Sentences with phrase «state of science»

Promoting Positive Development among Emerging Adults with Serious Mental Health Conditions: Results from Pathways» State of the Science Conference

This indifference was present as the ways in which the more theoretical changes would or could be introduced to the network appeared secondary to results that simply hinted at the current state of science on the subject.

Scientists who seek to communicate their understanding of the state of the science to the public or policy makers must consider their audience.

The overall effect of the comments was a cumulative one, which would have the overall effect of weakening and degrading the document in how it discussed the scientific issues and presented the current state of science.

Which may account for the state of the science.

By «actual state of science,» he meant the imploding claims and forecasts made by UN panels and government - funded alarmist «scientists» — many of whom were exposed in the ClimateGate scandal conspiring to «hide the decline» in temperatures, censor climate heretics, and violate Freedom of Information laws.

In other words, having exhausted all the natural causes the current state of the science knows about, they assume the cause must be man.

These summaries are written by bureaucrats and advocates, not so much by scientists, and tend to wildly mis - characterize the true state of the science.

For example, Miller was quoted in press reports as saying it was «disappointing» that «the BBC does not ensure all of its programs and presenters reflect the actual state of science in its output.»

Nature has an interesting editorial this week on the state of the science for attributing extreme events.

The report is «a summary for non-experts of the state of the science anno 1999».

The state of the science at present is such that it is only possible to give illustrative examples of possible outcomes (Wigley et al., 1996; Schimel et al., 1997; Mitchell et al., 2000).

This is the behavior of someone trolling for attention instead of someone interested in holding a legitimate discussion or discussing the state of the science.

During the workshop, ocean and climate scientists reviewed the state of the science of decadal climate variability and its relationship to rates of human - caused global warming, and they explored opportunities for improvement in modeling and observations and assessing knowledge gaps.

But far from «grossly exaggerating» the state of the science in 2007, as North claimed, the IPCC — because it referenced the WWF report, not the peer - reviewed literature — grossly understated it.

«The state of science at present is such that it is only possible to give illustrative examples of possible outcomes.»

A house of cards crumbling is good news for the state of the science.

This report looks at the state of the science of the role of oceans in ensuring human health and identifies gaps and opportunities for future research.

At that time (and particularly the early to mid 70's) climate science was ambiguous about predicting the future, although the 1975 NAS report summarised the state of the science pretty well: that we didn't know enough to make useful predictions and needed to study more.

Here, we have to look at sensitivities of different feedback effects and on this point I am not convinced on the actual state of science.

In relation to the state of the science you have a valid point.

Dealing with probabilities at this scale and current state of science makes a hard conclusion difficult to define at this time, IMHO.

If you're arguing that the Newsweek article is useful to assess the state of science at the time, then I disagree — the NAS report proves that — William]

Part one introduces the series themes and basically reviews the current state of the science, while part two outlines how climate change impacts could lead to global demographic, agricultural and political instability and even outright armed conflict, including a nuclear exchange in South Asia over rapidly depleting water supplies.

The problem is the poor state of the science that has been done to date.

Robert, shame on you for outright lying «remains the state of the science.».

Oh, to get back to reality... I really became intrigued by what Mann thinks is the state of he science?

Given the current state of the science, both the IPCC - consistent projections and the newer projections provide defensible estimates of the likelihoods of different late - century outcomes, but they differ considerably.

We concluded that the question of whether there was a greenhouse - cyclone link was pretty much a toss of a coin at the present state of the science, with just a slight leaning towards the likelihood of such a link.

Policymakers have thus been inadequately informed about the state of the science.

The state of the the science here has moved well beyond these semantic and / or conventional arguments, focusing instead on detailed intercomparisons of methods and data (employing rigorous diagnostics of reconstructive fidelity (collaborative between Bradley / Briffa / Hughes / Jones / Mann / Osborn / Rutherford).

I've read what the IPCC say about the Sun's influence on climate and what climate skeptics are saying about it and I find the IPCC are summarizing the state of the science accurately and the climate skeptics are the ones guilty of confirmation bias.

The IPCC (there have been four, not including the SREX) is an organization that summarizes the state of science.

The state of the science on the links between Arctic warming and weather extremes in the midlatitudes can be likened to a court case.

«But far from â $ œgrossly exaggeratingâ $ the state of the science in 2007, as North claimed, the IPCC â $ «because it referenced the WWF report, not the peer - reviewed literature — grossly understated it.

The words «I feel», «seem», and «could» appear repeatedly, and as sglover suggests, they are more indicative of the level of knowledge in 1989 than the current state of the science.

I just worry about the greater state of science when we allow them to keep the argument confined to the realm of statistics and don't hold any assertions either way to the standards that the many valid and accepted theories in science meet.

Given the present state of the science, I can't see how anyone can argue for 50 - 50, 80 - 20, 20 - 80, or almost any other range,.

catweazle seems to be using the state of the science in 1971 (one paper in fact) to rebut the state of the science in 2016 (AR5 and all that).

The reality is that the state of the science is such that courts are increasingly taking judicial notice of climate change and its impacts.

It's yet another depressing report about the sad state of science education.

«It would seem that Richard Muller has served as a useful foil for the Koch Brothers, allowing them to claim they have funded a real scientist looking into the basic science, while that scientist — Muller — props himself up by using the «Berkeley» imprimatur (U.C. Berkeley has not in any way sanctioned this effort) and appearing to accept the basic science, and goes out on the talk circuit, writing Op - Eds, etc. systematically downplaying the actual state of the science, dismissing key climate - change impacts and denying the degree of risk that climate change actually represents.

Responding to Oil Spills in the U.S. Arctic Marine Environment assesses the current state of science and engineering regarding oil spill response in the Arctic region north of the Bering Strait, with emphasis on potential impacts in U.S. waters.

It also isn't a commentary on the state of science, the importance of the recent trend rise in the anomaly, or what, if anything, needs to be done about it.

Certainly it can be improved, but as far as a summary of the state of the science it does pretty good.

Worse, what should have been an objective appraisal of the state of the science was turned into a political football in the various IPCC reports.

So what is the real state of the science being presented at the AGU meeting in San Francisco?

Active participation in research brings with it a more up - to - date knowledge of the state of science.

The issue of climate change and the state of the science is too important to leave to rookies.

That is the state of the science.