Sentences with phrase «scientists in question»

Here's his take, after the jump.Stewart takes on popular TH targets like Senator James Inhofe, the thinness of the Climate Gate case, and gives some «friendly words of advice» to the climate scientists in question.

That leads us to believe that the scientist in question is guilty of violating his employment contract.

Having a family should not come as an extra burden for the scientist, nor should it unequivocally mean that the scientist in question will have to reduce his / her amount of time spent in the lab.

The sites often include information about major grants and significant awards won by the scientist in question and any press releases from the institutions involved.

Or is Paul defending against the charge by making a numbers argument — the scientists in question are on the same side as the consensus, so to challenge any aspect of global warming science or politics is to make a statement about «the majority of scientists» (many of whom are in fact social scientists)?

Muir Russell nonetheless proclaimed in his press conference that, while CRU was «unhelpful» at times, the «rigour and honesty» of the scientists in question was «not in doubt».

Lord Oxburgh, who led the second investigation, said that many of the criticisms and claims of scientific misconduct were likely made by people «who do not like the implications of some of the conclusions» reached by the scientists in question.

And I think the scientists in question were * well aware * of the uncertainties, and didn't care, because getting immediate political action on climate change was everything to them.

Instead, the scientists in question have seen their professional reputations trashed in the world's media for no cause.

Muzz @ 6, first, you are being very pedantic in that context clearly indicates the scientists in question to be those knowledgable on global warming.

Because the scientist in question didn't want to confuse people with a graph that showed a decline in temperature he added the real temperatures to the graph from 1980 onwards as they were recorded by scientific instruments.

And they do not justify the actions of the scientists in question.

This of course tells only half the story, and the scientists in question are toeing the line and not painting targets on their backs.

On what basis can you conclude that the scientists in question are more concerned about the former than the latter?