Sentences with phrase «argue against increased»

No one would argue against increased access to justice for claimants.

Whilst it is hard to argue against increased consumer choice, the current situation is hardly satisfactory.

While Cuomo and other top lawmakers have said for months that they would wait and see what Washington had to offer, the governor now said this uncertainty is a «problem» that would argue against increasing spending.

Today, as he did in arguing against the increase in officers last year, Mr. de Blasio pointed to the city's continually low crime rate: «I say, God bless the men and women of the NYPD for doing a great job.»

It's interesting to note that visible media figures have latched on to that argument while also arguing against increasing aid to poor countries.

Since any increase in solar energy would heat both the lower and upper atmosphere, the observed drop in upper atmospheric temperatures in the past 30 years argues against an increase in energy coming from the sun being responsible for global warming.

In his April 27, 2015 letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal, Chris Polychron argues against increasing guarantee fees.

Not exact matches

In arguing against the bill, Brown noted that the Congressional Budget Office found that it would slightly increase the probability of a big bank failure, which would add to the deficit.

You can't argue against an 86-fold increase in shareholder returns over 20 years!

Most significantly, Duddington argues against the charge that permitting an increasing role for religion in the legal and political (i.e., public) spheres would necessitate the imposition of one system of belief upon another, by re-emphasising the argument that Christianity does not serve to generate a moral code, but rather provides a vehicle through which it may be discovered.

As foreign - born Americans tend to be a Democratic - leaning group (and even foreign - born Americans oppose increasing immigration), all the partisan incentives argue against Republicans» supporting increasing immigration.

Against the view that «wage inflation» is to be avoided one can argue that precisely the increase of wages is urgently needed for a just society.

The RGB's yearly vote pits advocates pushing for little to no rent increases amid continued economic turmoil against landlords who argue the cost of managing buildings has risen significantly enough to demand substantial rent hikes.

Both Republicans and Democrats have argued against the freeze plan, which would offer homeowners a pre-Election Day check if the municipality in which they live abides by the state's two percent cap on tax increases.

«Labour will argue against the proposed increase in EU spending and instead support a real - terms cut in the budget... When we speak of budget reform, some will want to focus only on cuts to «EU fat cats» in Brussels.

Several county residents, including seniors and veterans, spoke out against the increases during public comment, arguing that they would add up for residents who frequent county parks, golf courses and beaches.

Dempsey said that if the bill on bump stocks solely focused on the bump stocks he'd be less against it, but the bill before the committee specifically refers to accessories that increase the rate of fire of a firearm and he argues almost any part could assist in doing that including those that assist with aim.

David Parks, head of physics at Graveney school, argues against the new GCSE, saying it shows a «confused and contradictory situation» where ministers promise to increase the number of science graduates but «dumb down» the subject to broaden its appeal.

Trade unions are against the increase in the retirement age, arguing that people should not be forced to «work until they drop» - new figures released this week show the life expectancy for men in Glasgow is just 69.9, compared to a UK average of 76.6.

The Business Council's Ken Girardin argues against project labor agreements, which he says increase construction costs for taxpayers and unfairly shut out nonunion workers from competition for government contracts.

Then with the implementation of the Obamacare de-facto sabotaged, the problems associated with it increased over time, which gave the opponents a lot more ammunition to argue against it.

Advocates had fought against increasing the involuntary hold from 48 hours to 72 hours, arguing that addicts are more likely to overdose when released.

The accusations of bias against the fight against corruption are increasing by the day and critics easily find ready examples to argue that the fight is only cosmetic and showy and government is only making do with a few symbolic gestures as proof that it is serious.

Most of the chamber's Republicans voted against the bill, arguing that the policies increased standardized testing and gave too much power to the Board of Regents in implementing the new evaluation system.

Meghan Heintz of More New York, a group that advocates for policies that increase housing supply in the city, argued at the hearing that the tech hub was a boon to residents of nearby neighborhoods, and warned against the consequences of prohibitively restrictive zoning.

If cooperation exists so widely, Nowak wondered, what mechanisms were at work to increase cooperation when natural selection seemed to argue against it?

The lack of an industrial signature in the inferred region and the lack of correlation with pollutant levels in the winds associated with increased KD activity argue against a chemical pollutant as the relevant causative agent.

These experiments were adequately powered to detect even minor increases in progranulin, and argue against the potential for progranulin - mediated benefits of exercise in Grn + / − mice at this age.

September 20, 2011 Food and drugs: Administer together A regulatory bias against taking oral anti-cancer medications with food places many patients at increased risk for an overdose and forces them to «flush costly medicines down the toilet,» argues Mark Ratain, MD, an authority on cancer - drug dosing.

