Sentences with phrase «well the consensus view»

Well the consensus view on climate science does not depend on ideology.

Not exact matches

«We don't think it's a consensus call that the Duvernay will work out exceptionally, but we're of the view that it's better than what the market has priced in.»

But nowcasts might offer a check on the work of Bay Street and Wall Street economists; Bartlett said research suggests nowcasting produces better predictions than calculating the consensus view of private - sector analysts.

According to two officials, Trump's decision to launch a potential trade war was born out of anger at other simmering issues and the result of a broken internal process that has failed to deliver him consensus views that represent the best advice of his team.

While we believe payrolls and average hourly earnings are both likely to miss consensus estimates, we think the employment report may be somewhat less important than usual for the monetary policy outlook, because 1) recent data have been firm so we have some room for a miss, 2) the August seasonal issue is now well known so even a somewhat larger miss may not significantly alter the staff view, and 3) there are several months between now and December to make up for any weakness in tomorrow's report.

His best efforts to find consensus among the participating countries and to finesse conflicting views in ambiguous language could not bridge profound differences.

The view that a good politics requires a detailed, preexisting consensus on values is as unwarranted as the notion that economics alone drives politics.

The ACSM consensus statement appears to reject earlier guidelines (Colorado and AAN) that focused heavily on loss of consciousness and retrograde amnesia (RGA) and to endorse the retrospective approach of the Cantu revised and Prague guidelines in viewing an approach to the return - to - play decision that considered «RGA, PTA, as well as the number and duration of additional signs and symptoms» as «more accurate in predicting severity and outcome ¡ -[and hence] more useful,» and by endorsing an individualized RTP decision, not one «based on a rigid timeline» [like the Colorado, AAN and Cantu Revised Guidelines)

That is the heart of the issue,» he said, adding that: «Of course if there is no consensus, well then it is something at the general election, the parties will have to stake out their positions, but I think there is a strong view in England among the people of England as well the Conservative party and I think many Liberal Democrats as well.»

«The Thathcherite consensus that the only route to well - being is to abandon justice and equity and just let the market go unfettered, in my view we did not even really try to challenge it.

There is a finely graded inverse association between age and cognitive performance, 3 4 5 but the age at which cognitive decline becomes evident at the population level remains the subject of debate.5 6 7 A recent review of the literature concluded that there was little evidence of cognitive decline before the age of 60.8 This point of view, however, is not universally accepted.5 6 Clinicopathological studies show good correlation between neuropathology and the severity of cognitive decline, 9 10 11 and neurofibrillary tangles and amyloid plaques, the hallmarks of pathology, are known to be present in the brains of young adults.12 13 Emerging consensus on the long gestation period of dementia14 15 also suggests that adults aged under 60 are likely to experience age related cognitive decline.

The growing consensus is that reinforcement of positive behavior, proper review of disruptive or bullying behavior viewed in its context, and the proper training of the educator can have a much better result than zero tolerance policies have proven.

The consensus among business leaders, policymakers, teachers» unions, and civic groups of what constitutes a good school has converged with a view of schooling that many parents and taxpayers have held for decades.

Opinions about the worst developments in 2010 — as viewed by those who voted in the Ednext poll — were sharply defined, while little consensus formed around the good that happened last year.

If you have good reasons to be different from the consensus, pursue those views.

James Montier, in his usual style puts himself against the common view saying that the then biggest consensus portfolio bets to him seemed to be small cap and low quality however large cap, high quality looks like the better bet to him.

T Marvell, OK, so now you are saying that it is a logical fallacy to cite the combination of a good correlation between ln [CO2] and temperature rise + the well known physics of greenhouse warming as evidence in favor of the consensus view?

All I'm saying is that it's a reasonable way of looking at the facts, and trying too strenously to refute it is perhaps not the best way to convert reasonable newbies to the subject to consensus views on global warming.

In any case, that comment creates doubt where in fact there is not a lot of controversy in the consensus view based on the best science available.

As Tim Lambert notes with regards this claim: «if you are going to ignore the consensus view of scientists, you might as well ignore the consensus view of historians.»

So I take it that the consensus view is that according to our best current scientific understanding, there is no possibility whatsoever of any catastrophic consequences of anthropogenic global warming; therefore to use the word «catastrophic» is irresponsible alarmism;, and therefore the deniers are actually quite right to accuse anyone who suggests that such outcomes are possible of being an irresponsible alarmist.

Re: # 46 The factcheck.org item strikes me as a good - faith attempt at balance that fell prey to the usual journalistic pitfall; that is, it poses on one side the IPCC consensus view and on the other individual detractors like Patrick Michaels (citing 3 blog entries by him, no less — not peer - reviewed papers).

I am perhaps more familiar with students who would have less of a consensus view on just about any subject because of their contrarian nature, but one could receive these comments as simply too consistently negative to accept as having constructive value or as typical of someone the blog needs and be, well, either crushed or overwhelmed about what to do to obtain their approval and go into a defensive frenzy.

