Sentences with phrase «study by real scientists»

Not exact matches

BRC, there is no evidence?!?! what an uneducated statement, there are hundreds / thousands of books and studies, research by thousands of scientists, some christians some not... evolution is REAL... it's a proven theory and i would put that against your ONE book that was written when everyone thought the earth was flat.

NOC scientist, Dr Andrew Yool, who collaborated in this study, discussed how the approach used during these model simulations could help optimise future search and recovery operations at sea by rapidly modelling oil spills in real - time.

Some people think there is no way that the online world can have an effect on real life; others argue that social media is so influential that the Arab Spring was catalyzed by networking sites, says James Fowler, a political scientist at the University of California, San Diego, who led the study in collaboration with Facebook's data - science team.

But then scientists paid by Merck published study after study saying that the effects weren't real.

Varga's research focuses on the interaction of lasers and matter at the atomic scale and is part of the new field of attosecond science — an attosecond is a billion billionths of a second — that is allowing scientists to study extremely short - lived phenomena such as the making and breaking of chemical bonds and tracking the real - time motion of electrons within semiconductors by probing them with attosecond pulses of laser light.

The study by the scientists is one of the first to come up with real estimates of the health benefits and cost savings of this kind of a soda tax.

Many pharmaceutical scientists study the absorption of drugs by cultivating intestinal cells into a thin membrane layer that has all the features of a real intestinal wall, including various nutrient transport channels and a brush border.

Regarding the Hockey Stick of IPCC 2001 evidence now indicates, in my view, that an IPCC Lead Author working with a small cohort of scientists, misrepresented the temperature record of the past 1000 years by (a) promoting his own result as the best estimate, (b) neglecting studies that contradicted his, and (c) amputating another's result so as to eliminate conflicting data and limit any serious attempt to expose the real uncertainties of these data.

We then talked about various scientific studies showing how scientists have nearly a 97 % agreement that climate change is real and caused by humans.

I've been studying the «APS Petition» by Singer et al, with ~ 120 names, of which one (Hameed) seems a real climate scientist, a few have published a few papers that tend to get refuted fairly quickly (Douglass, Knox, Scafetta, West, Singer).

At least four independent peer - reviewed studies, using different methods, have found that around 95 - 97 percent of climate scientists or their peer - reviewed work agree that global warming is real, caused by humans, and potentially a serious threat.

While many in the media portrayed the phenomenon as a desperate weapon used by sceptics to undermine climate science, real scientists took notice and began to study the warming pause.

So, in case there is now or there will be some newbie to these arguments who may have been confused by the disinformation you (and Memphis) have been producing here, here is an example from a genuine study to remind of what the AGWSF fisics passes off as real physics, as used generally in all the variety of science studies because this has been introduced into the education system and, apart from the applied scientists in the field who can spot this is fake, the majority simply take it as if real physics basics:

Said study invariably being a paper written by Real Scientists, on data collected by themselves, and published in a Real Scientific Journal, specializing in the relevant field.

November 19, 2014: «If 97 % of Scientists Say Global Warming is Real, 100 % Say It Has Nearly Stopped,» by Paul C. «Chip» Knappenberger and Patrick J. Michaels, Center for the Study of Science, Cato Institute, published as a guest essay on Watts Up With That?

Last summer, climate communication researchers at George Mason University and Yale University published a commentary urging the science community to reiterate the scientific consensus on climate change — that 97 percent of scientists support the conclusion that climate change is real, and humans are causing it — citing studies showing that exposing individuals to this message can increase their estimates of the scientific consensus by 10 to 20 percent.

Of course, there is much more to climate science than a few sentences, but today we also know that multiple peer - reviewed studies show that 97 percent or more of climate scientists agree that climate change is real and caused by human activities.

He also likes to make complicated subjects appear to be simple minded conspiracies of the paranoid (like the well documented political motivations of politicians monetarily supporting the CAGW movement, and the corruption of the IPCC, also well documented, or the general corruption of peer pressure, confirmation bias, and noble cause corruption, all studied as very real by social scientists).

No matter how well informed you are, no matter how many peer - reviewed studies you cite, or how many times you point out the overwhelming agreement based on the evidence that exists among climate scientists that global warming is real and is principally caused by human fossil fuel use, you will get no where.

After years of study there is consensus by over 95 % of the world's scientists that global warming is real and that it is caused by using fossil fuels.

This is why real scientists look at peer reviewed studies, not work by graduate students that is unreviewed and also outside of the student's field of expertise.

Several years ago, Dr. RA Pielke and CW Landsea (that can't really be the name of a scientist studying coastal strikes by hurricanes) attempted to correct hurricane damage numbers for the density and value of coastal real estate:

Sex Addiction counselors have known for years that pornography addiction is a real addiction and now a study done by Cambridge University scientists reveal changes in the brain for compulsive porn users which don't show up in those with no such habit.