Sentences with phrase «scientists over peer»

Not exact matches

The mining groups charged that DEMS scientists had withheld data and not turned over drafts of papers before submitting them for peer review, violating court orders.

At an all - day meeting in Ottawa with roughly 50 practicing scientists, convened at the behest of federal Health Minister Jane Philpott to quell an uprising over CIHR grantsmaking reforms, Beaudet agreed to the introduction of a «hybrid» peer - review system.

After a year - long process of peer review, the DEMS scientists recently turned over to industry and others copies of two major papers they planned to publish in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

For the dabbler, for example, a historian of physics curious about his or her subject's peers in subjects such as physiology, or a scientist settling a bet over what is the middle name of Kary Mullis (Banks), these sketches will be a handy plug for small gaps in knowledge.

That's good, because over the next few years you will find yourself giving this talk over and over again, to peers and senior scientists at meetings, to seminar speakers who have come to visit your institution, to visiting dignitaries or new recruits you may be asked to shepherd from place to place.

This year, scientists peering closely at RNAi in two different organisms were startled to find that small RNAs responsible for RNAi wield tremendous control over the shape of chromatin.

KNAW and other organizations praised its proposals to prioritize the country's scientific goals in a «National Research Agenda» to be produced next year, to reduce the pressure on scientists by putting quality over quantity in peer review and to boost large - scale research infrastructure.

Halloween may be over for another year, but citizen scientists can still help their professional peers better understand these nocturnal creatures by listening to recordings and identifying different bat calls.

Students at this level work on experiments that are students driven that include planning, supply orders and budgets, time management, peer cooperation, and even collaborating with scientists from all over the world for real - world expert review.

Dr. Jewell is a Senior Fellow Nutrition Scientist, at Hill's Pet Nutrition, Inc., Member of the American Society of Nutrition, Diplomate of the American College of Animal Nutrition, past member of the Nutrition Expert Committee used by AAFCO to establish complete and balanced nutrition for dogs and cats in the U.S.A., established research scientist with over 200 book chapters, patents, peer reviewed journal articles and abstracts, scientific citations exceScientist, at Hill's Pet Nutrition, Inc., Member of the American Society of Nutrition, Diplomate of the American College of Animal Nutrition, past member of the Nutrition Expert Committee used by AAFCO to establish complete and balanced nutrition for dogs and cats in the U.S.A., established research scientist with over 200 book chapters, patents, peer reviewed journal articles and abstracts, scientific citations excescientist with over 200 book chapters, patents, peer reviewed journal articles and abstracts, scientific citations exceed 2,800.

I was just wondering what the opinion would be of turning all important decisions which involved some technical judgment over to a panel of the SCIENTISTS with a PEER REVIEW?

All that public data and peer - reviewed science... tens of thousands of experiments and papers... from scientists all over the globe in all kinds of nations... all subverted to pull down capitalism.

Ferdinand, I started having a look at the relevant papers, and noticed a couple of things: Soden was a co-author of the 2002 Wielicki paper you cite, in 2002 Soden was lead author of yet another paper in Science, this one focused on the effects of the Pinatubo eruption, Wielicki and Wong (also an author of the 2002 Wielicki paper) were in turn co-authors of a 2003 IEEE paper debunking the iris effect, and... how in the world can so many scientists, many of them frequent collaborators, screw up something this fundamental over such a long period of time and have most of it get through peer review in the same prestigious publication?

It is nothing less than an astonishing height of arrogance that a layman who has apparently never published any climate - related research in peer - reviewed journals believes he knows something more than literally thousands of climate scientists engaged in climate modeling and research all over the world.

Focusing on peer - reviewed papers covering climate science, the researchers tackled a massive sampling of research, wading through 11,994 papers by nearly 30,000 scientists over the last 20 years.

Certainly, there should be peer pressure when there is cause to doubt a scientist's objectivity, but to have an overtly adversarial process seems to me to invite and to favor rhetoric over results.

It has been well documented that over 97 % of climate scientists, over 99 % of peer reviewed papers, and 100 % of the world's scientific organizations affirm that climate change is happening, currently caused by humans, and it is a dangerous threat.

Then why do so - called climate scientists publish peer - reviewed papers in which they argue that the AMO, PDO, ENSO, have short term effects that must average to zero over the long run?

In response to claims made by Bob Carter that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had not uncovered evidence that global warming was caused by human activity, a former CSIRO climate scientist stated that Bob Carter was not a credible source on climate change and that «if he [Carter] has any evidence that [global warming over the past 100 years] is a natural variability he should publish through the peer review process.»

According to NASA, «Multiple studies published in peer - reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate - warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.»

There are peer - reviewed studies by over 750 scientists from over 450 research institutions in over 40 countries that have found a Medieval Warm Period of between 0.1 Â ° and 3.2 Â ° Celsius warmer than today in every corner of the globe - from Alaska to South Africa, Morocco to New Zealand, Bolivia to China, Egypt to New Guinea... Everywhere they look for it, they find it.

