Sentences with phrase «seeing an example of scientists»

In the current wars over global warming we are seeing an example of scientists behaving badly.

While some see this an example of scientists as over-reaching themselves, to make the case for action over global warming, others see the start of a witch - hunt.

Not exact matches

See for example: The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief - Francis Collins (head of human genome project)

For a recent example of narrative method employed by a social Scientist see Robert N. Bellah et al., Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985).

«The sites that have been excavated are those that the international community has prioritized, but you could see Greenlandic scientists targeting other ones, for example sites that are at risk of loss from climate change.»

But some scientists — Chris McKay, for example — see it as highly unlikely that the Red Planet is active enough to produce methane and believe there is no explanation for its high rate of dissipation in the atmosphere.

The inability to see the extremely small is becoming more of a problem all the time, since the objects our scientists and engineers think about are steadily shrinking (metamaterials are themselves an example).

The UT scientists see possibilities in analysis and separation of proteins, for example.

The Pew report, which draws on survey responses from 3748 AAAS members based in the United States, also showed that perceptions differ by discipline — for example, 48 % of earth scientists see news coverage as important to their careers, but only 35 % of chemists do.

Instead of trashing real climate scientists who study nuclear winter as stooges of KGB manipulation, maybe the FBI should see if the Wegman fiasco might be an actual example of their observation that «foreign researchers may be under pressure to make their research conclude what their government wants it to conclude, or they may be ordered to write completely fabricated studies.»

These claims were subsequently disputed in an article in Eos (Rahmstorf et al, 2004) by an international team of scientists and geologists (including some of us here at RealClimate), who suggested that Shaviv and Veizer's analyses were based on unreliable and poorly replicated estimates, selective adjustments of the data (shifting the data, in one case by 40 million years) and drew untenable conclusions, particularly with regard to the influence of anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations on recent warming (see for example the exchange between the two sets of authors).

Biofuel funding is an example of something that got out of control long after the real scientists saw its futility.

For example, he shows an ice core and indicates it is from Antarctica and shows evidence of a change due to the Clean Air Act amendments in the US; the core was actually, as I understand it, from Greenland — and on his visit to see the core, the scientist had shown him cores from both the Antarctic and Greenland Ice Sheets.

The issue I have with this is that there seems to be more evidence that a luck of trust (if it exists) is because certain media outlets keep telling the public that climate scientists can't be trusted, rather than the public deciding this independently because they've become aware of advocacy by climate scientists (see Dana's Guardian article today, for example).

I do admit, though, there are a lot of your fellow luke - and non-warmers who apparently believe the world's scientists are engaged in some massive conspiracy to perpetrate a hoax (see previous comment for example).]

In the question and answer period, Dr. Flato noted that the different pathways of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations diverge near the middle of the century and Dr. Zwiers offered the climate - exacerbated spread of the mountain pine beetle as an example of an impact that we have already seen here in BC (PCIC scientists have recently authored two papers on the impacts of climate change on BC's forests, see here for more).

Rather than attack Tom you should see him as an example of climate scientists of all persuasions who are trying to analyse the behaviour of complex chaotic systems by the application of simplistic relationships studied in a laboratory.

In a curiosity venture to see if the Union of Concerned Scientists regurgitation of the «reposition global warming» accusation narrative was getting any media traction, I instead stumbled across an unexpected example of outright either deliberate misinformation, or one of otherwise incompetent reporting from someone who is supposed to be an authority on the topic of «industry - corrupted skeptic climate scientisScientists regurgitation of the «reposition global warming» accusation narrative was getting any media traction, I instead stumbled across an unexpected example of outright either deliberate misinformation, or one of otherwise incompetent reporting from someone who is supposed to be an authority on the topic of «industry - corrupted skeptic climate scientistsscientists».

«I see repeated examples of scientists taking action to obscure these bits BECAUSE they fear what skeptics will do with these bits.»

In the mails however I see repeated examples of scientists taking action to obscure these bits BECAUSE they fear what skeptics will do with these bits.

Via Daily Caller: Climate Scientist Zeke Hausfather: «A good example that even brilliant scientists sometimes say silly things when it's outside their field of expertise (see Nobel disease).»

You often see climate denialists trotting out this example as «proof» that scientists are lying to keep people in a state of fear.

The mechanisms such interests use are many — influencing election outcomes by injecting huge sums of money into them (see the NYT editorial on the KOch Brothers and AB32, for example), installing fossil fuel employees in government bureaucracies (BP's ex-chief scientist is currently Head of Science at the DOE, one Steve Koonin, also of Caltech — welcome to the fossil fuel - academic complex), and distorting science to fit their agenda (witness the endless fraudulent claims about zero - emission combustion, despite the persistent absence of any stand - alone prototypes.)

In ethical terms we see another example of a climate scientist who holds a strong ethical commitment to the policy dimension of climate change and its associated end of shaping public opinion and behaviour, appearing to prioritise the pursuit of those ends above the narrower moral codes of scientific discovery.

The more mobile ones are also involved in various international societies and coalitions (and yet they fail to see the irony of this in light of their zeal to prevent international goverment forming); for example they are members or contributors to the Marshal Institute, or the Climate Coalition (or is it the Coalition of Climate Scientists, or something similar), or IceCaps — see the website, or SEPP, and on it goes.

Just type the terms you want to compare into the boxes at the top of the page (after you delete the «Data Scientist» and «Devops» examples already there, as you see below).

Scientists believe that disgust evolved as a defensive mechanism to keep us from being contaminated by external sources.1 Accordingly, the mouth and the vagina, two body parts that lie at the border of the body (and are therefore at a higher risk for contamination), demonstrate greater disgust sensitivity; for example, we are likely to be especially grossed out by having a spider crawling on / around the mouth or vagina compared to, say, the left arm.2 Add to this the finding that some of the strongest triggers for disgust are body odor, saliva, semen, and sweat, all heavily involved when getting «down and dirty,» and you can see how the relation between sex and disgust seems contradictory or even obstructive.