Sentences with phrase «real scientists in the field»

So all the real scientists in the field know it's not that simple!

As coby has pointed out on other sections of his blog, the confluence of science from a wide variety of areas that has led to almost every real scientist in fields related to climate science (and especially those in climate science itself) accepting the basic tenets of anthropenically induced global climate change.

Not exact matches

For nearly 50 years, scientists from around the world have used 58 lakes in northern Ontario for real, in - the - field experiments.

Real scientists who work in the field of immunology accept evolution as a fact.

And secondly, Stephen Barr's point seems to be a real solution: that theologians need to learn the language of science - not just absorbing the factual evidence of recent discoveries, but also the methodologies and modes of thought that scientists, whether quantum physicists or population geneticists, employ in their day - to - day grappling with problems in their fields.

In the field of biology, evolution may be «just» a theory (as some politicians painfully point out), but it is the theory subscribed to, for good reason, by every real scientist in every established university in the Western worlIn the field of biology, evolution may be «just» a theory (as some politicians painfully point out), but it is the theory subscribed to, for good reason, by every real scientist in every established university in the Western worlin every established university in the Western worlin the Western world.

For recently minted Ph.D. scientists, having children and the choice of field to study play crucial roles in the very real gender pay gap, a new study finds.

There is a real risk that necessary research is being held back as scientists fear working in such a contested field.

In middle and high school, increased opportunities such as science camps like SciGirls, recruitment of girls to participate in upper level science courses or extracurricular activities, informal science learning experiences and increasing visibility and access to women scientists both fictional and real are other methods to sustain girls interest and engagement in so called «hard science» fieldIn middle and high school, increased opportunities such as science camps like SciGirls, recruitment of girls to participate in upper level science courses or extracurricular activities, informal science learning experiences and increasing visibility and access to women scientists both fictional and real are other methods to sustain girls interest and engagement in so called «hard science» fieldin upper level science courses or extracurricular activities, informal science learning experiences and increasing visibility and access to women scientists both fictional and real are other methods to sustain girls interest and engagement in so called «hard science» fieldin so called «hard science» fields.

The guidelines state that the public should be notified of the potential danger of an asteroid within 72 hours of its discovery — enough time for scientists to verify that the danger is real, says David Morrison at NASA's Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, California.

Science fiction could once again become science fact if scientists succeed in their goal to create real - life force fields for...

Research shows that more than 97 percent of scientists actively publishing in the field agree that climate change is real and human caused.

With the free registration, teachers gain access to the tools such as the Quiz Manager, which enables students to take quizzes that have been created by their teachers, submit their questions to be answered by a real scientist, or learn about careers by reading interviews with scientists in the fields of biology, chemistry, mathematics, and physics.

I'm so pleased that Morris Animal Foundation is able to support, in real time, the important efforts of the scientists in the field.»

The real test here is: does the study contradict past published material and / or does it contradict past unpublished statements of other scientists in the field?

Such a team would included a few scientists expert in a specific field of Climate Science willing to act publicly with their real names and background info available and known.

I'm no climate scientist, but I know models in all fields are based on clusters of formulae, and these formulae are often derived from real world data partly by trial and error, and adjusting terms until they can reliably predict past and future data.

He and I agreed that there is a ripe opportunity, and responsibility, for scientists and scientific institutions to pursue this model in other fields where science meets society — energy, environmental risk, and more — essentially real [any science].

So real scientists are engaged in real skepticism, basically subjecting all findings to appropriate scrutiny and critical analysis, and challenging other scientists in the field to either disprove what you've done or validate it independently.

Often deniers portray themselves as reasoned, cautious, and conservative scientists, while the real scientists working in the field are described with emotionally charged adjectives like «alarmists,» «warmists,» and the like to weaken the public's respect for their work and to fool journalists about who's who.

Maybe you should read them, talk to some real scientists with proper jobs and actual research experience in the field and then come back.

as compared to being a real scientist getting a mediocre salary, having to write scientific books your wife wouldn't even read, having to gather data and samples in the too hot, or too cold, field, and doing experiments in a warm, smelly laboratory on unobtanium, where you could accidentally set your tie on fire with a bunsen burner, well, which one would you choose?.

It's a shame that real scientists in tangential fields, like Jen and Pekka, have been taken by this balderdash.

Cook: BTW, here's an example of the kind of response we can expect - this is the WSJ 16 response to the Doran / Anderegg 97 % consensus: http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2012/02/scientists-riposte.html «The Trenberth letter states: «Research shows that more than 97 % of scientists actively publishing in the field agree that climate change is real and human caused.»

So, in case there is now or there will be some newbie to these arguments who may have been confused by the disinformation you (and Memphis) have been producing here, here is an example from a genuine study to remind of what the AGWSF fisics passes off as real physics, as used generally in all the variety of science studies because this has been introduced into the education system and, apart from the applied scientists in the field who can spot this is fake, the majority simply take it as if real physics basics:

Every applied scientist in the real world physics fields of Optics and Thermodynamics knows this AGWSF claim that shortwave from the Sun heats matter is stupid.

Said study invariably being a paper written by Real Scientists, on data collected by themselves, and published in a Real Scientific Journal, specializing in the relevant field.

Yet who despite lack of relevant expertise, do not welcome the appraisal of experts — and on this topic the experts are those scientists in directly related fields who professionally study this issue — but often, at least with the more general anti climate change efforts that have massively skewed the «discussion,» in fact often expend a great deal of effort to find any possible fault, real or imagined with anything they assert, then erroneously turn that into a refutation of the broader issue, along with, often, denigrating climate science efforts, and often climate scientists.

Not one of the people who they trot out as «eminent scientists» or «experts» have ever bothered to go out in the field; gather any real data; or even speak, in person (ie in the same room at the same time) to the people suffering the known and obvious adverse health effects caused by incessant low - frequency noise and infrasound.

Michael Mann is an honourable scientist — he is of course, but only by the abysmal standards of the «climate science» industry, which would not be tolerated in any real field of science.

Climate cranks also attempt to debunk all of climate science by stating that we need more climate scientists trained in «real math» who admit that their field is «massively flawed».

Dr. Mann invokes the 97 % consensus argument that «of scientists publishing in the field have all concluded, based on the evidence, that climate change is real, is human - caused, and is already having adverse impacts on us, our economy, and our planet».

The Danish scientific committe that looked at his publications seem to mean that, though his writings could be defined as «scientifically dishonest» in a strict and narrow sense; Lomborg himself isn't really «guilty» of this «crime» because his articles, books, aren't really science at all, and he isn't a real scientist qualified to work in this field.

Mike Mann is admired by all real climate scientists, even those who may have same disagreements with him (there is no certainty in science, unlike in the world of denial propogandists [sic]-RRB--- and I know many of the leading players and follow the field closely.

I see this a lot in scientists arguing for AGW, they take on trust something very basics in real physics from mangled versions in AGWScience, because it's not in their own field.

This is my first real foray into looking at light in any depth for myself in the AGWScience rendering of it, but as with Miskolczi's discovery re Eddington, it's a pattern I've seen repeated in the aspects I have looked at, that laws / properties are consistently used out of context / without regard to actual physical qualities, and, that these have become the new «memes» through deliberate mis - education so much so that they are accepted at face value in the telling even by scientists in other fields.