Sentences with phrase «argument presented here»

The problem with the argument you present here is you have presented ideas as being mutually exclusive that are not, in fact, mutually exclusive.

I wonder, given the arguments presented here that six month projections are weather and three year projections are climate, if the sigmoid is properly applied to September ice volume?

The wealth of data and provocative arguments presented here make «Smart Solutions to Climate Change» a valuable resource for policy - makers, NGOs, academics, students, and everybody who is interested in learning more about the economic realities that face us as we confront this challenge.»

Good one, I hope any normal person that stumbles upon this blog can recognize the level of nonsense arguments presented here that «appear» to be based on scientific discoveries, but really aren't.

Not exact matches

The late Isaac Asimov presented the best argument against it I've yet found, and I'll post it here.

RS If they're anything like the creationist arguments being presented here then I'm not missing much, am I?

Although I shall not spell out the argument here, I think that there is an implicit contradiction in holding that we depend on God, who timelessly knows all our acts, past or future as they may be for us now, and yet our present reality does not necessitate our future acts.

Here Dowsing pulls few punches, presenting well the «children as gift», not burden or right, argument and is very clear on the immorality of separating the unitive and the procreative.

I shall assume here various arguments presented in my Metaphor and Art.

Now it is central to the whole point of David Novak's argument that this entire strategy is founded on a most fundamental error, whose formulation we must cite in full, adding italics to highlight its centrality: «Theologically, the error here is that revelation is essentially reduced to the supreme awareness of an order already present in creation.»

One may indeed be entirely without them; probably more than one of you here present is without them in any marked degree; but if you do have them, and have them at all strongly, the probability is that you can not help regarding them as genuine perceptions of truth, as revelations of a kind of reality which no adverse argument, however unanswerable by you in words, can expel from your belief.

The argument that is presented here is not that Whitehead's theory is simply a return to Newton's theory.

Since there are many new readers on this blog, and since probably everyone who has been here longer than a year has forgotten the basic argument I am trying to present, I figured I would spend one post summarizing my view and inviting people to go back and read some of what I have written previously only this topic.

What is most salient for the present argument is that here we see the tension that exists in the relationship between the virtual and the real.

Believers, whether of local cult or widespread religion can always find a way to define their claims just outside the argument presented, as b4bigbang demonstrates, here.

Senator Norris here presents his arguments why he was the only senator who voted against our entry into World War I: we have multiplied most of the problems we went into that war to solve.

Still, there is a certain awkwardness here, for the argument just presented runs against those three passages in Process and Reality where Whitehead does speak of direct prehension of the distant past.

You can pick up stuff from here and there and present it but the argument becomes invalid because these quotes are not always applied in all situations and many of these quotes were for that particular time period.

The winner would be the just - look - at - him argument, presented here in its entirety:

That should have been the reason why both of them ended up here in a Women's Championship match, but instead, we got it because Mick Foley just decided that's how it was going to be, because a heel presented him with a logical argument (explaining that both Bayley and Sasha lost thanks to a double - pin in the number one contender's match) and that just makes him cranky.

The issue is that you are here presenting false arguments.

Thus, the argument here is not some ideological «no economic growth» position (though doubtless is how it will be presented by many on both left and right).

Here April Nowell and Melanie Chang present the evidence — and the arguments.

I'm afraid I can't assist with e-mailing Am because I have no historic data to present an argument - just thought I'd share here to show that it might be affecting us lesser hitters, too.

As well, a number of the people you cited have come here to state that you are either misrepresenting them, or presenting a view which appears counter to your argument.

I like your argument that you present here.

Check out Part One here: State of Play 2017 — Sony: Part 2 Naughty Dog Their Present: There's a reasonable argument to be made that Naughty Dog isn't just the best developer working in - house at Playstation but in fact the best development studio -LSB-...]

In principle, these works might not seem to fit within the argument of the present exhibition but Gonzales's intention here is to create a different optical effect and a unique visual experience.

Here we take a look at some of the other arguments presented in his paper.

Here is my attempt to present the argument for reducing the regulation of nuclear so it can become cost competitive with fossil fuels — especially in the developing countries (which is where the emissions growth will occur over this century if there is not realistic alternative to fossil fuels):

That is the main argument here in this article, using documents and evidence and presented in a mostly even - toned fashion.

Maybe I'm the only one having trouble here, but I don't understand why you've presented an argument based on emissions and land use data estimates when the significant parameter (atmospheric CO2 concentration) has been more directly and precisely measured via ice core data.

For the purpose of simplifying the argument, STT is happy to concede that man - made CO2 emissions may cause an increase in atmospheric temperatures — whether or not modest increases in atmospheric temperature from present levels represents a threat to humans or the planet is another question again (see our post here).

Your lack of logical ability is demonstrated by your use of the logical fallacy of «Argument from Authority» which you again present here concerning «the viewpoint of the IPCC» (despite my having told you of that fallacy).

Several new age scientists have had the courage of presenting their arguments here, but, surprisingly never J.H..

Many readers here have presented strong counter arguments that demand to be explained.

Just to be clear, the idea here is that we all aim to present reasoned arguments and dispassionate data, or others have to do something first, before this starts?

You seem to me not be addressing the primary argument which I raised in my initial comment here: if the recent rise in CO2 is mostly the result of warming, then the substantially warmer previous interglacial should have produced higher CO2 levels than at present, but did not; the CO2 levels were much lower.

If you want to discuss this further the thread on SkepticalScience would be a better location as the mass balance argument is presented in detail there, whereas it is only sketched out here.

I think there is an argument to be made that Dr. Rapp's «sloppy scholarship» — as it is presented here — could indicate «sloppy scholarship» in terms of not reading enough of the literature in this field.

I admit that going into Eradicating Ecocide I was inclined to agree with Higgins — part out of personal inclination and part because nearly a year ago Polly and I sat down in Copenhagen for coffee to discuss the topic and she made a compelling case then — but just in the 200 pages presented here she does a great job examining both the historical situation which gave rise to corporate personhood and early attempts to stop pollution, more modern examples (many of which have been be well documented on TreeHugger, they being so current), and makes a good moral and logical argument that the only way we are going to truly stop ecocide is to make it a serious crime.

The Internet Cases blog writes here that in Major v. McAllister, the Missouri court «refused to accept a website end user's argument that she should not be bound by the website terms and conditions that were presented to her in the familiar «browsewrap» format,» i.e., a visible link that read, «By submitting you agree to the Terms of Use.»

Cf. Illinois v. Gates, 459 U.S. at 1029, n. 1 (STEVENS, J., dissenting)-LRB-» [T] here is no impediment to presenting a new argument as an alternative basis for affirming the decision below»)(emphasis in original).

Having thoroughly discussed every point raised by the CIBC — including several minor arguments not summarized here — Justice Khullar concluded that, even though the Tenancy Dispute Officer did not have the benefit of any of the legal arguments or authorities presented by the CIBC to her, the Tenancy Dispute Officer's decision was both reasonable and, if it needed to be, correct (at para 49).

[T] here appears to be a major disconnect between the evidence presented, the concerns discussed and arguments evaluated within the [majority] report on the one hand, and its final conclusions on the other.