Sentences with phrase «qualified scientists make»

Many doctorate - qualified scientists make the move away from research in academia, either through choice or as a consequence of permanent posts being scarce.

This tends to show up with a lot of highly qualified scientists making questionable statements to the media to the effect of «we believe X is a result of AGW, but we need to perform further research to confirm this...».

Not exact matches

One of the things that may make Mr. Ham's arguments convincing for some is his use of other qualified scientists.

16:20 - Panel presentations Join us for first hand perspectives from PhD qualified and postdoctoral scientists who have made a recent move into Industry.

The manufacturer makes the resulting database available to qualified researchers, providing scientists an unprecedented snapshot of what is happening in the minds of thousands of people.

As for peer review, it means only that reasonably qualified scientists examined the manuscript and recommended changes to improve the paper, or recommended that the paper be rejected; the journal editor has to make a determination about the merits of the paper based largely, but not entirely on the reviewers» comments (the editor has some discretion in deciding to accept or reject — his / her reputation as an editor, and the reputation of the journal, depend on sound editorial judgments).

Our highly qualified team of genetic scientists, doctors, and board - certified genetic counselors are on - hand to work with you and your physician to provide the latest information and guidance to make better informed therapy decisions.

With all due respect you are a well known (be it controversial) climate scientist but you are not the most qualified person to make that claim.

Monckton certainly is prominent and vocal but he is just one of many commentators, including a swath of well qualified and experienced scientists who do not accept the IPCC belief that the bulk of warming in recent years is due to man made CO2 emissions.

But you also said, «But let me try and make it even clearer: consensus by a vote of qualified scientists is not a valid basis for arriving at a logical, scientific conclusions about AGW — that's true» You have clearly contradicted yourself.

Most reporters aren't qualified to make individual scientific assessments, so they have to take some of what scientists, or their detractors, say at face value.

Ethical scientist would make it clear that the normal standard for scientific publication is «extremely likely», and that other qualifiers are educated guesses that may assist policy maker, but fall short of traditional evidence needed to draw a scientific conclusion.

Courts make a VERY clear distinction between free speech and deliberate libel; and equating a respected scientist (respected by his peers; he doesn't need the respect of the rubes) with a most reviled pervert and convicted criminal does qualify as deliberate slander.

First, a climate scientist who is qualified as an expert can make any of the assertions that the consensus is supposed to embrace on his or her expertise alone.

What on earth makes you think that the Federal Attorney is even remotely qualified to make such a distinction, when some of the world's better scientists disagree on that very question?

Atomsk, Which is the most credible paper you can evidence to a scientist qualified to give expert evidence in a Court, for the way in which natural climate change is currently separated from man - made climate change?

I was responding to claims that those outside the «climate science» community are not qualified to judge the validity of statements made by «climate scientists.»

In the first place, you and I are not a community on this issue, and to the best of my knowledge you are not a qualified climate scientist, or indeed even a name that might make Inhofe's list of pretenders to scientific authority.

I would agree with that, if each qualified scientist speaks for himself, but not if claims are made that 90 % of an unspecified group of scientists agree with AGW!

If the best scientists in the world have not yet made conclusions about the precise nature and indications of the data regarding human caused global warming; how can a lone meteorologist from a TV station in San Diego be considered qualified to make conclusions?.

What this paper shows is that the vast majority of scientists qualified to make assessments about the status of climate science believe in the core IPCC tenets, and those who do not are poorly qualified to do so.