Sentences with phrase «scientific observations point»

Not exact matches

That said, as Coren himself points out, the column was based on observations and wasn't intended to have the same impact as a peer - reviewed study — the bare minimum for scientific evidence.

In particular, the denial that epistemology is wholly prior to ontology; the denial that we can have an absolutely certain starting point; the idea that those elements of experience thought by most people to be primitive givens are in fact physiologically, personally, and socially constructed; the idea that all of our descriptions of our observations involve culturally conditioned interpretations; the idea that our interpretations, and the focus of our conscious attention, are conditioned by our purposes; the idea that the so - called scientific method does not guarantee neutral, purely objective, truths; and the idea that most of our ideas do not correspond to things beyond ourselves in any simple, straightforward way (for example, red as we see it does not exist in the «red brick» itself).

medical and scientific educations place them at an ideal intellectual vantage point to facilitate the transfer of clinical observation and insight to laboratory research and discovery, and to help return to the clinic a better understanding of human disease: the bedside to bench to bedside cycle that moves both medicine and science forward.

Timothy Moore, chairman of the department of psychology at York University's Glendon College in Toronto, points out that Janov's assertions of scientific linkage are based on uncontrolled case histories and personal observations, and as such his work has not been scientifically validated.

Another rocket burn will raise the low point of the orbit to the same altitude, placing the spacecraft in a circular perch to begin regular scientific observations.

Wouldn't a proper scientific observation start from that point, as a matter to criticize Mike's work, rather than nit picking details which seem at first glance totally irrelevant to the main issue, the recent warming curve with reconstructions corresponds exactly to what is happening.

I have found sources where this relationship is claimed with 20 selected points????!!!! I thought that a scientific claim should held for all observations?!

Science historians would point out that Professor Revelle did not prompt the first CO2 measurement in the atmosphere; what he prompted was the first sampling of air from locations around the world, and it was actually Harry Wexler, the head of the Weather Service at the time, who prompted and actually funded the start of the long - term monitoring program by David Keeling on Mauna Loa — so Revelle did play a very important role in stimulating observations (and in 1965 he chaired the panel on this issue that prepared a quite insightful appendix for the report of the President's Scientific Advisory Council), but Revelle was not the very first to urge CO2 be measured in the atmosphere.

The latter part is more original stuff, as I (i) make the case for how China's clean energy push is in fact consistent with its overall economic reform, e.g. Scientific Development, reduction of excess industrial capacity, natural resource price reform, western development, boosting domestic consumption, and Going Out strategy; (ii) describe China's activities in innovation and R&D and its desire to create, not just produce, energy technologies of the 21st century; (iii) address criticisms that China's «indigenous innovation» policies are protectionist in nature by pointing out the myopia of such observations from a US (or EU for that matter) policymakers point of view; (iv) provide thoughts about what the proper U.S. policy response should be.

So I would concede that reasonable people are concerned, but to me the concerns are speculation and not based on observations or on any scientific mechanism that they can point to.

From a scientific point of view, that is a totally baseless observation.

The modus operandi is to 1) set up the Popperish straw man of needing only one fact or observation to falsify a scientific theory 2) find some inconsequential divergence between theory and observation (e.g. that last month was cooler than average; an extreme example to illustrate the point) 3) triumphantly announce that this renders the entire edifice of AGW / Darwinian theory invalid 4) imply that the alternative (sunspots / natural variability / creationism) must be correct.

Quite egalitarian, so in fact contrarians, scientists who hold ideas outside of the mainstream can prosper provided their ideas have some factual basis and use the scientific method (Scientific method: based on existing obervations pose an hypothesis; using new observations or experiments, test the predictions of that hypothesis; on the basis of the new data either reject the hypothesis or modify it to fit the better understanding, or accept that the initial hypothesis was right at which point it becomes a «theory» or explanatoscientific method (Scientific method: based on existing obervations pose an hypothesis; using new observations or experiments, test the predictions of that hypothesis; on the basis of the new data either reject the hypothesis or modify it to fit the better understanding, or accept that the initial hypothesis was right at which point it becomes a «theory» or explanatoScientific method: based on existing obervations pose an hypothesis; using new observations or experiments, test the predictions of that hypothesis; on the basis of the new data either reject the hypothesis or modify it to fit the better understanding, or accept that the initial hypothesis was right at which point it becomes a «theory» or explanatory model).

The scientific literature and recent observations — along with our ongoing lack of climate action — have long passed the worrisome stage (see the post last month «Greenland Ice Sheet Melt Nearing Critical «Tipping Point» «and links below).

IMHO, the «consensus» on the validity of AGW / ACC arises from the scientific literature and observations, and multiple independent lines of evidence pointing to a discernible and increasing anthropogenic finger print on the climate system, and not necessarily form a head count of scientists being in one group or the other.