Despite the huge numbers of
qualified scientists out there, Inhofe could barely muster a few dozen for his list.
I do not intend to give her any more weight than any of the other
qualified scientists out there, pro and con, but I'm willing to listen.
Not exact matches
It doesn't take a rocket
scientist to figure
out if something
qualifies as a «whole food.»
If we pick a nice round number like 2100, the most likely future as predicted by our most
qualified scientists will be laid
out for all to see - and, who knows, maybe even act upon.
As a little experiment I tried posting on RealClimate (on the Mountains and Molehills thread), pointing
out that I was a highly experienced and well
qualified scientist who was less than entirely convinced by the AGW orthodoxy.
All attempts by a long list of rather well
qualified scientists from both sides of the debate to point
out to you that there has been a century of physics since then have been futile.
davidmhoffer says, January 26, 2013 at 8:42 am: «All attempts by a long list of rather well
qualified scientists from both sides of the debate to point
out to you that there has been a century of physics since then have been futile.»
So,
out of 27 speakers, we have between 10 and 11 speakers who
qualify as
scientists — the rest are lawyers, economists, etc..