Sentences with phrase «questioned by other scientists»

I only mention this, because you and some other warmists pretend that if only we just do the right thing and «believe» in AGW, everything will be all right --- when the truth is that a country like ours stands to lose its prosperity, our children's futures and our standard of living for the foreseeable future --- all on the strength of the scientific conclusions that your AGW scientists have so little confidence in, that they're afraid to have them scrutinised and questioned by other scientists.

Not exact matches

We, as poets and scientists alike, are invited to explore and research, experiment and doubt, and question and sing in the laboratory of His Kingdom, moved by the Love which moves the sun and the other stars.

In other words, science by definition has boundaries, and when they speak as scientists, people simply can not address the question of whether or not anything exists outside of nature.

That is they are quality checked by other experts and social scientists - which means the research questions, design and findings will be of the highest standards and quality.

«The bias is just so extreme» Others seriously questioned whether the world's community of climate scientists is caught in a cyclone of self - promotion, driven by the pressure to validate past findings and to receive federal grants.

The repercussions of the findings, which were published Thursday in Science, could make it harder to hold warming to limits set during recent United Nations climate negotiations — but they're being received cautiously by other climate scientists, with questions raised over the results of the analysis.

Questions posed decades ago by Carl Woese, his mentor at the University of Illinois, and other scientists — such as how the essential unit of life, the cell, came into being — are still unanswered.

I'm always struck by the fact that the image of the scientist is as a lone person wearing a lab jacket in the lab by themselves for hours, whereas my sense is that maybe the single most important thing for a scientist, aside from being able to think of good questions, is figuring out good people to work with and enjoying the process of inventing ideas together with other people.

Heiko Woith and colleagues at the GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences say scientists must determine whether the link between the animal behavior and the earthquake is based on clearly defined rules (such as the animal's distance from earthquakes of a certain magnitude), whether the animal behavior has ever been observed and not followed by an earthquake, whether there is a statistical testing hypothesis in place to examine the evidence, and whether the animal population is a healthy, among other questions.

It would measure progress by counting, among other things, the percentage of news articles that raise questions about climate science and the number of radio talk show appearances by scientists questioning the prevailing views.

Other frequent what - if questioning by scientists concerns specific causes and effects in their work activities.

I've been greatly concerned about this for quite some time, as public statements made by other scientists suggested that our work would really get to the bottom of a number of questions.

The climate scientist Simon Donner, who joined Gleick in signing a recent letter to The Wall Street Journal rebutting an op - ed article by other scientists questioning the seriousness of global warming, weighed in on the downside of lowering ethical thresholds in the name of a worthy mission:

The trigger was an e-mail chain maintained by Benny J. Peiser, a British social scientist who sends out daily summaries of research questioning dangerous human - caused global warming and international climate treaties, along with other subjects.

The open question I have is what has the IPCC or other climate science body publicly done to counteract the falsity about the «science» and about the IPCC itself, and working climate scientists, as expressed by John Howard and others?

These and many other fascinating questions will be discussed by the participant scientists.

The e-mails were written by the «A-team» — members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — and raise questions if the work of other respected scientists may have been disregarded or hampered by a climate change orthodoxy (or «climate oligarchy») that does not value, indeed may discourage, informed debate and dissent.

That's the question raised by a $ 10 million lawsuit lawsuit filed by Stanford engineering professor Mark Z. Jacobson accusing other scientists of defamation for critiquing his scientific work in favor of «renewal energy.»

When asked by the U.K. Daily Mail whether the NASA scientists behind the data regretted not mentioning the crucial fact that the margin of error was greater than the alleged temperature difference between other years and 2014, they reportedly stopped responding to questions.

The idea of there being scientists on the one hand, opposed by irrational sceptics on the other has been established so concretely that few editors, peer - reviewers or journalists even bother to ask questions about the content of the consensus, much less about how it is contradicted by the substance of climate sceptics» arguments.

However, the accuracy of this method is under question by the NOAA scientists performing the measurement (Scharoo 2004) as well as others (Mörner 2003, Wunsch 2006).

Choice 1: How much money do we want to spend today on reducing carbon dioxide emission without having a reasonable idea of: a) how much climate will change under business as usual, b) what the impacts of those changes will be, c) the cost of those impacts, d) how much it will cost to significantly change the future, e) whether that cost will exceed the benefits of reducing climate change, f) whether we can trust the scientists charged with developing answers to these questions, who have abandoned the ethic of telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but, with all the doubts, caveats, ifs, ands and buts; and who instead seek lots of publicity by telling scary stories, making simplified dramatic statements and making little mention of their doubts, g) whether other countries will negate our efforts, h) the meaning of the word hubris, when we think we are wise enough to predict what society will need a half - century or more in the future?

Some scientists question the reliability of the observations, whereas others, who accept them as reliable, suggest that the correlation may be caused by other physical phenomena with decadal periods or by a response to volcanic activity or El Niño.

This question is designed to expose that those politicians who refuse to reduce their government's ghg on the basis that they are not scientists can not ethically justify non-action on climate change on this basis because once they are put on notice by respected scientific organizations that ghg from their government jurisdiction are harming others, they have a duty to prevent dangerous behavior or establish credible scientific evidence that the alleged dangerous behavior is safe.

The answer to those questions is rooted in the angst and zeitgeist by earth - scientists and enviro - activists (often indistinguishable from each other) over industry and the fossil fuels that drive it.

The events of 911 and its official (almost exclusively government) story, on the other hand, have undergone nowhere near the same amount of scrutiny by mainstream scientists and engineers, which leaves a large number of important questions unanswered.

A second questions, which is one I had decided to ask you personally already before the remarkable statement you made to the Guardian is: Do you believe that once a paper is published all the data and methods used in reaching the conclusions stated in the paper should be available for scrutiny by other scientists, or even members of the public?

One common question should be, as inquiries and investigations occur, is whether the «science» was legitimate and merely used by others for their own purposes or whether some scientists themselves were involved directly and cooperatively in creating the scenarios desired by partisan others in analogy to the supposedly independent, outside, accounting firms that vetted Enron.

And the larger question is, why do no others corroborate his accusation that skeptic scientists were paid to lie to the public by fossil fuel interests about the global warming issue?

Global warming «skeptics» — scientists and others who question whether the scientific debate is truly settled and ask for real data to support the claims of the alarmists — are frequently attacked in the press, by politicians (including President Barack Obama), and on countless blogs and Web sites.

The scientific method was thwarted by creating a hypothesis and instead of allowing other scientists to disprove it the IPCC was set up to prove it and attacked those who dared to question.

The reason for this question is to encourage other scientists who are wavering, to inform themselves better on whether they should sit tight with blinkers on, to shut up for the good of their future careers or to start the ball rolling by calling out the many instances of scientific abuse that Steve is able to run off at about one a fortnight.

In June the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics carried a paper by James Hansen and others clarifying the question of what is dangerous human - induced climate change.1 Hansen is widely recognised as the world's most eminent climate scientist.

Thus, the real question is what is the interest and purpose behind it, which people are pursuing, who are spreading the rumor, here and elsewhere, that Lennart Bengtsson was threatened by other scientists?

Christakis is one of scores of contributors to an annual exercise in which Edge, run by literary agent and author John Brockman, poses a question to scientists, technology gurus, philosophers, and other thinkers.