Sentences with phrase «what skeptical scientists»

Not only do journalists not have a responsibility to report what skeptical scientists have to say about global warming, they have a responsibility not to report what these scientists say.

Not exact matches

The public often accuses scientists of being overly skeptical, of the narrow - mindedness of believing only what we see and hear, or of haughtily dismissing skepticism's opposite, faith.

Now, it is apparent from reading even the first few pages of The Skeptical Environmentalist that Lomborg proposes to make the case that not just environmentalists, but a considerable part of the heretofore respectable environmental - science community, have been misunderstanding the relevant concepts, misrepresenting the relevant facts, understating the uncertainties, selecting data, and failing to acknowledge errors after these have been pointed out in other words, that the scientist contributors to what he calls «the environmental litany» (namely, that environmental problems are serious and becoming, in many instances more so) have been guilty of massively violating the scientists code of conduct.

What, specifically, is the reason that you are «skeptical» of the conclusions of the overwhelming majority of the world's climate scientists and every relevant scientific organization in the world, including the national science academies of every major country in the world, that anthropogenic global warming is a reality?

No budget, but they still had an agenda:) My attitude might sound cynical, but the population as a whole is just as skeptical when it comes to what scientists tell us.

That is where the problem is, because I am sure that any scientist who makes the effort to understand what is going on with AGW, will immediately turn skeptical.

1) What would the approximate % of scientists she's run up against who have expressed such opinions be, as compared to the % of scientists who have told her that they think she is wrong about the science, and that she is contributing to an atmosphere where they, in fact, are being intimidated by the «skeptical police?»

As soon as I heard the term skeptics instead of skeptical scientists I knew what would follow and changed channel, I was not about to waste my evening watching what I envisaged would be a total load of crud, was I right or was I right.

But there is a consistent theme to all of them: Davies is cited just for the accusation that illicit funding has gone to skeptic climate scientists and organizations skeptical of catastrophic human - induced global warming; when will he finally provide actual evidence proving the funding was done under arrangements where all parties agreed on what, when, where, and how the lies would be spread??

«In the scientific field of climate studies — which is informed by many different disciplines — the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change — and that's nearly all of them,» according to Skeptical Science, a website dedicated to explaining the science of global warming.

The scientists who are «skeptical» are usually don't actually know what they are talking about.

They were ones suggesting that even liberal climate change «believers» are a bit skeptical about what «climate scientists» are saying.

«We don't fully understand how to input things like changes in the oceans, and because we don't fully understand it you could say that natural variability is now working to suppress the warming,» Jones admitted to the paper, apparently acknowledging what skeptical climate scientists have been attempting to convey for years.

To further analyse this sentence one would have to know what is meant by «skeptic scientist accusation» (since science is by nature skeptical, this sounds like an oxymoron and redundant but one can not be sure.)

What, specifically, is the reason that you are «skeptical» of the conclusions of the overwhelming majority of the world's climate scientists and every relevant scientific organization in the world, including the national science academies of every major country in the world, that anthropogenic global warming is a reality?

«When [the climate change] controversy first erupted... scientists were found who are skeptical about much of what seemed generally accepted about the potential for climate change.»

While I have read of accounts by skeptical scientists of how they are selectively funneled out of the funding process, the level of coordination it would take to virtually eliminate any funding for good research scientists who might reach findings that diverge with what we are calling «consensus» here seems far too complicated logistically to be doable — particularly when you consider those very same scientists are frequently characterized by the the folks who make such claims about inequities in research funding as being so incompetent they are unable to see «obvious» flaws in their scientific reasoning.

In the process, scientists were found who are skeptical about much of what seemed generally accepted about the potential for climate change.

You are skeptical of what you hear here, but accepting of everything the scientists say.

Can you name 5 prominent scientists who are skeptical of the IPCC position and describe briefly what they've done to advance the state of climate - science in the past decade?

I come into contact with a wide variety of applied science practitioners of many disciplines including biologists, engineers of several flavors, chemists, etc. etc. and I only know one that is not basically what I believe is termed a «lukewarmer» and the one person (professional) that's not skeptical is a environmental scientist (and he debates like a wet noodle, all he'll say is most climatologists agree.....

Here's why you should be skeptical - Chris Mooney (Nov. 5) NASA Scientist Warned Deniers Would Distort His Antarctic Ice Study — That's Exactly What They Did - Media Matters (Nov. 4) More on Antarctic Ice Melt - ClimateCrocks (Nov. 3) Is Antarctica Gaining or Losing Ice?

Someone who has hijacked and thus devaluated the term, but actually has no clue as to what it means to really be skeptical of everything, not just the Team / climate scientists.

In recent years, however, several scientists (myself included) have grown skeptical of this idea because it just doesn't seem to fit with what the broader literature on social approval and relationships has reported.

Though we may be right to be skeptical of the ability of a scientist to capture the magic of romance, this is not what Dr. Gottman claims to do at all.