Sentences with phrase «scientists on each side of an issue»

Within the first 100 days of office, get the top five SCIENTISTS on both sides of the issue in front of you in the oval office and let them argue it out.

Whenever activist scientists on either side of a issue are involved, remember Feynman's «Cargo Cult Science»: «The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.

When there are hundreds of scientists on each side of an issue and you are not a scientist then the only rational side to take is agnostic.

Not exact matches

Third, acknowledging that some of the blame for the biased and one - sided media reporting on head injuries rests with some members of the scientific community who issue one - sided press releases and feed cherry - picked results about their findings to selected members of the media, the authors look to a day when the «harsh division and polarization» in the research community (an almost inevitable byproduct, unfortunately, of the intense competition for grant money in Concussion, Inc.), gives way to greater collaboration among researchers and a more «cordial discourse» between scientists via letters and responses to journal editors and back - and - forth debates at large academic conferences.

As New Scientist went to press, politicians on both sides of the Atlantic were finalising their game plans to tackle the rise of Sunni jihadist group Islamic State, but the issue of homegrown fighters won't be far from their minds.

When a batch of climate scientists on all sides of the hurricane - climate question issued a letter warning that the main issue related to hurricanes is coastal vulnerability, not climate change, I wrote about it, but hardly anyone else did.

As I said, I am not a scientist, but have honest questions about the weaknesses on both sides of this issue.

I agree on very many issues with you, but I can not avoid the impression that the animosity in both ways between you and some of the other climate scientists is due to unwillingness to understand, what the other side is really saying.

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.

If our hostess really hopes to have a forum where scientists on opposite sides of the CAGW debate can discuss the really important issues, then I would suggest that we need a much better level of participation from the proponents of CAGW.

How much better it would have been had you chosen to present a proper debate, with AAAS scientists (e.g., Lindzen of MIT or Freeman Dyson) on both sides of the issue.

This seems a good reason for erring on the side of caution, but doesn't seem a valid attack on climate scientists nor a reason to hype up short term equilibrium climate sensitivity which correctly avoids the issue by dealing with CO2 levels.

(I suppose my comment could also apply to Lindzen, Spencer, and Christy's comments outside the peer - reviewed venue where I do think they have said some unfortunate things, but that wasn't the primary issue... and, as you noted, scientists on both sides of the debate sometimes make questionable statements in the public realm.)

The global temperature empirical evidence is so clear cut, and verified, that two of the most prominent climate scientists on opposing sides of the global warming issue agree on the science fundamentals: there has been no statistically significant warming over the last 15 years.

Imagine the fallout if he was to become fully informed about Oreskes, Al Gore, Ross Gelbspan, and so many others on that side of the issue who deceived the public when they seemingly obscured the collective truth about skeptic climate scientists.

On one side of the issue are some meteorologists and climate scientists who in their studies have found correlations between the vanishing Arctic sea ice and snow cover (collectively known as the cryosphere) and weather patterns that can lead to extreme weather events.

There are studies from scientists and researchers on both sides of this issue arguing whether it's better for children to grow up with married parents or single parents.