Some people, well - known for disputing the mainstream consensus on climate science, are asking the judge to admit their views in a friend of the court brief, asserting that «there is no agreement among climatologists as to the relative contributions of Man and Nature to the global warming» of the past several decades.

Those who want to assert a consensus and shut down debate would do well to remember many other issues where past consensus is now viewed as wrong: the claim that dark skinned races are inferior, myriad health claims for foods (still made, rarely verified), sending those with TB to live in caves to cure them, weird «cures» for mental illness now viewed as torture, etc..

For instance, US Senator James Imhofe of Kansas called climate change «the greatest hoax ever» (Johnson, 2011) To claim that climate change science is the greatest hoax ever is at minimum, if not a lie, reckless disregard for the truth given the number of prestigious scientific organizations that have publicly supported the consensus view, the undeniable science supporting the conclusion that if greenhouse gases increase in the atmosphere some warming should be expected, the clear link between rising greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere and increases in fossil fuel use around the world, as well undeniable increases in warming being that have been experienced at the global scale.

«We, as average punters who can read and hear as well as speak, write to remind the AAAS of the consensus punter view that cheap stunts, cunning omissions, clumsy evasions, slob terminology and tricky language are blatant signs or incompetence, dishonesty or both.»

Dismissing natural variability even though it is well demonstrated by now that the consensus view on so - called «global warming» has failed seems to invert the scientific process of (in rough form): Observe > hypothesis > test / predict > measure result > Compare to observation > reconcile to reality.

His pledge to «remain committed as individuals and as a society to the highest standards of scientific integrity in the pursuit of our goals» sounds good, but I think it requires acceptance and specific mention by AGU that there are other, equally valid, scientific views.beside the politically correct «mainstream consensus» view as promoted by IPCC.

But painting this as the «normal», opinion - based sort of consensus is a good denial tactic, as is highlighting the views of the very few contrarian climate scientists (who are in the same boat as the people who authored negative trials on aspirin, if there are any - they're destined for the dustbin of science history.)

My readings in the last few years have persuaded me that a lot of the advocates of the consensus IPCC view do not understand the details of the science very well, and underestimate the importance of some unanswered questions that they choose to ignore or just have not heard about..

The Dessler refutation is stated boldly, if it is perceived to be the orthodox or consensus view, and if unchallenged by others than the heretical it should be, and it is demonstrably wrong I shall not be best pleased.

Better to spend time over the silly insider views of «consensus» and nearly worthless land data records then face the real issue which is their political culture and motivations that are the actual drivers of the movement.

To categorize as deniers people who are making arguments that diverge from the consensus view of the IPCC, well that reflects dogma.

So while there appears to be a robust political consensus around the importance of climate change, it is a silent consensus — which from the point of view of public engagement, may as well not be a consensus at all.

Well — if so, then they were not in alignment with the «consensus» view of scientists.

The blogosphere certainly does this well for those who challenge the «consensus» view.

I just give you the consensus view in these arguments, which is very easy to do because it is well known, and all you do is give something that looks either made up as you go along or an irrelevant cut - and - paste of something.

It seems like it takes the onus off of them and allows them to react to others who are putting out better work; work that is eroding the consensus (so called) view.

The truth about Judith Curry, as I see it, is that she has a strong attraction for political dialogue, and refuses to see that the public debate over climate is fundamentally at odds with good science, as is the IPCC - sponsored «consensus» of climate alarmism, or in her case, of climate political - worryism (she seems deeply attached to helping bring about «reasonable» and «responsible» climate policies — whereas my view is that any and all such climate policies, now, are necessarily based upon incompetent, false science, are entirely the wrong thing to try to impose upon the people of the world, and need to be summarily thrown out, before one can even begin to have a dispassionate, competent scientific dialogue — as opposed to the political debate now being served up — on the state of climate science.).

The consensus scientific view is the best we can do at any given time, given the available data and our understanding of it.

But overall, it is hard not to conclude that despite these grumbles, the consensus view among general counsel is that their law firms are delivering much better value.

Overall, however, the consensuses seems to be «if it's not broken, don't fix it,» and in our view, that's a very good sign for the victims of negligence.

• Leadership... but not dictatorship • An optimistic, realistic vision of the firm • Focus on strategic issues rather than day - to - day administrative matters • Build relationships with each of the partners • Possess the instinct to know when to consult with and secure support of partners • Build a consensus on key issues prior to presenting initiatives • Financial knowledge and good business judgment • Be decisive... but build consensus • Listen to all points of view • Willingness to take prudent risks • Appreciation of firm culture • Maintain confidence • Be accessible • Always have a few minutes to listen • Provide recognition and praise • Communicate with associates and staff

Well, one rationale is that it can, in the short term, be a hindrance to efficiency; that a collaboration of disparate thoughts, ideas and points of view may cause difficulties in reaching a consensus.

Rarely will traditional owners have the same view on all issues and building consensus and effective decision - making through good governance becomes crucial.