Sentences with phrase «science by real scientists»

It was our continued thirst for educating ourselves by reading books by experts, research real science by real scientists that led us to switch toward a LCHF ketogenic diet and away from the food pyramid in the first place.

Not exact matches

Religion and science as embodied and advanced by real, living scientists are just not as separable as many would wish to think.

Modern empiricism, on the other hand, which locates the possibilities of science in the brain (as if the brain and its patterns of order were not also in part a construction of the scientist's mind), precisely reverses this: the outside world known by the senses is alone the seat of what is — if anything is — universal, objective, real and certain.

@DinoF Red real science by scientists some time.

It's interesting to me that American Catholics tend not to have the same sort of antagonistic relationship with science because the pope has an honest - to - goodness observatory with award - winning scientists doing real research; because at least right now, fundamentalism is not the overriding or abiding ideology in the Catholic Church — although there are a wing of Catholic fundamentalists in the U.S. right now that are influenced by their conservative evangelical Protestant brothers and sisters.

Teleportation, cloaks of invisibility, smell - o - vision, 3D printing, and even holograms, were all ideas first imagined in science fiction — and now are real products and technologies in various stages of development by scientists.

Real energy, creativity, and labor must be directed — by scientists, institutions, and funding organizations — toward the integration of meaningful, well - conceived training into the research activities of every science trainee, at every level... including, notably, the nation's postdocs.

Four days after its launch on 17 January, the Jason - 3 high - precision ocean altimetry satellite is delivering its first sea surface height measurement data in near - real time for evaluation by engineers from the Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales (CNES), EUMETSAT, the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and scientists from the international Ocean Surface Topography Science Team.

Tracy Day and I created the World Science Festival to go around existing structures and create a place where people, led by real scientists, could immerse themselves in science's great stories and bigScience Festival to go around existing structures and create a place where people, led by real scientists, could immerse themselves in science's great stories and bigscience's great stories and big ideas.

Exhortations to scientists to create wealth are wicked in the same way, because they devalue the real contribution made by science, which need not be related directly to making money.

Well the science would still move right along because the scientists are all going to see it in the actual journals, so we are not interfering with the progress of science, and by the time we would actually write about this stuff there would be a much clearer opinion about whether or not this was a real finding and whether or not it held up in any sort of way.

Some people think there is no way that the online world can have an effect on real life; others argue that social media is so influential that the Arab Spring was catalyzed by networking sites, says James Fowler, a political scientist at the University of California, San Diego, who led the study in collaboration with Facebook's data - science team.

While Heartland continues politicizing science, demonizing credible scientists and using tobacco industry tactics to forge doubt over global warming, Americans are feeling the real toll climate change is already taking on society, by increasing the severity of storms like hurricane Sandy or pushing droughts, wildfires and heatwaves to new extremes.

«I appreciate the opportunity to describe the great efforts we made with Interstellar to keep it true to our understanding of the universe; and also our insistence that, wherever scientists are uncertain about the universe and its physical laws, we restrict Interstellar to speculations that emerge from real science and to ideas regarded by respected scientists as possible.»

Varga's research focuses on the interaction of lasers and matter at the atomic scale and is part of the new field of attosecond science — an attosecond is a billion billionths of a second — that is allowing scientists to study extremely short - lived phenomena such as the making and breaking of chemical bonds and tracking the real - time motion of electrons within semiconductors by probing them with attosecond pulses of laser light.

In yogic science, the real - time results of longevity and human happiness and health have been written, tested, and practiced by the Rishis and by the lineages of «yogic scientists» and practitioners throughout the past thousands of years, and then there's modern science.

For example, Project Exploration is a science education organization that strives to make science accessible to students from groups that are traditionally underrepresented in the sciences by providing personalized experiences with science and real scientists.

U.S. Students Know What, But Not Why Science Insider, June 19, 2012 «The computer simulations offer NAEP a much better way to measure skills used by real scientists than do multiple - choice questions, says Chris Dede, a professor at Harvard Graduate School of Education.

Sensor - based lab investigations provide rich opportunities for students to deepen their science understanding and develop hands - on experience using tools like those used by real - life scientists and engineers.

In addition to student projects and demos by real scientists, teachers created class experiments to share and read great science literature to children.

A Light in the Void tells the story of science itself through sweeping cinematic music, real - life scientists speaking on - stage (accompanied by the orchestra!)

Found at Tenney Naumer's blog if you want more info: http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com/2011/03/congressional-hearing-climate-change.html «Congressional hearing: «Climate Change: Examining the Processes Used to Create Science and Policy,» on March 31, 2011, to have real time commentary by leading climate scientists in order to correct misleading and inaccurate testimony — available to journalists — additionally, a teleconference follows hearing (with Kevin Trenberth, Andrew Dessler, and Gary Yohe)»

As an outside observer, it seems that climate science is marked by scientists not only debating data, but credentials: who is a real climatologist and who is not.

The real Yamal deception is their attempt to damage public confidence in science by making speculative and scandalous claims about the actions and motivations of scientists while cloaking them in a pretense of advancing scientific knowledge.

Stick with defending the real scientists at RealClimate by contributing only to the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund.

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.

This dialogue about him being full of pontifical nonsense flows one way, without a response, this silence is a buffer extending his life span as a legitimate skeptic by default, since he can't stand the heat from real climate scientists left on the way side, crushing legitimate science away from any chance to reach a badly mislead audience, simply because he is more popular in the fringe right wing media world dwelling on sound bites and stupidity.

If that makes the science unsettled when compared to the billions of data points accumulated by thousands of real climate scientists working over fifty years, then nothing will ever be settled enough for you.

