Sentences with phrase «sceptical scientists in»

She was trying to assure him that there are «only six» sceptical scientists in the world.

Not exact matches

Indeed, many scientists would argue that recent research results tend to suggest that the public are right to be sceptical, both in terms of risks to human health, and increasing problems for farmers growing GM crops.

Others have become more sceptical after reading the work of scientists who refuse to accept the broad consensus in their community about climate change.

Some media reports say this is the breakthrough that will usher in the next big advance in IVF, but experts New Scientist spoke to were sceptical.

Chinese farmers found the first giant eggs in Hunan province in the 1970s, and they were described in Chinese journals, but Western scientists were sceptical until they saw specimens this year.

Even if you are not inclined to support sceptical views I think as a scientist that it is always preferable to read for oneself what is being said and to form your own views rather than just confirming your prejudices by listening dyed in the wool critics.

«The Republican Sarah Palin and her officials in the Alaskan state government drew on the work of at least six scientists known to be sceptical about the dangers and causes of global warming...»

In a congressional meeting room, somewhere on Capitol Hill, one of the world's leading sceptical climate scientists, Dr. Tim Ball, is toasting the advent of the Trump administration.

In other words, this article is not about the science, but about the reporting of the science by Monbiot of the Guardian, and Connor of the Independent, who will cite any ad hoc comment by a scientist which counters a sceptical argument, as if the simple fact that it is uttered by a scientist demolished the sceptical argument.

For me, that begins with people accepting that there is no hiding place left in the science — the overwhelming consensus of the vast body of scientists that study climate is that the trends we are seeing in the air, the oceans and in our ecosystems are entirely consistent with the theory of global warming, while the alternatives offered by sceptical scientists — even the much heralded role of the Sun — so far fail that test.

Truth is — this whole issue has clouded the fact that scientists are supposed to be sceptical by nature — it's not an approach (or a camp) in itself, it's not really possible to be a non-skeptical scientist.

The US Senate unanimously rejected Kyoto in 1997, not because of Heartland or any sceptical scientist, but because the requirement to cut emissions would have damaged the US economy.

The term is generally used in a derogatory way, so some politicians (e.g. Steve Fielding) and scientists (e.g. Stewart Franks) even if they are genuinely sceptical of the consensus view on AGW, -LSB-...]

Scientific Alliance are 200 sceptical scientists who have imported wholesale the views of right - wing think - tanks in the US.

If it were true, it would mean that 1 in 100,000 climate scientists were sceptical, and we can think of enough sceptics to put the number of climate scientists in the world well into the tens of millions.

So even if by miracle a sceptical scientist would be financed by Big Oil (it is unfortunately impossible), it would be certainly a positive action that would restore a balance in a world where not only Big Oil but mad people like Soros an other billionaires pour money in environmentalism.

This should be interesting a workshop to be held with pro and sceptical scientists and contributors in Lisbon: (Update: full list of atendees added) Anthony Watts can't make it but has delegated Steven Mosher in his stead (co author — ... Continue reading →

Coby I have never heard any sceptical scientist suggest that the thickening of the ice sheets in Antarctia and Greenland is the result of anything other than warmer oceans causing more precipitation.

Since even the vast majority of sceptical scientists agree with this statement you might wonder why, when Cook et al released their findings they got so much attention in the global media.

I an a naturally sceptical person, but my scepticism of global warming was cemented before I really knew what it was all about by a headline in the South China Morning Post saying that 2500 scientists had signed off on catastrophic global warming.

Or it can mean, «The overall physical properties of the atmosphere are just fine, and are going along as they always have, but some scientists have cherry - picked facts in order to make up scary stories, and so create a transfer of wealth from the general population, to themselves, and to their political sponsors», which is the sceptical position.

Happer and his fellow climate sceptical scientists are the Western world's equivalent of the dissident scientists hounded by the Communist authorities in the Soviet era.

Notwithstanding Lord Monckton's very excellent (instant) reasoning powers, my first choice for the «non-believers» in AGW would be Anthony Watts because he clearly has access to all the information he needs at his fingertips + he would be able to call on a lot of sceptical scientists, without reserve, including Lord Monckton I'm sure, should he not be sure about his answers.

Sceptical scientists, I dare say, would be much less likely to use the keyword phrase «global warming» in the papers they do publish.

I would say that all scientists are necessarily sceptical, but in the context of the AGW issue the term «sceptic» is usually taken to mean those who do reject, rather than just question the established consensus.

Why on earth should one be sceptical of unbiased, rigorous science when it's in the hands of openly partisan scientists?!!!

In the words of a climate scientists that I am a little aquainted with... who was trying to get across this simple mesage to the resident sceptical commenators at Bishop Hill: http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/9/28/dellers-on-reason.html?currentPage=3#comments

In contrast, the middleground, balanced («sceptical») scientists are overwhelmingly researchers with well established expertise in other fieldIn contrast, the middleground, balanced («sceptical») scientists are overwhelmingly researchers with well established expertise in other fieldin other fields.

Open minded in the beginning but increasingly sceptical as the deficiencies of the scientific method as applied by climate scientists unfolded.

Sceptical scientists and climate realists, contest natural variation; solar magnetic effects, volcanic eruptions, solar irradiance, ozone depletion, ocean currents PDO / AMO, clouds, all play a much more significant role in the climate system.

Well, in my view the 2 young scientists appeared to volunteer for the camp, expressing their strong interest well before any sceptical analysis.

Andrew Montford's observation comes in response to an article by Gavin Schmidt, in which he apparently shows more reflection on the problems of science and advocacy than I would have expected, given his robust statements about «deniers», and his refusal to debate with more sceptical climate scientists in the past, and his impatience with his scientific critics, to the delight of climate activists.

He hasn't even made preliminary enquiries about who he's attacking, in fact he's said that the sceptical bloggers aren't scientists.

Since this book is written by a sceptical French climatoligist who has no connection to the oil industry or the various liberterian think tanks and who claims indisputably, that the «greenhouse effect or global warming scenario is a myth» fostered on the general public by so called scientists, I would be very interested in hearing your rebuttal, because I am still in the process of forming an informed opinion.

For a much more detailed discussion of a sceptical scientist's view of the validity of using model output as the basis for policing making in climate science, take a look at Dr Roy Spencer's explanation of how these models work and why he thinks they are flawed:

But it is curious that the No Scientist chose the headline Sceptical climate scientists concede Earth has warmed, and then goes on to quote a number of sceptics, each of whom seem to have told the article's author, Michael Marshall that the warming was never in question.

A few posters in this thread make the claim «I am a scientist yet I am sceptical about AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming).»