Sentences with phrase «arguing over a review»

Not exact matches

No less a mathematical authority than Alonzo Church, in his review of the second edition of volumes II and III, claims that in the whole of volume I (over 700 pages of closely argued mathematical logic introductory to the theory of cardinal numbers) and together with volumes II and III (themselves enormous tomes) one gets «cardinal numbers, relations and relation - numbers, series, well ordered series and ordinal numbers, and finally the continuum of real numbers» (BAMS34: 237).

I argue with Tom Reese, over this exact issue often at Epiphenom (a blog which reviews science research about religion — to is an atheist).

In Syracuse, within minutes of arriving at the Sheraton, he was yelling into a cellphone, arguing with The Villager, the newspaper that publishes his film reviews, over reimbursement for two $ 9.50 movie tickets.

Opponents have been pushing DEC and the governor to add a public health assessment to the agency's review, and argue that the absence of such a study means DEC is skipping over essential science.

In a new study published in The Quarterly Review of Biology, Dr. Karen Hardy and her team bring together archaeological, anthropological, genetic, physiological and anatomical data to argue that carbohydrate consumption, particularly in the form of starch, was critical for the accelerated expansion of the human brain over the last million years, and coevolved both with copy number variation of the salivary amylase genes and controlled fire use for cooking.

Earlier in this suit over fossil fuel funding, says the LAT, the Bush administration argued that «alleged impacts of global climate change are too remote and speculative» to be part of project reviews.

In a recent survey of over 2000 peer reviewed scientific papers on global warming, the number which argued against these three claims was zero.

The case, brought forward by the Gitga'at and other coastal First Nations, argued the province erred when it handed over decision - making authority for the project to the federal government under a provincial - federal Joint Review Process managed by the federal National Energy Board.

Then why do so - called climate scientists publish peer - reviewed papers in which they argue that the AMO, PDO, ENSO, have short term effects that must average to zero over the long run?

I've never been one to argue for the inherent superiority of peer - reviewed literature over discussions elsewhere; the only thing that matters in the end is the validity of the arguments made, and truly bad work appears in the literature on a daily basis.

That paper, which was not peer - reviewed, argued that because polar bear numbers have remained relatively stable despite faster - than - expected sea ice loss over the past decade, scientists» predictions of future population declines are flawed.

It argues that the IPCC's «heroic days» of «Herculean work» are probably over, more frequent assessments focused on policy challenges are required, and the wider review of science made possible by the blogosphere can help: New Scientist says because the case for anthropogenic climate change is firmly established («the Nobel prize is won») the IPCC really needs to revision itself.

Leading solar company Solar Century, (see my review of Solar Century's inspiring book here) put out an early response arguing that this new scheme will finally make solar affordable for UK home owners, estimating that a typical household can now save and earn over # 1,000 per year for 25 years, increasing with inflation, with a typical solar electric system.

But E.P.A. officials argue that the carbon capture technology has been used in several locations and that a review of the industry over the past year proves that owners of new coal - fired power plants can meet the new standards as required by the act.

Despite this, it appears both ATB and the AUPE expended significant time and energy arguing over what the applicable standard of review would be in their case.

The above arguments are based upon the constitutional law doctrine of «structural argumentation» (see: Robin M. Elliott, «References, Structural Argumentation and the Organizing Principles of Canada's Constitution» (2000), 80 Canadian Bar Review 67, and decisions such as the, Reference Re Manitoba Language Rights, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 721, [1985] S.C.J. No. 36, the, Reference Re Secession of Québec, [1999] S.C.J. No. 4, [1998] 2 SCR 217, and the, Reference re Remuneration of Judges, [1997] S.C.J. No. 75, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 3, to argue that the need for access to the rule of law, and to constitutional rights and freedoms, dictate that law societies in Canada can not enforce a monopoly over the provision of legal services that enables their members to charge fees of whatever size they see fit.

Thus, many patent owners opt to file preliminary statements arguing that no basis for review exists by distinguishing the claims over the prior art.

Proper forum: Although the College argued that the technician had to seek review from the Health Disciplines Board under the HDA, the court concluded that the Health Disciplines Board had no authority over the College, and no jurisdiction to become involved in a registration dispute between the College and its members [83].

If there are no issues of fact in your case, and you are arguing with your spouse over whether an undisputed set of facts justifies setting aside your agreement, you may have a summary hearing, where the court reviews pleadings and affidavits and makes an order based upon the evidence in the case file.