Sentences with phrase «questioning science pointing»
In the late 1990s, while many other oil and gas companies were still questioning science pointing to a dangerous human influence on climate, BP pledged to cut its direct emissions of such gases 10 percent below 1990 levels by 2010.
https://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/ Not exact matches
In his book The Demon - Haunted World, the renowned astrophysicist helpfully suggested questions to ask to detect baloney, science writer Michael Shermer points out in the extremely useful video below (hat tip to Jason Kottke for the pointer).
He rationalized his decision by pointing out that science has surprisingly little to say on the question of why humans need sleep.
But these conditions invite some questions: Is the field of physical science an appropriate point of departure for philosophy?
Or does science address a different set of questions, with answers that can point toward religious truths?»
You are filling in any unanswered questions by science, at this point... using the «God of the Gaps» argument.
The reintegration of science, metaphysics and theology lies in the direction of showing that observation gives rise to questions that science answers, but that these themselves raise questions that call for metaphysical responses, and that these in turn point to a different kind of explanation which, though ultimate, is also personal.
It is these little nuances with life that points to something that science and atheist can not fully explain no more than the Pastor of the local church, after a storm, looks upon his town and has to field questions of «why my house» while at the same time having to field «Thank the Lord my house was spared.»
Yet, one day, science will most likely * IMO * get to the point where they will be able to answer that question.
Recently, there has been considerable increase in scientific understanding of the spontaneous development of spatial and temporal organization (structure) in physical, chemical, and biological systems.3 In an earlier note (PS 11:35), I suggested that this progress in science raises points that may be helpful in dealing with a question of current importance for process philosophy.
In his answer Cardinal Pell pointed out that science tells us how things happen, but not why we are here, and that to question things is a part of human nature that distinguishes us from animals.
Whitehead is not asserting an epistemological solipsism here, but is stating that the question of the community of nature to all, being metaphysical, is not one that has to be answered from the point of view of science.3 Moreover, it remains to be seen whether or not Whitehead's position, as it unfolds in the Enquiry, will remain uninvolved in the «difficult metaphysical question.»
My point is simply is that you lean on science to answer all your questions about the natural world.
My point, however, is that His actions in this world have consequences which we should be able to detect, so some science questions about God are perfectly valid.
There's little question that many walk - ons are walk - ons simply because the evaluation system broke down, pointing to what UCLA coach Terry Donahue, a former Bruin walk - on defensive tackle, calls «the imperfect science of recruiting.»
We started formal science lessons at 18 months with J (pointing out that we're doing science and starting the scientific process with a question, hypothesis, get results, discuss results).
Today, researchers at the annual meeting of AAAS (which publishes Science), previewed data from a recent poll showing that when the word «human» is replaced with «elephant» in the evolution question, 75 % of Americans agree — about 25 percentage points higher than before.
Einstein took seriously questions about his science, up to the point of writing one of the best introductions to relativity for the lay reader.
And you think at that point the typical American won't even question this science?
Also, the whole point of science is to ask questions and get answers from as many perspectives as possible.»
Neil Turok:»... The science has reached the point where questions that used to be just philosophy could be observationally testable in 10 or 20 years...»
With these pointed questions, Irving Lerch, chair of the American Association for the Advancement of Science's (AAAS's) Committee on Scientific Freedom and Responsibility, opened a meeting of European and American scientists who gathered in Washington, D.C., late last September to discuss whether or not scientific and engineering professionals should swear to an oath.
Trump has questioned the science underlying climate change — at one point suggesting that it was a Chinese hoax — and pledged to pull the United States out of the Paris climate agreement.
For example, he says, there isn't enough evidence to say for certain that the embryo in question was nearly at term and, therefore, to say that it couldn't fly when born, a point he also raises in a column published in the same issue of Science.
Erard points out that, for no good reason, this question has been neglected by science.
As he confessed in his book Finding Darwin's God, Miller is a practicing Catholic, and as he pointed out to Dawkins, «I will persist in saying that religion for me, and for many other people, answers questions that are beyond the realm of science.»
CO2 growth rates (CEI, p. 11): arguments about what growth rates for CO2 emissions that some models use are besides the point of what the science says about the climate sensitivity of the earth system (emissions growth rates are if anything an economic question).
The whole point of science is to ask a question and see where it leads.
Each lesson plan contains an overview, a step - by - step guide to the activity, an explanation of the science behind the experiment, sample discussion questions and talking points, a downloadable teacher's guide, student worksheets or handouts, and suggested variations.
