Sentences with phrase «scientists on both sides of the argument»

But as the research in Yaniv's lab progressed, it became clear that scientists on both sides of the argument had been right: Lymphatic cells do indeed grow from veins, but they originate from a niche within the vein that harbors angioblasts.

Scientists on both sides of the argument ought to put more emphasis on adequate preparations for possible changes whatever they might be rather then on the mostly futile attempt to convince one another and the public.

Not exact matches

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)?

On occasion I get a boot on the derriere that forces me to try to better understand the arguments on both sides of the issue and learn more about what scientists are trying to tell uOn occasion I get a boot on the derriere that forces me to try to better understand the arguments on both sides of the issue and learn more about what scientists are trying to tell uon the derriere that forces me to try to better understand the arguments on both sides of the issue and learn more about what scientists are trying to tell uon both sides of the issue and learn more about what scientists are trying to tell us.

But arguments over the precise value of climate sensitivity duck the wider point, which is that even if we're lucky and climate sensitivity is on the low side of scientists» estimates, we're still heading for a substantial level of warming by the end of the century if greenhouse gas emissions aren't addressed, as the IPCC has highlighted.

Thousands of cientists that go on about their job and do research and publish do not have the fame and stardom status of scientists that support the «anything but man» side of the argument.

Not that there are not some honest scientists participating which is why I read this blog, seems as if this is one of the few places on the net where one can hear both sides of the argument.

There is, however, an extremely important and fundamental difference between what those on «our side» are doing and what Lindzen is doing: We are using these connections just to help explain why a small but vocal minority of scientists continues to spread disinformation and discredited arguments.

So, let's see, when we (those defending the AGW theory) note that, of the small minority of scientists on the skeptic side making discredited arguments, many if not most seem to have quite direct connections to right - wing or libertarian organizations like the Cato Institute or the George C. Marshall Fund or with the fossil fuel (especially coal) industry, we are derided as engaging in «ad hominem» attacks and so forth.