Sentences with phrase «scientists argue against»

But leading scientists argue against storing the pits for long periods.

Up to now scientists have however had little choice but to engage in time - consuming op - ed exchanges, which result in one or two high - profile scientists arguing against the views of an individual who may have no commitment to scientific accuracy at all.

That the scientists argued against QA was an eye - opener to me.

I'm a little baffled to see a scientist argue against «estimating and portraying the entire probability distribution to the best of our ability.»

Not exact matches

Dawkins, in his mediocre opinions in The God Delusion: -[1] Fails to support debunked assertions [i.e.can't defend his opinions when they are argued against by real scientists and Theologians!]

I think my question to those of you who couple atheism with evolution and climate change is: how can we as scientists even start trying to inform you about the details of what you are arguing against if you automatically presume everything we say is a blasphemous lie?

I think my question to those of you who couple evil atheism with evolution, the big bang, and climate change is: how can we as scientists even start trying to inform you about the details of what you are arguing against if you automatically presume everything we say is a blasphemous lie?

I know several scientists and they have a hard time arguing against any of the findings because evolution is not observable as Mr. Nye claims.

Although scientists behave as if their theories are facts, often arguing ferociously against critics, key paradigms of science can shift rapidly and fundamentally when empirical evidence reaches a tipping point.

America may have enough Seminaries to teach u how to argue against God but scientists don't care.

Political scientists have argued that the major reason driving the public to vote against the proposal was their unfamiliarity with the new system.

A number of scientists now argue that the battle against disease has left an indelible imprint on our minds as well.

Bill Hare, who leads a group of top climate scientists and economists at Berlin - based Climate Analytics who helped produce the UNEP gap report, said Geden's accusations «could not be more wrong» and lumped the researcher in with climate skeptics and other naysayers «who systematically downplay the risks of climate change and argue against action to reduce emissions on spurious and ill - founded grounds.»

The scientists who argue against an addiction model of obesity make reasonable points, and I also fear that the term «addiction» comes loaded with unhelpful preconceptions.

In an emphatic letter published today in Science, 11 researchers argue that NIH should reverse its decision against funding studies in which scientists implant human stem cells into early, nonhuman embryos.

From rebelling against the Nazi regime to collaborating with civil rights activists, they argue: «There is a proud tradition of the revolutionary scientist.»

The lawsuit, filed Monday in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, argued that the two conservative outlets and two writers named in the suit, Rand Simberg and Mark Steyn, «maliciously accused (Mann) of academic fraud, the most fundamental defamation that can be levied against a scientist and a professor.»

For wilful ignorance, selective quotation, and distortion, the blog scientists have nothing on the lawyers who are arguing against the EPA.

G&T managed to get their work out there; publishing it in Nature or Science would not have changed the fact that they're arguments just don't hold any water (they didn't do any new science, they just took what was already known, and then tried to use that to argue against what is already known — a search for logical inconsistency, which might have been worthwhile if they'd known what they were doing and if they'd gone after contrarian «theory»)-- unless it were edited, removing all the errors and non-sequitors, after which it would be no different than a physics book such as the kind a climate scientist would use...

Also, one can think of Feynmann who said that it is the duty of every scientist to include the things that might argue against his conclusions.

This kind of world, argued George Monbiot, was one in which scientists were instrumental in an an «economic war against the poor» — good science wasn't necessarily «good».

He said he did not know the details of Dr Pearman's case, but if a scientist were to join a group that argued against government policy as the Australian Climate Group did on carbon trading he or she would contravene CSIRO's media policy.

Willis Eschenbach, the list of distinguished, foresighted conservative scientists and conservationists who have argued strongly against with your post's «detector» includes (or has included) America's Founders and Framers, Jane Goodall, Wendell Berry, James Hansen, Ed Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, Pope Benedict, and all the hunting - and - fishing folks at Season's End.

Some scientists believe solar geoengineering could be a key tool in combating climate change, but the risks are unclear, and there are concerns that it could become a political tool to argue against cutting carbon emissions.

Mostly, the democratic senators were effective in giving the impression that the scientists were arguing against the fact that temperatures have been rising rather than what the implications are.

