None of the studies cited prove without a reasonable doubt that PRP works or doesn't work.
«
None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gasses.»
37) One statement deleted from a UN report in 1996 stated that «
none of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases»
They are as follows — «
None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] change to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.»
Not exact matches
*
None *
of the
studies cited or referred to in this post is into effects
of controlled crying or sleep training.
This NPR report (hardly a bastion
of conservative right - wingism)
cites numerous
studies;
none of which establishes causation.
Even the authors no longer had a copy
of the paper, and
none of the researchers who
cited the
study was able or willing to produce the report after numerous requests.
None of the authors
cite the most definitive
study, in which RAND researchers followed individual students from traditional public schools into charter schools.
Harris
cites the work
of PhD - level climate scientists and atmospheric physicists who've
studied global warming for decades, and
none of these skeptics deny climate science in any general sense
of the word — that's another unsupportable talking point from believers
of catastrophic man - caused global warming.
One
of the
study's co-authors is
none other than Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, the hard left activist who advised the Pope on his eco Encyclical last year and who was responsible for inventing the random and bogus 2 ° C target so often
cited by policymakers to justify more green taxes and regulations.
None of the scientific papers that NIWA
cited in their impressive - sounding press releases contained the actual adjustments... The main objective
of our temperature
study was not to show that the raw data has been tampered with, even though that opinion was emphasised and can not yet be excluded.