Sentences with phrase «paper on consensus»

Be part of a landmark citizen science paper on consensus.

Other papers on the consensus between climate scientists have been written by Oreskes, 2004; Heima; and Anderegg, 2010.

Not exact matches

All of that data has led to a general consensus on the business side of the news industry that instituting a metered paywall won't hurt a paper's bottom line.

The consensus on these two is evinced by countless research papers dedicated to monetary policy strategy and implementation in the past quarter - century, compared with a relative handful on the design of countercyclical fiscal policy.

The second time I used 2 lg bananas and subbed just shy of 2 cups of packaged oat flour (consensus on google subbed 1cup oat flour for 1 1/4 cup rolled oats), and used parchment paper.

The general consensus is that our minimum requirement is another centre forward and central defender and the papers today are suggesting that Wenger is close to completing the transfer of the latter and it seems like he has focused his attention on Italy's Serie A to find the right player.

The fee varies depending on which paper you read but the general consensus seems to be around # 22 - # 25 million.

«This 18 - month - long shambles wasn't an attempt at papering over cracks of consensus on rights and freedoms but at bridging the Grand Canyon,» said the group's director, Shami Chakrabarti.

The white paper is the result of months of cross-party talks, and Mr Straw told MPs today that there had been a consensus on some key issues, including the fact that decisions made in the House of Commons would always take precedence over those in the Lords.

Position papers on implementation of the Right to Science The Coalition plans to commission a series of multi-disciplinary scholarly articles that address tensions and conceptual questions identified as most relevant for developing international consensus and more robust implementation of the right to science.

Some of the unresolved issues are highly contentious, so Kilpatrick sought input for the paper from a wide range of Lyme disease researchers and developed a consensus on areas of agreement.

«Clearly there is little consensus about the appropriate policy for treating infants born at low gestational ages, and yet hospital practices regarding the initiation of active intervention have a dramatic influence on rates of survival and survival without impairment,» wrote Neil Marlow, D.M., University College London, in an NEJM editorial that accompanied the research paper.

The white paper recommends that practitioners follow relevant guidance documents and that deviation from consensus recommendations should be supported by clinical studies or pursued in the setting of a clinical trial approved by an institutional review board; that practitioners receive training in a new procedure before beginning its practice, that the training should include a practical, «hands - on» component and that all team members directly involved with the radiation therapy decisions should participate in at least five proctored cases before performing similar procedures independently; and that professional societies should accelerate the generation of new or updated guidance documents for the following disease sites and techniques: skin, central nervous system, gastrointestinal, lung or endobronchial and esophagus, and, while outside the charge of this panel, assess the need for updated guidance documents for accelerated partial breast irradiation using electronic brachytherapy.

The paper has split scientists, with consensus on the need for a moratorium on clinical applications but disagreement about whether to support basic research on editing genes in human sperm, eggs, or embryos.

A new paper published just this month reported that respondents across the political spectrum responded positively to information about the scientific consensus on climate change.

This work included an evidence session held in October 2016 by the NDG office, with collaboration from the PHG Foundation and the Association for Clinical Genomic Science (ACGS), which informed Dame Fiona's paper on building consensus on genomic data sharing.

By Kenneth Richard «Consensus» Science Takes A Hit In 2017 During 2017, 485 scientific papers have been published that cast doubt on the position that anthropogenic CO2 emissions function as the climate's fundamental control knob... or that otherwise question the efficacy of climate models or the related «consensus» positions commonly endorsed by policymakers and mainstream media.

Although there is no solid consensus on the success of Tate Modern's first rehang, which opens today, all the papers agree on one thing: it's definitely better than it was.

I also think that Trenberth's paper is consistent, and Emanuel as well — hence my claims for consensus on this issue.

A responsible skeptic will request that you remain open minded to opinions from both sides, and consider the uncertainties involved * without * prejudging them based on the demonstrable human predilection toward a «herd mentality» — by «herd mentality», I mean that once a consensus is formed, a flock of «me too» science papers become much more easily accepted, by peer review journals, than the skeptics» papers.

I was hoping for a comment on where this paper fits in the scientific consensus, and what kind of uncertainties are involved.

As a scientist, one of the things I look for in popular science accounts is an appropriate recognition of the difference between a suggestion made in a single paper and the description of any «consensus» on the issues (such as described in the IPCC reports for instance).

Re: # 46 The factcheck.org item strikes me as a good - faith attempt at balance that fell prey to the usual journalistic pitfall; that is, it poses on one side the IPCC consensus view and on the other individual detractors like Patrick Michaels (citing 3 blog entries by him, no less — not peer - reviewed papers).

[May 18, 5:36 p.m. Update Dan Kahan posted an update on his blog emphasizing that he values the effort made by the authors of the paper on climate science consensus.]

