Sentences with phrase «scientific debate about it»

And yet others may have been fooled (with not a little help from the popular media) into thinking that there still is a real scientific debate about the big picture.

Note that the NSS does not take a position on the scientific debate about whether climate change is happening, what its causes are, and what can be done about it.

Estimating «climate sensitivity» — the magnitude of the change in TS after doubling CO2 concentration from the pre-industrial 278 parts per million to ~ 550 ppm — is the central question in the scientific debate about the climate.

There is no scientific debate about the fundamentals of evolution.

there are uncertainties about some details, and discussion about consequences and policy, but there is no serious scientific debate about whether the earth is warming and the cause is human co2 emissions.»

I myself presented the figure at an internal meeting at the Department of Energy in 1999 saying «the scientific debate about detection of anthropogenic warming is over» and saying that this work sealed the deal.

Before the show had even gone to air, the program was causing controversy with commentators — myself and others including Clive Hamilton, Stephan Lewandowsky and Michael Ashley — pointing out its format gave the false impression of there being a legitimate scientific debate about fossil fuel burning causing climate change.

«This book by climate scientists Craig D. Idso, Robert M. Carter, and S. Fred Singer is a tour de force on the scientific debate about global warming.

His premise was simple: If global warming isn't real and there's an actual scientific debate about it, that should be reflected in the scientific journals.

People see the story and think there's a serious scientific debate about the shape of the Earth.»

Even though there is overwhelming scientific consensus, they may have bought into the myth that there is a scientific debate about the reality of climate change.

Alan Robock's contention that there has been no real scientific debate about the «nuclear winter» concept is itself debatable -LRB-

There ensues a scientific debate about whether or not something «is happening», not whether or not it follows from «something happening» that the appropriate course of action is the one which the environmentalist has proposed.

The scientific debate about revising that value was covered in The Guardian a month ago.

It is a very good question because it speaks directly to a major issue in the public and scientific debate about climate.

There is a legitimate scientific debate about the optimal proportion of macronutrients (fat, carbohydrates, protein) for weight loss and maintenance.

While I do not know whether Global Warming is a fact or if it is man made, what annoys me most is that there is no scientific debate about it - it's all political!

Yet as the scientific debate about the Anthropocene unfolded, some associated with The Breakthrough Institute began to reframe it in an unexpected way.

And scientific debate about climate change can be scientific again.

We agree, because the scientific debate has moved on from the fundamentals — there is no scientific debate about the fact that the globe is warming from human greenhouse gas emissions.

This scientific debate about whether anthropogenic climate change is dangerous needs to end up like a game of postal chess (on the internet).

[There is still significant uncertainty and scientific debate about hurricanes in a warming world.]

The op - ed favorably cited by Mike Mann says this explcitly, «That means we need to clearly say there is no scientific debate about climate change — and instead shift the conversation to next steps... Those of us who write opinion need to press for public - policy action, steps that move us as a planet forward.

«Whittling down guesses or extrapolations from limited observations by a factor of 10 or even 100 does not make these estimates any more credible, and the fact that they are the best available data is not sufficient to justify their use when the consequence may be extermination for cats... What I find inconsistent in an otherwise scientific debate about biodiversity is how indictment of cats has been pursued almost in spite of the evidence, and without regard to the differential effects of cats in carefully selected, managed colonies, versus that of free - roaming pets, owned farm cats, or truly feral animals.

Such action should not be delayed by the current scientific debate about thresholds of 25 (OH) D for optimal function and health.

I had thought there was a legitimate scientific debate about the role of global warming and hurricanes, but it appears that the deniers, although they are legitimate scientists, seem to have fallen in with the think tank ideologues and PR lobbyists who masquerade as scientists.

The proposal cites FCC v. Fox to justify avoiding a scientific debate about the merits of WOTUS and its repeal.

Ancient fossil appears to be an early snake, but scientific debate about its relations — and the relic itself — are stewing

Aiming to resolve a scientific debate about the validity of two species of freshwater shrimp described in the first half of the last century, researchers have found that not only this species is valid, but also discovered the existence of a third unknown species.

As a result, several thousand of Fukushima's 2 million residents have been thrust into the middle of a vigorous scientific debate about the health effects of long - term exposure to low levels of radiation.

«There is no scientific debate about the fundamentals of evolution,» he said.

A National Trust spokesman announced today that «there is clearly no scientific debate about the age of the earth or how the Causeway stones were formed.

There is a scientific debate about how that algorithm is constructed and what the model is doing.

The project illuminates a striking change affecting campus life across America, contributes to social scientific debates about how law shapes society and vice versa, and generates knowledge crucial for strengthening higher education's capacity to reduce social inequality.

If it is the multitude of scientific debates about climate feedbacks, sensitivity, tipping elements, relative impacts of climate change on natural systems, etc. then I do agree.

Not exact matches

The Berkley Center did review the very extensive literature about both scientific and more operational findings that pertain to these debates.

Some critics say the pope should refrain from speaking about scientific matters, while others laud his letter as a major contribution to the climate change debate.

What the ancient debates on the question of the embryo have in common is a scientific adherence to what is empirically known about the embryo.

There is no debate in the scientific community about whether or not evolution occurs... it is a fact.

The mentality that Rauschenbusch deployed to seduce his readers — the turn away from troubling debates about doctrine, the shift from personal salvation to social reform, and the reassurance that progressive disdain for traditional religion was in fact a sign of a more authentic and scientific faith — provided a way to remain Christian while setting aside whatever seems incompatible with modern life.

There is NO serious debate within the scientific community about whether or not evolution is real, just differing opinions on how it works.

Still others have debated the specific involvement of Puritans in such developments as the early scientific academies or the cadres that advanced ideas about civil insurrection.

For most in the scientific community, the debate was never truly about whether adult stem cells or embryonic stem cells would be the most useful therapeutically or whether we could obtain embryonic - like stem cells without destroying embryos.

We debate endlessly about Peace, Democracy, the Rights of Man, the conditions of racial and individual eugenics, the value and morality of scientific research pushed to the uttermost limit, and the true nature of the Kingdom of God; but here again, how can we fail to see that each of these inescapable questions has two aspects, and therefore two answers, according to whether we regard the human species as culminating in the individual or as pursuing a collective course towards higher levels of complexity and consciousness?

The reason that educated people are «uncurious» about this is the simple fact that there is NO scientific debate on this issue whatsoever.

Perhaps it's because the post-modern world tries to apply the scientific method to determine the validity of sacred writings, and that debates about religion invariably propose the false dichotomy of faith vs. science.

Third, acknowledging that some of the blame for the biased and one - sided media reporting on head injuries rests with some members of the scientific community who issue one - sided press releases and feed cherry - picked results about their findings to selected members of the media, the authors look to a day when the «harsh division and polarization» in the research community (an almost inevitable byproduct, unfortunately, of the intense competition for grant money in Concussion, Inc.), gives way to greater collaboration among researchers and a more «cordial discourse» between scientists via letters and responses to journal editors and back - and - forth debates at large academic conferences.

She obviously thinks she know enough science to write a book promoting the safety of homebirth, run a website promoting the safety of homebirth, write articles in magazines and on websites like The Daily Beast promoting the safety of homebirth, but she doesn't think you know enough to debate the scientific evidence about the safety of homebirth?

What bothers me so much about the homebirth debate is that we have ample scientific evidence to show that homebirth is safe for low risk women.

The second is that public debates about science represent a messy clash between two, not just different, but diametrically opposed approaches to argument: scientific argument and advocacy.