Sentences with phrase «pretty much a scientific»

«In pretty much every scientific organization, every government — you're going to be hard pressed to find someone who says climate change isn't happening,» Holly told his audience.

Abrupt climate change is entirely deterministic and pretty much the scientific consensus.

Not exact matches

While you were probably right from a moral perspective (judging people by their appearance remains a crappy thing to do), apparently from a scientific one, you were pretty much dead wrong.

If you want to be «scientific» you also have to be agnostic about all the other gods, and about vampires, werewolves, dragons, ogres, leprechauns, and pretty much everything else from all the world's cultures and religions.

It has no scientific basis and, like pretty much all food fads, is rooted in a fear of modernity.

Because much technical and scientific writing is «pretty formulaic and stylized,» Montgomery says, non-natives (like Einstein) can often learn enough of a foreign language to do a perfectly acceptable job.

Alda: Yeah, I had been reading Scientific American I guess for almost about 50 years — pretty much every issue and pretty much every article — and I went from not having any idea what I was reading to getting a little bit more of a sense of a language; and it was to me like learning a new language.

«It's pretty much unanimous in the scientific community that seaborgium is an excellent name.

Whatever you ultimately decide, you can pretty much expect the paper's editor and referees to wield the scientific axe, or ask for something extra to be included.

«I'm confident that the scientific basis behind the threat has pretty much melted away.

Since the outfit looked pretty much sci - fi i.e, scientific fictional movie inspired, I have kept the appeal of this look the same way and yes, I tried to enhance it a little too with bold red lip as you can see.

At this point, it's pretty much a given that, if a movie features a scientific experiment that is meant to look like a human being even though it isn't, the experiment will turn violent.

Building a book - length argument around his contention that «the seventeenth century is the moment when one world - view was displaced by another because the scientific displaced that of faith,» Grayling paints a picture of astronomers, mathematicians, medical doctors, and even alchemists often reaching conclusions that even they dearly hoped weren't true — because the answers meant opposing Christian doctrine, unwise if you wanted to keep your job, freedom or head... To my ear, though, the tone of the Grayling's prose is rather flat — think «textbook» and you've pretty much got it — so many of these unexpected sidelights are not presented as compellingly or dramatically as one might hope.

There aren't really any scientific terms to describe the second six months of your little Rascal's life, «adolescence» pretty much sums it up.

The prey model people pretty much horrified me (I rescue pets I don't feed them to my dogs) and I can't find much in the way of real scientific research on BARF or raw diets.

TV Tropes: Extrasolar» A lot of the team is pretty passionate about science, so we wanted to keep as much in the realm of scientific plausibility as possible.»

It's exactly what I've started doing (without the scientific expertise), and I've noticed others as well relentlessly responding to denialist b.s., pretty much as Sean describes.

Isn't that pretty much the basis of the scientific method?

This is way past the point of pettiness that I would usually care about, but I stand by my original point that whoever originally said «having looked at a bunch of «scientific» or «research» code, you can pretty much tell that it is written on the fly, haha, more like agile dev cause you may have co authors asking you to make changes all along the way and then reviwers can come along and demand changes.»

(Pretty much settled by a scientific society's report on the topic.)

Pretty much twice the speed of anyone else I've interviewed so far... citing lines from obscure scientific papers is an obvious strategy that every global warming skeptic uses, but Mr. Morano does it better than anyone I've ever listened to.»

However, I work pretty hard at my writing and I think it is much more understandable to a broader audience to write this way than in scientific journalese.

Heck, even peer pressure in scientific elites, a far weaker force than a full - on culture, managed to delay the proper emergence of the theory of continental - drift / tectonics for several decades, with pretty much the entire geological establishment against it at one point, despite a six year old child could see that the east coast of South America matched the west coast of Africa.

But let's see, vetted scientific journal papers, they pretty much all support the central points you will find therein, and the data comes from leading science institutions and organizations, and those directly involved in the research, not some professor somewhere in Washington State who takes the data and simply changes it and then it is dispersed to about 50 million people through 10,000 channels and quasi new ideological sites, and 10m comments on the Internet in various forms as new «truth.»

