Sentences with phrase «scientific opinion paper»

Not exact matches

This article is still only her opinion, not a peer reviewed scientific paper.

«This latest report in Trends in Endocrinology & Metabolism, which is an opinion piece and not a scientific, peer - reviewed paper, is in contradiction to hundreds of studies that not only point to the

The paper by Emma Derbyshire is an opinion piece, not a scientific study, and has been submitted for publication in the British Journal of Midwifery, which we note runs misleading formula advertising (some to be featured in the monitoring report) and published a highly - flawed article on Nestlé's practices with multiple errors.

It would be wonderful to have free international scientific websites for every subject matter, where all the groups can share their manuscripts, thesis papers, books, and opinions related to a specific research topic.

Since publishing his first scientific article in Lepidopterists» News in 1948, Ehrlich, the Bing Professor of Population Studies at Stanford University, has written nearly a thousand articles, reviews, opinion pieces, prefaces, white papers, and some 30 books.

Dr. Wilson was recently on the New Zealand current affairs program Close - Up explaining the concept of adrenal fatigue to New Zealand, but was told in a live debate with Associate Professor of Medicine at the Dunedin School of Medicine, Dr Patrick Manning, that in his opinion (inspite of over 3000 scientific papers published on the topic) that adrenal fatigue «simply does not exist» and that Addison's Disease is the only medically recognised form of adrenal insufficiency.

It contains news, opinion, letters, scientific reviews and original research papers and communications on a wide range of veterinary topics, along with disease surveillance reports, obituaries, careers information, business and innovation news and summaries of research papers in other journals.

We are very interested in any ideas, news, general articles, personal opinion pieces, brief reports or scientific papers that you might care to submit for consideration to Vet On Line.

Essentially I've recently had to backtrack on my more alarmist web and media based opinions, largely due to reading RealClimate and numerous scientific papers.

Some here are intent on ignoring such links to genuine scientific papers in a scientific journal lest it undermines their flawed and faulty ego based opinions.

Have you, or have you not properly read the scientific papers related to your opinions as expressed?

Counting published papers can't be used as a proxy for scientific opinion if you don't know if there's a valid connection.

10: Given that the authors of the largest ever survey of peer - reviewed opinion in learned papers marked only 64 of 11,944 papers, or 0.5 %, as stating they agreed with the official «consensus» proposition that recent warming was mostly manmade, on what rational, evidence - based, scientific ground is it daily asserted that «97 % of scientists» believe recent global warming is not only manmade but dangerous?

You don't seem to object to the consensus good ole boys expressing their opinions, outside of scientific papers.

You don't seem to object to the consensus good ole boys [The Realclimate group] expressing their opinions, outside of scientific papers.

He was the lead author of a 2013 analysis that found 97 percent of all scientific papers expressing an opinion about climate change concluded it was human - caused.

No one hinders you to study the scientific papers yourself and evaluate the evidence and arguments presented in them, on which those expert opinions in the IPCC Report are formed.

Perhaps you would gain more credibility if you picked on a scientific point raised by the M&M or MBH papers, and stated an objection or opinion.

There are a few comments in the climategate papers (and elsewhere) that have suggested annoyance at having their «scientific opinion» co-opted by some sort of group effort to defend Mann at all costs because the hockey stick was «the» official empirical basis of CAGW.

First it's; «momentum is building behind the controversial view that the numbers don't add up» then «A rising chorus of literature in the world's best scientific journals and most prestigious opinion pages has argued the climate change math is flawed» and «For climate scientists, irritating questions from «sceptics» about the «pause» have now become peer - reviewed papers...» which is the intro for Michael Asten as the first quote for the article.

I am looking forward to the blizzard of scientific papers from Curry's critics articulating the meteorology that supports their opinions described above.

None of the scientific papers that NIWA cited in their impressive - sounding press releases contained the actual adjustments... The main objective of our temperature study was not to show that the raw data has been tampered with, even though that opinion was emphasised and can not yet be excluded.

So when I want to know the best opinion on the evidence, I seek out scientific peer - reviewed opinion — and the preponderance of evidence, not the one - off paper.

Most well - established scientific results went through periods containing mixtures of «good science» and «bad science», with the balances of opinion shifting among them, and claims that such and such a paper should never even have been published.

In the unlikely event that this — far too lengthy — paper gets accepted in a reputable scientific journal, its impact on the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis or on the MSM's biased opinion of this hypothesis will be negligible.

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley Three - quarters (rounded up to 97.1 %) of all commenters expressing an opinion on my recent post about Dana Nuccitelli's attempt at ex-post-facto justification of the false assertion in the lamentable Cook et al. paper of a non-existent 97.1 % «scientific consensus» that turned out on peer - reviewed inspection to be 0.3 %, enjoyed the...

I think the Shindell paper (april issue Nature Geosciences) and the attempts to respin it by the fossil fuel lobby together demonstrate how media opinion is far behind the most recent scientific research into climate.

As Ryan points out and we have discussed in the past, the paper is NOT an effort to render a scientific opinion about the trend of the temperature record in Antarctica.