Sentences with phrase «scientists backed its claims»

The UN's IPCC misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming, according to Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and IPCC insider.

«The [IPCC has] misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming, according to Dr Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and UN-IPCC insider.

The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming, according to Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and IPCC insider.

The UN's IPCC misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming, according to Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and IPCC insider.

Not exact matches

In 2014, 70 prominent scientists published an open letter pushing back against the marketing claims made by companies like Lumosity.

«On atheists being afraid of the power of the church, so a hundred years ago or so, they started calling themselves scientists, and spreading around lies they claimed as facts, backed up with statistics to complicated for the average man to verify for himself.

Here's the back story: Ever since the «Bhut Jolokia» first caused a media - induced ruckus because Indian plant scientists were claiming the title of the «World's Hottest Pepper,» we've been tracking developments on the SuperSite (see a list of related articles at the bottom).

Scientists who mapped the DNA of the New York City subway system have backed off a claim that they discovered traces of anthrax and bubonic plague at several stations, after federal and city public health officials strongly disputed the findings.

In the strongly worded letter dated 16 May from seven Center department heads and senior scientist Harvey Alter, they wrote that the claim that patient safety took a back seat to research is «quite simply, incorrect.»

Simson claims that this practice benefits antibody makers as well as scientists: «There needs to be this place where [the data] are coming back for that company to understand how their products are working.»

Doctors were so incensed they offered a reward for proof of her claims, and scientists said her statements had set back public understanding and acceptance of the vaccine by years.

And so I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of scientists sort of see the squishiness or the fuzziness or the vagueness here and back away, and retreat to health and safety claims that are much more comfortable for them.

John Fitzpatrick of Cornell University and the other scientists who originally wrote about the ivory - billed sighting shot back with a their own technical paper, claiming that, among other things, Sibley used inaccurate models of takeoff and flight behavior to interpret the video.

But now scientists have learned some bats emit another call: one that tells their comrades to «back off» from bugs they've claimed for themselves.

Scientists and patient advocacy groups pushed back, claiming that work with embryonic stem cells was vital for medical progress.

He does not believe in the slightest that climate change is real and tells us that he can find many a eminent scientist who would back up his claim.

He presents the testimonies of patients, scientists, surgeons and nutritionists who testify to the therapy's efficacy in curing cancer and other degenerative diseases, and presents the hard scientific proof to back up their claims.

I am a scientist and don't go in for many miracle cures or improved health claims unless there is a study to back it up.

These claims are backed up by physicians and scientists who explain how GMOs, Roundup and other pesticides can disrupt our biological systems and compromise our health.

Makeup artist James Kaliardos believes that a strong set of arches creates an automatic air of confidence, and a 2013 study seemingly backs up his claims: Scientists discovered that women with «greater facial contrast» — specifically in the eyebrow region — were perceived as «younger» than those whose arches were not cosmetically enhanced.

A team of scientists claim to have recovered the oldest known copy of a gospel, dating back to the 1st century AD, which they extracted from papyri used to Ebers papyrus: Ebers papyrus, Egyptian compilation of medical texts dated about 1550 bc, one of the oldest known medical works.

Back in the wild and wacky 19th century, some scientists held a notion called recapitulation theory, which claimed embryonic development followed the branches of an organism's ancient evolutionary tree, from, say, fish to lizard to dog to human.

He does not believe in the slightest that climate change is real and tells us that he can find many a eminent scientist who would back up his claim.

For example, you repeat the oft - quoted claim that there are «2,500 climate scientists» involved with the IPCC... bwahahahaha, that's hilarious... check out how many of the 2,500 are actually climate scientists, and then report back to us with your findings.

Unlike these climate scientists, who have solid evidence that humans are not causing the majority of warming and / or the warming is not dangerous, Galileo and his fellow helieocentrists did not have a shred of evidence to back up the claim.

Just as a hypothetical example: If climate scientist will tell me that recent pause in global warming is due to the effect of an inactive sun (which is the reality as reported by following) http://www.spaceweather.com and that they will go back and improve their models to account for this, then I would be more inclined to believe their other claims... Instead the IPCC doubles down on their predictions and claim the future effects will be worst than they originally thought?

Therefore, with a total reliance on popular media, using a small group of scientists backing up this claim, no media or scientific agreement, and pointing to cold winter weather in the 1970s as evidence, I hate to admit it, but even fellow Toastmasters member Howard Brandt would tell you this myth stinks even worse than disco.

Two scientists won the Nobel Prize back in the 80's for their research that claimed to prove that CFC's were a dire threat to ozone levels.

Have you read what some of the people around here have said about scientists like Jim Hansen, Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt, and others?!? I hardly think that my noting a particular recent instance regarding one of Lindzen's recent scientific claims and suggesting that one might want to actually have evidence to back up the claim constitutes «abuse» or «smear» or «holler [ing]».

The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was «only a few dozen experts», he states in a paper for Progress in Physical Geography.

If you make the claim that «Our data show the pause,» I would expect you as a scientist to be able and willing to back that up with your data, or at least something other than what amounts to «I can't shown that there wasn't a pause.»

If you want to claim that warmer air doesn't hold more water vapor before condensing, then you need to go back to the 1800s and duke it out with scientists from back then.

We can go back to Stephen Schneider for that, and then a few dolts will claim his statements were taken out of context and what he was really saying was that scientists just don't have the time and space to provide caveats, assumptions, if / and / but, etc, even though he clearly advocated resorting to this very thing.

Back in March of 2009, 100 + prominent scientists sent Obama a letter that countered the claims being made by the Climategate scientists.

Scientists at a British government - backed agency have formally responded to «completely unwarranted» claims from climate science deniers that they were engaged in a conspiracy to arbitrarily adjust data from tide gauges around the world and misrepresent sea level rise.

The effect was to let the public be deluded about such things, by those who hoped that the public would rise up and demand politicial action, while the climate scientists could comfortably sit back, let the wild claims appear to be part of their famously «settled» science, knowing that if the «predictions» failed, they could point to their refereed journal papers that made no such explicit claims, or at least none with claimed certainty, thus achieving sensational scare stories but with plausible deniability.

Just roll your eyes and dismiss it, or better yet, trace it back to the actual scientific paper that inspired the absurd and distorted claim and find out what the scientists really think.

They could fall back on their age - old defence and claim that it's all irrelevant, because the scientists» projections for how the Amazon might respond to climate change are based on models.