Sentences with phrase «qualified scientists who»

One scientist presents a position you like, so that trumps 97 other equally qualified scientists who disagree with him?

4) The working groups must include some qualified scientists who do not completely agree with the consensus view.

CLIP Grants provide funding for qualified scientists who are working to explore clinically relevant questions aimed at improving the effectiveness of cancer immunotherapies.

To that end, AAAS, in coordination with an advisory council, will identify and coordinate ethicists and a multi-disciplinary team of highly qualified scientists who have experience conducting prevalence studies in vulnerable and marginalized populations.

This view needs to change, and more positions need to be created for the increasing number of qualified scientists who are not interested in opening their own labs or who do not secure the few faculty positions available.

An EPA spokeswoman has said Dourson, a professor at the University of Cincinnati, is a highly qualified scientist who previously worked for the EPA.

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.

Not exact matches

The complexities of this reality are far too intricate to delve into here, and surely there is a qualified sociologist or political scientist who can more accurately unpack the causes and possible effects.

Topher, AGAIN, how do you say there's no science behind evolution when scientists who are much more qualified than you consider evolution to be obvious?

You should read it with the understanding that I'm a mom who has pumped a lot, but also is not a doctor or a scientist and is in no way qualified to give medical advice.

EFE This is a statement frm sm1 who is enlightened, pls d writen of d message ie Dr Biodun shld know dat they is a grp called medical Laboratory Scientist & d duty of d CMD is for d medically qualified & all professionals in d health sector are with a high degree of experience & shld also note dat b4 HE Dr Biodun was born Medicine was a deploma progam so allow other who now run degrees to do freely

The first will be to help identify scientists, engineers or physicians who are highly qualified in the area of expertise sought by a judge who has requested assistance from the project.

Scientists from countries such as Pakistan, India, or Saudi Arabia who are qualified for green cards are not encountering extraordinary problems.

LinkedIn, her other tool of choice, includes users who wouldn't qualify as working scientists under ResearchGate's restrictions.

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

«So let's recap: according to some, scientists who receive money from oil and chemical companies are perfectly qualified to provide the EPA with independent science advice, while those who receive federal grants are not,» he wrote.

The top scientists, the ones most qualified to provide objective and transparent scientific advice to EPA, are of course the scientists who will likely be most successful at obtaining highly competitive federal grants.

So let's recap: according to some, scientists who receive money from oil and chemical companies are perfectly qualified to provide the EPA with independent science advice, while those who receive federal grants are not.

«If not developed carefully, these programs could inadvertently cause a decrease in qualified and capable staff who can conduct research involving sensitive materials or research animals, or drive scientists to become security risks themselves.»

In June, the Polish government announced a new grant for young scientists who earned high scores in an international funding competition; Dobrzyn is one of only 10 scientists who qualify.

I have often heard from government, industry, or academics that they would consider hiring African American scientists if only they could find one who was qualified.

The members of the sequencing platforms are postdoctoral research scientists, engineers, and technicians who are professionally trained and form a highly qualified team to accomplish the specialized scientific tasks of sequencing.

The CRI Irvington Postdoctoral Fellowship Program supports qualified young scientists at leading universities and research centers around the world who wish to receive training in fundamental immunology or cancer immunology.

A spokesman for the Department for Education said: «This policy will free up academies to employ professionals - like scientists, engineers, musicians, university professors, and experienced teachers and heads from overseas and the independent sector - who may be extremely well - qualified and are excellent teachers, but do not have QTS status.»

Whereas the question of who does the evacuation, who pays for it, where and how should those people then be housed would go beyond the remit of the scientists (and they wouldn't be any more qualified than you or I to comment on this).

If none of those qualify as scientists in your opinion, you could probably point me pretty quickly to statements from scientists who reacted in horror to the claim.

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.

When I Google that expression I get an awful lot of denialist sites come up; nobody on the first page of hits looks like a climate scientist — unless for example you're counting Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, whose scientific qualifications end at O - level (if he even got an O - level); or perhaps Joanne Nova, who has more scientific qualification, but isn't a climate scientist unless a bachelor's degree in microbiology qualifies her as such?

Outside of this lone exception, the dispute has involved people who are not climate scientists whose flawed work slipped through a sloppy peer - review process (as discussed in False Claims by McIntyre and McKitrick) and elsewhere on this site, or highly qualified people like Michael Crichton.

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.

If another qualified scientist can respond who is not one of the above posters, I welcome his estimate as well.

Joseph D'Aleo was one of fourteen Amici, described as «well - qualified climate scientists,» who claimed that the «EPA's endangerment finding is not «rational» and therefore arbitrary and capricious.»

[3] I explain in my presentations that as a scientist who is fully qualified to understand climate change, I seem dumber than the people who say they «know» the answers because I do not profess to know the future, especially of something so complicated as the global climate.

As to me needing to formally publish in a journal, I would prefer some qualified scientist, engineer, statistician, or economist (who is twenty or thirty years younger) to take what I have done, improve on it and get it published.

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.

So, out of 27 speakers, we have between 10 and 11 speakers who qualify as scientists — the rest are lawyers, economists, etc..

So while Singer qualifies as a scientist, he is certainly not an ethical one, and there is a great deal of supporting data to prove it for anyone who cares to look.

His version would be correct if the AGU's scientific go - to guy was a demented fringe politician with a journalism diploma who publishes Sudoku books instead of fifteen real and highly qualified scientists.

So individuals such as Gavin Schmidt (who is a computer scientist by education) would also qualify as scientists in my analysis.

Among the contrarians affiliated with the site are Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon, astronomers, lead authors of the recent «Harvard study» a survey of historical studies of climate which yields findings totally contrary to those reported by scientists who are actually qualified to study the topic.

* (For a good reason, too — there are so inordinately few somewhat qualified or learned and somewhat credentialed individuals on this subject who take the manufactured «anti Climate Change theory: view one that should be pursued by nearly every scientist on the planet were it to have merit, as it is a far better end result if true, yet nevertheless is not, but persists in fact due to the enormous ideological, macroeconomically frightened (and myopically presumptive), and «good thing going» industry based pressures, behind it.)

Significantly, the reduction in acceptance comes mainly from scientists who are neither expert in the field, nor active researchers - ie, those least qualified to advise on the topic.

He added, «Anyone who is qualified to chair the I.P.C.C. will have interests in academics, science, politics or business; there are thousands of scientists on the I.P.C.C., and you need their expertise and they all have to come from somewhere.»

Why, none other than a former tobacco advertising guru; a «scientist» who has no acoustic training or qualifications; who is not a legally qualified medical practitioner; who was used to front up struggling Danish fan maker, Vesta's laughable Act on Facts campaign (see our post here); and who has received scathing criticism in Australia's Federal Parliament on more than one occasion (see our posts here and here).

William Happer was one of fourteen Amici, described as «well - qualified climate scientists,» who claimed that the «EPA's endangerment finding is not «rational» and therefore arbitrary and capricious.»

So unfortunately for you, when you defend the indefensible, and attack a very honorable honest scientist who's papers you are not qualified to carry, your credibility is in fact justly reduced to the company you keep.

you cant even name a Single scientist outside the blue team who is willing and qualified to work on attribution.

So many scientists, especially those who are qualified (experienced and competent) won't do them because it takes time from their own research — or even family time.

Despite the press releases of James Hansen, Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann and others claiming the debate is over, there are a large number of of scientists who are no less qualified and are more qualified in climate science and the atmospheric sciences who strongly dispute such claims.

But the blog was populated by many of the «qualified scientists» that we're being asked to store so much faith in, and who posted to the blog to register their support of the AGU statement.