Sentences with phrase «produced by government scientists»

Not exact matches

«If the UK is to be confident of producing the next generation of scientists, then schools - encouraged by the government - must overcome the perceived and real barriers to providing high quality practicals, fieldwork and fieldtrips.»

Committee chairman Andrew Miller said: «If the UK is to be confident of producing the next generation of scientists, then schools - encouraged by the government - must overcome the perceived and real barriers to providing high quality practicals, field work and field trips.»

Whatever you think of this particular effort, it has become ever clearer that climate information not only «wants» to be free, but will be — whether through pressure for further transparency and objectivity on the part of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or the liberation / hacking / theft / disclosure of climate documents produced with government money, whether they raise questions about the motives of some scientists or reveal attempts by political operatives to raise public doubt about climate findings.

No need to name names or point fingers, just the scientists said «Unequivocal», the negotiations produced «more likely than not» or the scientists said «5 - 10 years», the governments agreed on «by the middle of the century».

They have enlisted the help of conservative lobby groups funded by the oil industry to attack US government scientists if they produce work seen as accepting too readily that pollution is an issue.

By contrast, the IPCC takes a Summary draft produced by scientists and allows sponsoring governments to re-draft it before its releasBy contrast, the IPCC takes a Summary draft produced by scientists and allows sponsoring governments to re-draft it before its releasby scientists and allows sponsoring governments to re-draft it before its release.

Because it is produced by independent scientists and not governments, it is more credible than the IPCC's political documents.

Opinions and narratives is very lazy science, easy to write, very well - funded by governments, keeps people prominent scientists in the public eye, and is aligned with the barrage of views produced by anti-development NGOs like Greenpeace.

An earlier fast - track assessment (FTA) sponsored by the UK Government and undertaken by essentially the same group of scientists that produced the analysis that I reported on in my previous post compared the impacts of climate change for three cases: unconstrained (business as usual, BAU) emission case, CO2 stabilization at 750, and stabilization at 550 ppm.

They simply think that science has utterly failed to produce the correct answer on everything from basic thermodynamics to analysis of temperature station data, that scientists chase research grant money by producing answers useful for the expansion of government power, that every single mechanism intended to prevent corruption and fraud has failed and of course that scientists are individually and collectively involved in a conscious effort to lie to the public.

Accordingly, for the purposes of this Bulletin, «dissemination» excludes research produced by government - funded scientists (e.g., those supported extramurally or intramurally by federal agencies or those working in state or local governments with federal support) if that information is not represented as the views of a department or agency (i.e., they are not official government disseminations).»

I suspect that Messrs Nyquist and Shannon, after spending a few hours contemplating the endless plotting of «trends» by Climate Scientists and their pontificating on the dire consequences thereof — with 97 % certainty, no less, would consider the whole field to be comedy comparable to Abbot and Costello's «Who's on First», were it not for the fact that this «comedy» is being cited as justification for governments taxing and regulating every human activity that either produces or consumes energy.

But it was cold this winter and C02 is plant food and only a trace gas and the greenhouse effect has been disproved anyway and even if the greenhouse effect does exist, C02 has negligible impact compared to water vapour and our only source of heat is the sun so it must be the sun, unless it is due to the C02 from volcanoes, but C02 follows warming so it can't be the C02 and the medieval warm period was warmer anyway and all the temperature reconstructions that show this not to be true are produced by corrupt scientists being paid by corrupt governments that have colluded to create an excuse to form a one world unelected social - ist government and even if the scientists are not that corrupt, although the e-mails prove they are, they have still got it wrong as the climate sensitivity is not as high as they think it is because it is basically the planets orbits and cosmic rays so we can say for a fact that the warming that probably does not exist is definatley not due to humans and even if it was the evidence is not sufficient to make drastic changes to the economy and increase taxes so that the politicians and scientists and business leaders get rich and leave us all poor — do they think we are stupid or something?

Bob Ludwick, quoting Gary M: I have observed, year in and year out, that ALL of the «research» conducted by climate scientists funded by governments / (green) foundations is focused laser like on producing «data», often tortured to the extreme, that will support the original «settled science» and / or DISCREDIT any data collected by anyone OTHER than those supported by governments / foundations.

I have observed, year in and year out, that ALL of the «research» conducted by climate scientists funded by governments / (green) foundations is focused laser like on producing «data», often tortured to the extreme, that will support the original «settled science» and / or DISCREDIT any data collected by anyone OTHER than those supported by governments / foundations.

Drafted and reviewed by dozens of scientists within and outside government and endorsed earlier this year by the independent National Academy of Sciences, the report details findings drawn from a host of studies that are as close to certainties as science can produce.

In addition to the many books, reports, articles, speeches, debates, and media appearances on climate it has produced, sponsored, and / or promoted, the Heartland Institute has done a tremendous service by sponsoring international conferences that bring together genuine scientists and policy experts who insist on evidence - based science, rather than the politics - based «science» promoted by the United Nations and most of the planet's governments and government agencies.