific process in order to answer.

It is unfortunate, but probably inevitable, that politicians will exploit the diversity of opinion in science to further their own narrow policy goals, while wilfully ignoring the overall trajectory of scientific understanding.

Overall, I think the debate over the iris hypothesis is a testament to the efforts the scientific community goes through to evaluate challenges to theories and find ways to improve our understanding of the climate (for instance, see Bill Ruddiman's post from last week).

The primary objective of the research is to support the overall safety of nuclear power plants by enhancing scientific understanding of the environmental conditions of the plant's location and predicting how they can change.

In short: (i) scientific understanding advances rapidly, but (ii) avoidance, denial, and reproach characterize the overall societal response, therefore, (iii) there is relatively little behavioral change, until (iv) evidence of damage becomes plain.

In contrast to Dr. Happer's view that the science of climate change is like a house of cards (i.e., find one flaw and the whole sense of understanding will fall), I have tried to give a sense of why, as Professor Henry Pollack of the University of Michigan has put it, the science of climate change is like a rope hammock (i.e., with lots of interconnections and linkages, such that weaknesses or failure of any particular detailed finding does not weaken the overall strength of scientific understanding).

Normal, non-ideology-based scientists question the veracity of the CRU — IPCC flavoured results just because the JBM camaraderie - based group did refuse to honour such requests and people ask the following question: why, if both the empirical results — the raw data (including the nitty - gritty details of the temperature measurements) AND the theoretical model - based machinery are above board and the overall climatological picture of a man (n)- made warming is pretty much a safe bet, why then would some AGW researchers like the JBM gang refuse to accept that they, too, have got to conform to normal scientific procedure and release the raw data and the details of the theoretical machinery used to understand those data?