On what specific basis do you disregard the conclusions of the United States Academy of Sciences, and numerous other Academies of Sciences around the World including the Royal Academy of the UK, over a hundred of the most prestigious scientific organizations whose membership includes those with expertise relevant to the science of climate change, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, the American Institute of Physics, the American Meteorological Society, the Royal Meteorological Society, and according to the American Academy of Sciences, 97 percent of scientists who actually do peer - reviewed research on climate change whose conclusions hold that the Earth is warming, that the warming is mostly human caused, that harsh impacts from warming are already being experienced in parts of the world, and that the international community is running out of time to prevent catastrophic warming.

Am I to take your word over the work of the scientists I have quoted, who have had their peer - reviewed work published in distinguished journals?

On what specific basis do you disregard the conclusions of the United States Academy of Sciences, and numerous other Academies of Sciences Around the World including the Royal Academy of the UK, over a hundred of the most prestigious scientific organizations whose membership includes those with expertise relevant to the science of climate change, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, the American Institute of Physics, the American Meteorological Society, the Royal Meteorological Society, and according to the American Academy of Sciences 97 percent of scientists who actually do peer - reviewed research on climate change which conclusions hold that the Earth is warming, that the warming is mostly human caused, and that harsh impacts from warming are already being experienced in parts of the world, and that the international community is running out of time to prevent catastrophic warming.

On what specific basis do you disregard the mainstream scientific view that holds that the Earth is warming, that the warming is mostly human caused, and that harsh impacts from warming are very likely under business - as - usual, conclusions supported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United States Academy of Sciences and over a hundred of the most prestigious scientific organizations in the world whose membership includes scientists with expertise relevant to the science of climate change including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, the American Institute of Physics, the American Meteorological Society, the Royal Meteorological Society, and the Royal Society of the UK and according to the American Academy of Sciences 97 percent of scientists who actually do peer - reviewed research on climate change?

The IPCC is comprised of about 2,500 scientists from all over the world and provides the most authoritative and rigorous assessments, based only on peer - reviewed literature of the science of climate change.

On what basis do you disregard the conclusions that humans are causing dangerous climate change held by the United States Academy of Sciences, over a hundred scientific organizations whose membership includes experts with expertise relevant to the science of climate change, and 97 percent of scientists who actually do peer - reviewed research on climate change?

As for the number of scientists actually doing climate science, properly defined, even if «only» 620 appear as actual authors of the sections in IPCC - 2007 science report, this work is supported by well over 2,000 climate scientists whose work in the peer - reviewed literature is referenced in that document.

Scientists earn credibility by publishing peer - reviewed articles that over time are accepted and verified as correct.

«Multiple studies published in peer - reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 % or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate - warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.

The fact is that the actual peer - reviewed scientific research shows that (a) the rate of warming over the past century is unprecedented as far back as the 20,000 years paleoclimate scientists are able to extend the record and (b) that warming can ONLY be explained by human influences.

They value the opinion of anonymous internet users over climate scientists actively publishing climate research in the peer - reviewed literature.

However, I would recommend that people who want to get educated about climate change get their information from web sites not associated with a politician; perhaps the least politicized source of information is the latest scientific summary (PDF File) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a group of over 2000 scientists from 100 countries working under a mandate from the United Nations in the largest peer - reviewed scientific collaboration in history.

That paper, which was not peer - reviewed, argued that because polar bear numbers have remained relatively stable despite faster - than - expected sea ice loss over the past decade, scientists» predictions of future population declines are flawed.

The only way to get an accurate picture is through the work of many scientists, peer reviewed and scrutinized over decades and tested against multiple lines of evidence.

Because of the intense media interest surrounding the first paper and the continued fascination with the topic of hurricanes and global warming, in advance of the embargo journalists sent the paper to over a hundred scientists, statisticians and mathematicians, conducting a far more rigorous peer review than the journal did.

This agreement is documented not just by a single study, but by a converging stream of evidence over the past two decades from surveys of scientists, content analyses of peer - reviewed studies, and public statements issued by virtually every membership organization of experts in this field.

«Multiple studies published in peer - reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate - warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.»

Cook et al. (2013) found the same 97 % result through a survey of over 12,000 climate abstracts from peer - reviewed journals, as well as from over 2,000 scientist author self - ratings, among abstracts and papers taking a position on the causes of global warming.

NOAA's U.S. temperature record has been painstakingly constructed by many scientists over many years and many peer - reviewed publications support its methodologies.

• Lab Technician - Branson's Laboratories - Los Angeles, CA - 2015 to presento Conduct tests and experiments using the most advanced technology availableo Work directly with test subjects, educating them on standard procedures, what to expect, and potential risks, receiving informed consent with documentationo Contribute data for over 25 studies with published findings in peer - reviewed journalso Maintain a proper laboratory work environment and train newer staff and those in other areas of expertise in appropriate protocol • Graduate Research Assistant - University of Denver - Denver, CO - 2007 - 2017o Performed experiments and investigations under the direct supervision of the lead scientists and professorso Aided lead scientists and / or head researchers in collecting and interpreting information for their projectso Recorded data and results, and collected relevant information for the official reportso Directed a group of 11 biomed students through a research project for light therapy on rats

Scientist - practitioner and applied clinical researcher: over 60 published articles in peer - reviewed professional journals