Consensus, as measured by a lack of need to reference, trails the real consensus among experts because textbooks trail current knowledge - but it is real, and is relied on in science, for if scientists had to reference everything they would never get anything done.

Trenberth and several other scientists who are, or have been, in the IPCC told InsideClimate News that because the panel has already established that global warming is real, rapidly occurring and driven by human activity, it is time to focus less on defending this basic science and focus more on what is less understood.

Not being a climate scientist, and not realizing in the mid-70's that there WAS such a thing, I'm sure you will forgive me for noticing that all the articles in the «popular press», like «Newsweek», «Popular Science», «Popular Mechanics», «Science Digest», newspapers, et al warning us of an imminent ice age and proposing methods of staving off disaster were simply being made up out of whole cloth by science editors to drum up circulation while the real Climate Scientists were frantically trying to warn us that we were about to be rendered into cracklings by anthropogenScience», «Popular Mechanics», «Science Digest», newspapers, et al warning us of an imminent ice age and proposing methods of staving off disaster were simply being made up out of whole cloth by science editors to drum up circulation while the real Climate Scientists were frantically trying to warn us that we were about to be rendered into cracklings by anthropogenScience Digest», newspapers, et al warning us of an imminent ice age and proposing methods of staving off disaster were simply being made up out of whole cloth by science editors to drum up circulation while the real Climate Scientists were frantically trying to warn us that we were about to be rendered into cracklings by anthropogenscience editors to drum up circulation while the real Climate Scientists were frantically trying to warn us that we were about to be rendered into cracklings by anthropogenic CO2.

Despite virtual unanimity among scientists that climate change is real, and that it is caused by human activities, people who cast doubt on climate science continue to dominate the debate.

Science has presented us with an overwhelming amount of solid evidence that current climate change is real, caused primarily by us, it is real, it is bad, almost 100 % of climate scientists agree with this science, and we can limit the impact of climate change if we Science has presented us with an overwhelming amount of solid evidence that current climate change is real, caused primarily by us, it is real, it is bad, almost 100 % of climate scientists agree with this science, and we can limit the impact of climate change if we science, and we can limit the impact of climate change if we choose.

This is not science, and it's not being done by real scientists.

Mr. Dickson wrote passionately about several areas in climate science that troubled him, including: first, the idea that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that climate change is real, caused by humans, and a threat; second, the idea that government agencies had manipulated temperature records to fit a narrative of warming; and third, that China is developing its coal resources so fast that nothing short of radical population control will save us, if burning fossil fuels really does cause global warming.

While many in the media portrayed the phenomenon as a desperate weapon used by sceptics to undermine climate science, real scientists took notice and began to study the warming pause.

, which the public voted as Best Science Blog of 2008, ahead of RealClimate, run by real climate scientists.

Everything I've read on the subject leads me to accept that the high level of confidence expressed by the IPCC on the broad questions of whether AGW is real and likely to be a threat is representative of the view of the large majority of climate scientists and of the underlying science itself.

It is no wonder 97 percent of climate scientists and all of the national academies of science in the world agree climate change is real, it is happening now, it's caused by humans, and is cause for immediate action before it is too late.»

It has become increasingly clear that the «science» has been bought and paid for by «Government» in order to justify their taxes and that real scientists have been gagged from saying what the data actually supports.

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:

November 19, 2014: «If 97 % of Scientists Say Global Warming is Real, 100 % Say It Has Nearly Stopped,» by Paul C. «Chip» Knappenberger and Patrick J. Michaels, Center for the Study of Science, Cato Institute, published as a guest essay on Watts Up With That?

As we have documented in numerous articles on the disinformation campaign on this website, although responsible scientific skepticism is necessary for science to advance, the climate change disinformation campaign has been involved not in the pursuit of responsible scientific skepticism but in tactics that are morally reprehensible including: (a) telling lies about mainstream climate scientific evidence or engaging in reckless disregard for the truth, (b) focusing on unknowns about climate science while ignoring settled climate change science, that is cherry - picking the evidence, (c) creating front groups and Astroturf groups that hide the real parties in interest behind claims, (d) making specious claims about «good science», (e) manufacturing science sounding claims about climate change by holding conferences in which claims are made and documents are released that have not been subjected to scientific peer - review, and (d) cyber bullying journalists and scientists.

As others have mentioned, this is going to be a real doozy as the media narrative runs completely counter to what (it's so fun to actually be able to use this phrase in this context...) «the science actually says», based on the «gold standard» that we were told time and again is the IPCC bible (s), backed supposedly by those «97 % of scientists».....

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.

While Heartland continues politicizing science, demonizing credible scientists and using tobacco industry tactics to forge doubt over global warming, Americans are feeling the real toll climate change is already taking on society, by increasing the severity of storms like hurricane Sandy or pushing droughts, wildfires and heatwaves to new extremes.

He calls Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science «partisan pseudoscience,» yet immediately follows this claim by parroting the silliest of claims made by the truly partisan advocates of pseudoscience: «We know 97 % of climate scientists have concluded, based on the evidence, that anthropogenic climate change is real.»

Last summer, climate communication researchers at George Mason University and Yale University published a commentary urging the science community to reiterate the scientific consensus on climate change — that 97 percent of scientists support the conclusion that climate change is real, and humans are causing it — citing studies showing that exposing individuals to this message can increase their estimates of the scientific consensus by 10 to 20 percent.

Peden wrote, «' Real Climate» is a staged and contracted production, which wasn't created by «scientists,» it was actually created by Environmental Media Services, a company which specializes in spreading environmental junk science on behalf of numerous clients who stand to financially benefit from scare tactics through environmental fear mongering.»

Of course, there is much more to climate science than a few sentences, but today we also know that multiple peer - reviewed studies show that 97 percent or more of climate scientists agree that climate change is real and caused by human activities.