She found that 75 percent of papers accepted the consensus view «either explicitly or implicitly,» while «25 percent dealt with methods or paleoclimate,» and took no position on AGW.

As we documented in our paper, research has also shown that when people are aware of the expert consensus on human - caused global warming, they're more likely to accept the science and support climate policy to address the problem.

A 2013 paper, «Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature,» examined «11,944 climate abstracts from 1991 — 2011» and found that «97.1 percent endorsed the consensus position,» while a parallel self - rating survey found that «97.2 percent endorsed the consensus.»

10: Given that the authors of the largest ever survey of peer - reviewed opinion in learned papers marked only 64 of 11,944 papers, or 0.5 %, as stating they agreed with the official «consensus» proposition that recent warming was mostly manmade, on what rational, evidence - based, scientific ground is it daily asserted that «97 % of scientists» believe recent global warming is not only manmade but dangerous?

«There's a recent paper by John Cook and co-authors who looked at thousands of research papers which have been published in the scientific literature to see what fraction support the scientific consensus on global warming.

In a 2012 paper, «The pivotal role of perceived scientific consensus in acceptance of science,» Lewandowsky and his co-authors reported on two studies.

I'm obviously more interested in his views on the Cook et al consensus paper and the Stephan Lewandowsky conspiracy papers, but his commentary in this paper is insightful too.

A paper by John Cook and colleagues published in May 2013 claimed that of the 4,000 peer - reviewed papers they surveyed expressing a position on anthropogenic global warming, «97.1 % endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming».

The papers Dr. Curry and Trenberth are writing are based on his statement, which simply assumes that the consensus has already proved (to themselves apparently) that human influences outweigh the natural.

After years of attacks on John Cook's 2013 paper finding a 97 percent consensus among climate change papers and experts, Cook pulled together a dream team of other consensus paper authors to reaffirm their collective findings.

The paper itself doesn't even make that claim... it only states: «Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1 % endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.»

A new paper has been published in the journal Cosmopolis entitled Review of the consensus and asymmetric quality of research on human - induced climate change.

In 2013, he published a paper analysing the scientific consensus on climate change that has been highlighted by President Obama and UK Prime Minister David Cameron.

That makes both of them authors of the less than 3 % of peer - reviewed climate science papers rejecting the consensus on human - caused global warming.

The publication of the paper that I co-authored, Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature, in May 2013 caused quite a splash.

I have notice a few newer papers looking into solar and tropical ocean dynamics which is kind of surprising considering the 2007 «consensus» on solar.

It seems that the definition of «consensus» varies by field, just as the decision - making framework does, with unanimity or near unanimity expected from the scientific community, even including those scientists who in many cases have not really embedded themselves in the literature nor been required to put together a coherent assembly and analysis of scientific knowledge (and even including, somehow, CEI's [Competitive Enterprise Institute] lawyers with their ExxonMobil support, who are often quoted as the contrary view in papers on the science of climate change).

«Consensus» Science Takes A Hit In 2017 During 2017, 485 scientific papers have been published that cast doubt on the position that anthropogenic CO2 emissions function as the climate's fundamental control knob... or that otherwise question the efficacy of climate models or the related «consensus» positions commonly endorsed by policymakers and mainstream media.

If Cook et al. are now saying that many papers do not make a definite statement because it is obvious that most of global warming is human - made, I am inclined to agree with this assumption, not least because of other research referenced on this page showing a similar degree of consensus.

According to the «consensus on consensus» paper, for instance, I noticed that 88 % of members of the AMS surveyed whose area of expertise was climate science, agreed in 2014 that half or more of the warming was caused by human activities, including 78 % who agreed that «the cause of global warming over the past 150 years was mostly human».

Three papers focus on specific aspects of climate change but don't actually reject the consensus:

That reduction ignores that several of the papers on Duarte's list were classified as 4, and therefore did not contribute to the consensus value; and that no doubt there were opposite errors were papers supporting the consensus were excluded or classified as 4 (both of which are known to have been the case).

and b) the urban heat effect (see recent paper by McKitrick), the consensus on a warming trend would appear differently; add to that the fact that some analysis show that the 75 - 95 higher temperatures may be partly due to effectiveness of anti-pollution policies, and you may realise that a consensus on higher temperatures may be based on sand rather than anything else.

The irony is these are in response to an in - press paper by Stephan Lewandowsky, Klaus Oberauer and Gilles Gignac that finds a statistically significant link between the rejection of the scientific consensus on climate change and conspiratorial thinking.

RTO INSIDER — The challenge of reaching stakeholder consensus was highlighted in a paper on PJM's governance by Kleinman Center's Christina Simeone.

Though not obvious, this claim is central to the tenet of the paper, and is an example of the cause - versus - effect issue I repeatedly refer to in the past when discussing some of the most fundamental errors made in the scientific «consensus» on climate change.