«Would it be fair to say then, that in the scientific community, it literally is asking too much of them for them to be able to tell us whether 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 years from now, Earth's temperatures are going to be warmer or cooler, much like it is pretty unreasonable to ask a meteorologist whether we're going to have rain in Washington just 2 or 3 weeks from now?»

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?

I can go back & check, but I'm pretty sure the last time I collected data on this issue (probably 2009 or so), the connection between «scientific consnesus» & «belief in climate change was much much stronger.

I can go back & check, but I'm pretty sure the last time I collected data on this issue (probably 2009 or so), the connection between «scientific consensus» & «belief in climate change was much much stronger.

I have been focused pretty much exclusively on getting us past the «scientific» debate.

Problem is, it's pretty much just a retread of the path the U.S. is already on, which isn't enough to keep global warming from crossing the «dangerous» two degree Celsius threshold — a point above which scientific consensus paints an increasingly bleak future, with global impacts capable of destabilizing human society.

Although it's all pretty much just opinion backed by circumstantial or anecdotal evidence and models, it is the scientific opinion that:

RE: 4th Error -RCB- Poses an objection to the non-scientific term catastrophic [NOTE: Scientific «consensus» is often being used & / or implied in standard climate - change discourse - Yet Consensus is a Political Term - NOT a Scientific Term]- HOWEVER - When Jim Hansen, the IPCC & Al Gore, et - al - go from predicting 450 — 500 ppm CO2 to 800 — 1000ppm by the end of the 21st century -LCB- said to the be highest atmospheric CO2 content in 20 — 30 Million YRS -RCB-; — & estimates for aver global temps by 21st century's end go from 2 * C to 6 * C to 10 * C; — & increased sea level estimates go from 10 - 20 cm to 50 - 60 cm to 1M — 2M -LCB- which would totally submerge the Maldives & partially so Bangladesh -RCB-; — predictions of the total melting of the Himalayan Ice caps by 2050, near total melting of Greenland's ice sheet & partial melting of Antarctica's ice sheet before the 21st century's end; — massive crop failures; — more intense & frequent hurricane -LCB- ala Katrina -RCB- for much longer seasonal durations, etc, etc, etc... — IMO That's Sounds pretty damned CATASTROPHIC to ME!

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?

The scientific community does agree pretty much across the board that climate change is upon us, but the entire scope of what's taking place is unclear and the giant «factual» claims being made are not entirely what they seem, on both sides.

The fact of the matter is that Japan's whaling activities are in all likelihood done in violation of the international ban against whaling (the scientific objection being pretty much ludicrous...); there's more and more evidence that cetaceans should probably be granted non-human person status, making killing them doubly wrong; and debate about whether Sea Shepherd's actions (which have proven quite effective in cutting the number of whales killed) are or are not permissible and are or are not truly in the spirit of non-violence which Watson and Sea Shepherd have publicly espoused will no doubt go on.

Poor Communication by Scientists + Full Court Press by Denial Lobbyists to Blame Over at Huffington Post, Andrew Weaver, professor of climate analysis at the University of Victoria, pretty much nails why this is happening — despite the fact that scientific evidence continues to mount that global warming is indeed happening and caused in the largest part by human activity:

While universities are much more liberal than govt and it would be pretty astonishing for a faculty member not to get tenure owing to «stepping up», the time drain alone might be sufficient to diminish the faculty members publication list, and scientific peers tend to become somewhat suspicous of scientists that «step up» and may consider them to be light weights, have an agenda, etc..

The greenhouse effect was discovered in 1824 by Fourier, the heat trapping properties of CO2 and other gases were first measured by Tyndall in 1859, the climate sensitivity to CO2 was first computed in 1896 by Arrhenius, and by the 1950s the scientific foundations were pretty much understood.

Whether it is scientific conclusions or the tactic of character assassination, that's pretty much what determines if the statements we all hear have merit, or if they blow away in the wind.

Teaching good science and scientific process to children is imperative (even if they don't then go into science) as the skills are invaluable in everyday life (evidenced by the fact that anyone with a mathematical, scientific or engineering degree can pretty much work in any field they want).

Its pretty much the only scientific way to find out (besides asking others and using your intuition) 4) Volunteer (doing actual work in your chosen field is a lot more exciting than reading job announcements) 5) Network (where to network....