Sentences with phrase «scientists hear from the public»

Not exact matches

Moderated by Ali Dorazio (MS, RD), nutrition scientist at the General Mills Bell Institute of Health & Nutrition, we heard presentations from Karen Hallford (MS, RD, CSP) and Byron Sackett; Karen is Nutrition Education Coordinator at Gwinnett Public Schools, Suwanee, GA and Byron Sackett is the Child Nutrition Director at Lincoln County Schools in Lincolnton, NC.

«Hearing from scientists directly heightens public awareness of what scientists do, what they know, and how they know it,» said Hamilton.

I thought that was just such a pleasant thing to hear from a scientist because we're often, you know, in the science community accused of not reaching out or listening, and I have to tell you that he got a standing ovation from all the scientists there who felt, kind of, renewed vigor about their charge of reaching out to public.

Environment Canada's media protocol, introduced in 2008, requires scientists to get official approval before talking to the press — a demand that often delays an interview well beyond journalists» deadlines and results in the public never hearing from the scientist at all.

Scientists began organizing only 3 days after President Donald Trump took office, as alarm — sparked by a campaign that in many ways appeared to dismiss the contributions of scientific research — ignited over Senate hearings on controversial cabinet picks and mandates curtailing public communication from scientific agencies.

The FDA's announcement several months ago that it would hold a public hearing on the subject elicited an outcry from scientists, ethicists and religious groups, who say the technology raises grave safety concerns and could open the door to creating «designer» babies, whose eye color, intelligence and other characteristics are selected by parents.

And they hear from an array of guests, often via Skype, who recount what they've learned as public scientists.

Rep. Ed Markey (D - MA) called the hearing in an effort to further restore public confidence in climate science, and to set the record straight that «Climategate» was not the scandal climate deniers and the right - wing media tried to portray in the wake of the theft of private emails from scientists at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia.

KE Research GmbH, a German public policy consultancy firm, prepared the report based on interviews and editing assistance from noted German theoretical physicists Ralf D. Tscheuschner & Gerhard Gerlich, authors of the peer - reviewed paper Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects within the Frame of Physics, and numerous other German climatologists, physicists, and scientists — I'd be interested to hear comments http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/06/rescue-from-climate-saviors.html

So now the question is no longer about what would have prompted questions about skeptic scientists» funding to come up at «an obscure utility hearing in Minnesota», it's about why an assistant A.G. would insert material into a public hearing against some of its expert science witnesses concerning an industry corruption insinuation based on a suggestion coming from a private citizen who had nothing to do with the topic at all just eight or so weeks earlier.

Alas, on further reading, Pope's article is revealed not as a plea for honesty but yet another consensus scientist's attempt to keep the public from hearing any views on climate but her own.

There are other reasons, too, why the public hears so little in detail from those scientists who approach climate change issues rationally, the so - called climate sceptics.

Picking up on Pete's point in # 123 that he is troubled by not knowing exactly what climate scientists are trying to tell us about where we currently stand in regard to tipping points and todays ABC article on the acceleration of climate change which includes the comment: «But many experts confide privately what they aren't yet ready to announce publicly: Change is accelerating at a dramatic rate» (URL below) I would find it very helpful if someone from Real Climate could tell us the summary message you want to get across to the public regarding tipping points — is it the «alternative version» I set out in # 75 above or is it a modified version of this, if so it would be great if you could post the modified version up here — I would love to hear it.