Sentences with phrase «what objective scientists»

The IPCC climate models are programmed to predict the opposite of what objective scientists believe due to the above actual evidence, and what crazy billionaires know (and will invest) due to common sense.

Again proving that alarmist science is based on scientific untruths, speculation and hype, two new studies confirm what objective scientists have actually observed: recent past global warming is not causing an increase on severe storms.

Not exact matches

Modern empiricism, on the other hand, which locates the possibilities of science in the brain (as if the brain and its patterns of order were not also in part a construction of the scientist's mind), precisely reverses this: the outside world known by the senses is alone the seat of what is — if anything is — universal, objective, real and certain.

You could say, «Well to be an objective scientist, you just talk about what you found,» but that's sort of a sin of omission if you don't tell people why you chose that topic.

Newtom himself claimed to not make hypotheses, but he in fact had notions that seemed very hypothetical:) We should find greater reward in seeing what the scientist does as opposed to what he says about it, an objectied stance on a subjective person in a «paradigm,» or school of thought that attempts to be objective.

Personally, I think that no matter the criteria used (i.e., even if we could find some pure and objective criteria), the degree of «expertise» is not what measures the quality or advisability or value of a scientist's input into public discussion of science - related matters.

All this stuff about «objective priors» is just rhetoric - the term simply does not mean what a lay - person might expect (including a climate scientist not well - versed in statistical methodology).

I couldn't care less if a scientist was a devoted Marxist if the issue didn't get involved in his or hers «scientific position», but this is clearly what seems to happen with many of these individuals, their objective seems to be mostly to upset the apple cart using the climate as a weapon.

Nevertheless, I suspect that what we see is the product of activists rather than objective discussion of the dispassionate scientists.

I may also mention that often the media does exaggerate what scientists may put forward on a balanced and objective basis.

Nonetheless, I don't think that our age or employment status precludes us from being objective about what current scientists have to say about any specific subject.

From our collective experience as physical and social scientists working at the intersection of climate change and society, we argue it is time for a shift in the objectives and implementation of climate change assessments — from making what amounts to a general case for «action,» to characterizing specific risks to help people develop, select, carry out, and monitor specific actions that ultimately have greater benefits than costs.

Actual climate scientists, on the other hand, simply describe what they project will occur in an objective manner, just as unbiased scientists should.

Scientists don't use the term «catastrophic,» and there's a good reason for that: try to define exactly what you mean by «catastrophic» in an objective way.

I also urge that scientists, when they offer probabilities, work hard to distinguish which are objective and which are subjective, as well as what is the scientific basis for any probability offered.