«The beauty of the weather balloon project is that it's something captivating that provides many points of entry,» says Smith, «whether you're a student in an engineering class working on how to build a structure that's going to survive a fall from several thousand meters, or if you're in a science classroom trying to ask good scientific inquiry questions that could be tested, or if you're in language arts and you want to write a creative piece about what the balloon's journey might be.»
It's one of the more intriguing questions in animal science, and potentially may point to some important clues beyond canines.
Unfortunately for policymakers and the public, while the basic science pointing to a rising human influence on climate is clear, many of the most important questions will remain surrounded by deep complexity and uncertainty for a long time to come: the pace at which seas will rise, the extent of warming from a certain buildup of greenhouse gases (climate sensitivity), the impact on hurricanes, the particular effects in particular places (what global warming means for Addis Ababa or Atlanta).
I've written in the past about other issues related to setting a numerical limit for climate dangers given both the enduring uncertainty around the most important climate change questions and the big body of science pointing to a gradient of risks rising with temperature.
They are fascinated by the science, asking questions about the climate history of the Tibetan plateau and the chances of reaching environmental tipping points, as well as questions about western environmental thought and policy.
Congressman Holt raises a number of key questions on related issues, while pointing to some very hopeful experiences, notably in the Apollo program, in his 16 September editorial in Science.
That and other questions (like 6, 7 and 8) seem eerily close to bogus climate science denier talking points.
To those people, despite Ed's answer - in - part, the very notion that you (the intelligent science writer) point out Asia and pose the question may well serve (in their minds) to support their view.
Question: before talking about simulating climate CHANGE, how long does the climate science community expect it to take before GCM's can reproduce the real world climate PRIOR to human induced CO2 perturbation in terms of: — «equilibrium point», i.e. without artificial flux adjustment to avoid climatic drift, — «natural variability», in terms of, for instance, the Hurst coefficient at different locations on the planet?
[Response: Unfortunately, you seem to have conveniently forgotten that Keigwin (and Pickart) published a paper in Science just a few years later in 1999 pointing that the appparent cooling (actually, the oxygen isotopic signal in question isn't entirely temperature, it is salinity as well, so the quantative 1 deg cooling estimate you cite is not actually reliable) in the Sargasso Sea is diametrically opposed by a substantial warming at the same time in the Laurentian Fan region of the North Atlantic off the coast of Newfoundland.
It raises other questions above; what should we really be doing in the sciences (broadly, not just climate and physics) and in society, at this late point?
I notice that it took me, an amateur with no professional qualifications directly related to climate science, only moments to independently identify multiple weaknesses in the questions, the same weaknesses that other commenters have pointed out.
«Aimed at reflecting the major scientific issues facing earth science at the start of the 21st century, the questions represent where the field stands, how it arrived at this point, and where it may be headed,» the academy said in a news release.
As N. Oreskes points out in a recent article in Science, that is itself a question that can be addressed scientificially.
The point is that most basic science pursues questions generated by basic science and judged by those same scientists, a path - dependent approach that has disconnected itself from the challenges and opportunities — the many small but very real problems associated with developing effective, scalable solutions to climate change.
We are trying to include questions that are specific enough to be useful to policy makers, vivid enough to be compelling to a broad non-scientific audience (like those suggested by Edward Greisch, 12), and lie within the domain of climate science (as Anteros, 21 points out).
While the basic science pointing to a human - warmed earth is clear to almost all researchers engaged in climate studies, the specific outcomes in places like the Arctic are laden with complexity and enduring questions.
1) The first point is mainly a values question (how to apportion limited resources in a world with current problems and looming risks), but also has some interpretation of science (that the risks from accumulating CO2 are not significant; see Poinpoint is mainly a values question (how to apportion limited resources in a world with current problems and looming risks), but also has some interpretation of science (that the risks from accumulating CO2 are not significant; see PointPoint 2).
Just remember, while the basic science pointing to a flat earth was once clear to almost ALL researchers engaged in topographic studies, the specific outcomes in places like the Russia were never laden with enough complexity or enduring questions to be able to could come up with the truth.
There are other important questions about the path forward, related to how to handle reasoned minority views on particular science and policy questions, how to deal speedily with errors and how to break down barriers among the three main «working groups» — on the basic science pointing to warming, the range of impacts and possible responses.
Well, the point was that the separation of powers is a fundamental question in political science.