Not exact matches
So, my point is that the leveling off
of the
data supporting religious «
nones» during 2012 is very likely a result
of the election and certain candidates wishing to demonstrate theiir religious perspectives.
I am quite leary about the institute's agenda as one
of the researchers is
none other than Mark Regnerus, who admits to using bad
data to
support his theory that gay parents and marriage is bad for kids.
None of these differences, however, were statistically significant, and the proportions
of children with 4-fold or higher rises in antibody levels was similarly high in all age groups and at all post-immunization time points (
data not shown),
supporting the conclusion that there was no dose effect.
Results from a combination
of levels can provide important
data that may either
support any conclusions drawn about the outcome
of the training and / or help to diagnose potential causes where there has previously been little or
none.
None of them acknowledged that the CDC does not
support using their statistics for developing dog legislation and even admits to the inaccuracy
of the
data.
Specifically, the theory
of CAGW is not
supported by any
of the climate
data and
none of the predictions
of IPCC since their first report in 1991 have been
supported by measured
data.
However, I notice that
none of the denizens
of Climate Etc. who are proponents
of CAGW have challenged my claim that «we know that there is absolutely no empirical
data whatsoever to
support this hypothesis (CAGW)?»
Unfortunately,
none of the parameters on the Climate
Data Grapher can be used to necessarily
support or refute the second claim about ice cover and dormancy.
One possibility is the use in the present study
of the Actor - Partner Interdependence Model (APIM) to analyse the
data;
none of the previous lab studies
of spousal
support employed this model.
What they don't realize is that
none of these predictions can come true without the
support of Realtors providing the
data.