Other scientists discredited Seitz by revealing he was on the payroll of tobacco companies while arguing against the carcinogenic effects of second - hand smoke.

Scientists have always been engaged in > politics, sometimes for good (advocating vaccination campaigns against > smallpox, for example) and sometimes for ill (arguing for the improvement > of > the «white» race by eugenics), but scientists have had their «meddling» > fingers in politics for centuries, maybe millennia, without any lasting > ill > effects on our current ability to investigate the workings of the world or > > to influence the development of public polScientists have always been engaged in > politics, sometimes for good (advocating vaccination campaigns against > smallpox, for example) and sometimes for ill (arguing for the improvement > of > the «white» race by eugenics), but scientists have had their «meddling» > fingers in politics for centuries, maybe millennia, without any lasting > ill > effects on our current ability to investigate the workings of the world or > > to influence the development of public polscientists have had their «meddling» > fingers in politics for centuries, maybe millennia, without any lasting > ill > effects on our current ability to investigate the workings of the world or > > to influence the development of public policy today.

Everyone generally is taught standard AGWScienceFiction fisics as if it is real world and I have given a range of sources to show that what I am arguing against is the standard teaching in education, certainly all climate scientists working to the AGW energy budget use it as a given.

Wouldn't that be more interesting than getting people — who are quite frankly in denial and in the minority — to argue against scientists about whether the greenhouse gas effect is even true?

So while I expect that climate scientists will argue against «empirical AR1» coefficients as too severe a pseudoproxy test, I, for one, do not think that «empirical AR1» coefficients are too severe a test — if anything, they are probably not severe enough.

At first, many will argue against it, but eventually, as evidence piles up, the scientists will come to terms with the new idea, and use it as the default position.

My view is that in the face of very ignorant journalistic nonsense, too many scientists are failing to maintain their research objectivity and argue against alarmist or foolish interpretations (such as the obvious alarmist tone of AIT) I see good scientists lining up ideologically rather than methodologically, and find this painful to watch.

I've argued against the sloppy work shown in Harry's read me, and been told that busy scientists are under pressure to get results, they don't have time at the cutting edge of academe for the careful software engineering and quality control of industrial science.

While actual scientists are trying to piece together every little part of an otherwise almost un-piecable long term chaotic and variable system in response now to a massive increase in net lower atmospheric energy absorption and re radiation, Curry is busy — much like most of the comments on this site most of the time — trying to come up with or re-post every possible argument under the sun to all but argue against the basic concept that radically altering the atmosphere on a multi million year basis is going to affect the net energy balance of earth, which over time is going to translate into a very different climate (and ocean level) than the one we've comfortably come to rely on.

You make unjustified and untrue ad homimem attacks on excellent scientists whose work provides doubt to AGW although their work has often been challenged but never faulted: e.g. you say «I have never argued against people like Lindzen and Christy and Spencer continuing to do their work and attempting to get it published in reputable peer - reviewed journals, even if their work does seem to become increasingly sloppy and desperate.»

Although the climate scientists who say that the climate is changing (about 97 percent by some estimates) far outnumber those who don't, Gore's comments indicate the strength of the message of those who argue against climate change.

Re 233 Frank Giger — regarding the first part; I can understand the concern about scientist - activists, but it should not be so hard to accept that people who actually know things may be moved to publically argue against confusion and misunderstanding.

Nisbet argues that «urgent calls to escalate the war against climate skeptics may lead scientists and their organizations into a dangerous trap, fueling further political disagreement while risking public trust in science».

He clarified to Campus Reform that many scientists do not argue against slight warming of the Earth after the Little Ice Age (the unusually cool period of the Earth around the 1700s A.D.), nor do those critical of anthropogenic climate change argue that humans have made no impact on the planet, merely that the effect has been small and largely beneficial.

I'm, however, not arguing against scientists flying less, I'm simply suggesting that requiring this is essentially passing the buck.

But as environmental scientist Jesse Ausubel argues in his landmark paper, «The Liberation of the Environment,» human beings have been committing sins against the environment for thousands of years.