Sentences with phrase «argument over the effects»

There is fierce academic argument over the effects of QE and the only conclusion so far is that no one knows what it actually achieves.

Not exact matches

The crux of BAML's argument is that the Treasury market has received major support from foreign investors over the past 20 years, and any threat to that backstop could have a destabilizing effect.

But the argument over the motive for Cochran's firing and its effect on civil and religious liberties obscures a deeper disagreement over Christian conceptions of sin and the consequences of those ideas in a public work environment.

Arguments over the minutiae of potential effects of government spending cuts are likely to become increasingly commonplace with the comprehensive spending review to be completed next month.

The U.S. Supreme Court cleared much of President Donald Trump's travel ban to take effect this week and agreed to hear arguments in the fall, giving the president at least partial vindication for his claims of sweeping power over the nation's borders.

Arguments abound over whether the hallmark protein clusters that accumulate in the brain are a cause or an effect of the illness, and current treatments do not address the main problem that causes impaired thinking: broken synapses, the junctions that allow neurons to communicate with one another.

In America's wrenching argument over how and why we have so many mass shootings, such as the ones at Newtown, Conn. and Aurora, Colo., many have pointed the finger at video game makers to demand they take a good hard look at what they sell and its effect on impressionable young minds.

In this case, the argument is that value - added estimates can and should be used to make decisions about where to position high value - added teachers so that they might have greater effects, as well as greater potentials to «add» more «value» to student learning and achievement over time.

While some believe that the argument over C02's effect is completely understood, legitimate scientists counter the negatives may not exist at all.

After receiving a topic related to business development, our experts brainstorm over the idea and come up with proper arguments to describe the topic, compare items, show causes or effects, to write a critique or a narration or to deliver an argument.

Rather than engaging in endlessly nitpicking, unproductive arguments over unknowns such as the logarithmic exponent describing the almost nonexistent / nonexistent effect of carbon dioxide on temperature, and the «estimate» of CO2 sensitivity, let's look at empirical evidence, and the big picture: CO2 is rising, and the planet's temperature is falling.

Yes, we may well be inducing climate change, but there may be — in fact, there is — a moral argument that places industrial and economic development over mitigation, in spite of its effect on the environment.

The weakness of your summary arguments are a) assumption 4 doesn't come into play over 15 years (and is still a little dangerous over 30 — restate to say net effect of internal variability has small compared with expected 30 year trend perhaps).

Actually Fielding's use of that graph is quite informative of how denialist arguments are framed — the selected bit of a selected graph (and don't mention the fastest warming region on the planet being left out of that data set), or the complete passing over of short term variability vs longer term trends, or the other measures and indicators of climate change from ocean heat content and sea levels to changes in ice sheets and minimum sea ice levels, or the passing over of issues like lag time between emissions and effects on temperatures... etc..

Anyway... the principle that keeps me from stumbling over anyone's arguments in support of climate change madness is that there needs to be evidence showing a link between the supposed cause and the supposed effect.

Meanwhile, the logarithmic effect of CO2 is excellent «concession» to make in the rhetorical sense, since it concedes the obvious state of our knowledge about the effects of CO2, while at the same time providing us with the solid argument that even if we double atmospheric CO2 levels from 400ppm to 800 ppm over the next 100 years the largest amount of warming possible — assuming all else remains the same and Gaia has no homeostasis negative feedback systems which tend to moderate any runaway trends — is 1.2 c.

«instead of silly «burden of proof» arguments over Type I vs. Type II errors, we could be talking about measuring the size of the effect»

A Bayesian approach would mean that instead of silly «burden of proof» arguments over Type I vs. Type II errors, we could be talking about measuring the size of the effect.

The climate conditions of the MWP are often compared to those of the late 20th and early 21st centuries in arguments over the causes and potential effects of modern climate trends.

Here Morton's technological optimism is at its strongest: arguments that geoengineering could not be controlled — even those backed by scientific experimentation — are pushed aside, if favor of the implicit utopian belief that SAI could be fine - tuned to minimize harms (even though the effects are almost impossible to attribute — especially over short time scales).

His unspoken argument is that you have to take a temperature trend over complete cycle (s) in order to remove the cyclical effect: «To remove the warming rate due to the multidecadal oscillation of about 60 years cycle, least squares trend of 60 years period from 1945 to 2004 is calculated ``.

I'll make one more comment on Nick's arguments, before I move on: It is unreasonable to extrapolate, as Nick implicitly does, from a single day's data, arguing that the net zero effect over one day applies to longer periods.

Maintaining a well - funded relationship bank account not only shortens arguments, it ensures that they are gotten over quickly and have little lasting effect.

Since this happened over two years ago, progress to give full effect to the Declaration has been slow, despite the strong legal and moral arguments for the Australian Government to take concrete action.