When the lawyer for the state of Illinois tried to argue that the state had an interest in working with «a stable, responsible, independent counterpart that's well - resourced enough that it can partner in the process of not only contract negotiation,» Justice Kennedy broke in and devastatingly finished his thought by saying, «It can partner with you in advocating for a greater size workforce, against privatization, against merit promotion, for teacher tenure, for higher wages, for massive government, for increasing bonded indebtedness, for increasing taxes.»

In his March 15 op - ed, «Confronting the Scheme to Gamble With Connecticut Special Education Funds,» Robert Cotto Jr. makes a number of factually inaccurate claims, and uses a «greatest hits» compilation of logical fallacies, to argue against the creation of a Special Education Predictable Cost Cooperative, which will protect students, improve cost predictability, and increase equity for our state's school districts and communities.

Regardless of your purpose for writing, it is difficult to argue against the benefits of streamlining your self - publishing process and increasing your efficiency.

It annoys me that Republicans argue against elimination of special tax benefits for anyone, calling it a tax increase.

But to argue against the basic soundness of an average decadal increase rate because there was an EN event or even a large EN event (1998 or 2015/6) seems silly to me because the EN LN wobble is simply a component of the weather in each decade reviewed.

As SC 24 slowly reaches Solar Maximum, and CO2 concentrations continue to rise, the probability that we'll see a new record high global temperature that no one can argue against likewise increases.

You argue that this «slowdown» is evidence against the truth that an increased greenhouse gas effect slows down the rate of heat flowing out of the planetary system and thus increases the total heat in the system.

The fact that the increase in damage cost is about as large as the increase in GDP (as recently argued at FiveThirtyEight) is certainly no strong evidence against an effect of global warming on damage cost.

But Britain's Royal Society has advised against substantially increasing cultivated land, arguing that this would damage ecosystems and biodiversity (/ / go.nature.com/YJ2jsB).

It argues that investments should start with low - regret options, with measures that tackle the weather risks that countries already face, such as increased investment in water storage in drought - prone basins or protection against storms and flooding in coastal zones and / or urban areas.

Arguing for the status quo (as Judith seems to do) would qualify, as would arguing against the status quo (we can't keep increasing our emisArguing for the status quo (as Judith seems to do) would qualify, as would arguing against the status quo (we can't keep increasing our emisarguing against the status quo (we can't keep increasing our emissions).

I came across the correlation between increased brightness of Neptune, rising earth temperatures and solar output being used as a typical sceptic / contrarian argument to argue against the true cause of GW, and therefore we can all carry - on polluting, because it's all the sun's fault.

Simulations where the magnitude of solar irradiance changes is increased yield a mismatch between model results and CO2 data, providing evidence for modest changes in solar irradiance and global mean temperatures over the past millennium and arguing against a significant amplification of the response of global or hemispheric annual mean temperature to solar forcing.

The second point is that if you are arguing for a linear increase, it suggests a problem trying to correlate against CO2 increase which is non linear.

While actual scientists are trying to piece together every little part of an otherwise almost un-piecable long term chaotic and variable system in response now to a massive increase in net lower atmospheric energy absorption and re radiation, Curry is busy — much like most of the comments on this site most of the time — trying to come up with or re-post every possible argument under the sun to all but argue against the basic concept that radically altering the atmosphere on a multi million year basis is going to affect the net energy balance of earth, which over time is going to translate into a very different climate (and ocean level) than the one we've comfortably come to rely on.

So in addition to arguing against the alleged need for CO2 emissions reductions, I believe skeptics might usefully argue for increasing CO2 emission levels to the extent that this will promote economic development (and in time environmental improvements).

But that doesn't stop Lynas using the «fact» (it may well not be one) of increasing intensity and frequency to argue in favour of reducing the very wealth that buffers us against environmental problems!

I don't see how you can argue against the logic that weaker solar increases negative North Atlantic Oscillation states, and that negative NAO is directly associated with slower trade winds and hence increased El Nino.

Opponents have mounted a well - organized, celebrity - studded campaign against the pipeline, arguing it would increase U.S. dependency on the oil sands, which they describe as the world's dirtiest oil.

Another critic argues that the studies fail to consider no - till cultivation of biofuel crops, which actually increase soil carbon storage, and that corn ethanol plants are converting to renewable energy, thus decreasing their emissions - meanwhile they are competing against fossil fuels like oil from tar sands that have an increased carbon footprint even compared to conventional gasoline.

Instead, the Op - Ed ended with a sweeping statement against increased international funding towards forestry while the existing funding is insignificant and far from enough to save the natural forests in tropics which the author should have argued to save based on her study.