Sentences with phrase «basic point a»

So, again I ask: don't you think the Law Times column (below) helps make Mr. Kowalski's basic point?

The basic point is that all cases benefit from the thoughtful presentation of evidence.

But the basic point is pretty simple: the pattern of reasonableness review outcomes is quite telling.

However, this basic point has been made for a long time now (see, for example, Jordan Peterson's recent infamous interview on Channel 4) and it's becoming increasingly obvious that those obsessed with the gender pay gap don't have an answer to it.

LR: The basic point of the Winter Weekend is not for training, but for the firm to introduce itself in more detail to incoming summers.

The basic point is that those taking on staff behave rationally and the review recognises correctly that the current tax and legal regimes present a perverse incentive to mistreat and to evade.

Stephen's basic point is that it is important for service providers, including lawyers, to remain visible to past and prospective clients and referral sources.

While the point made by user6726 is not wrong with respect to this particular statute, it doesn't address a more basic point about how the supremacy clause works.

While Sarlin's article provides some interesting nitpicking about President Obama's excellent speech, a basic point: Sarlin mangled the reporting in a way that boosts the strength of his points via rather questionable journalism.

Going through all the other very interesting posts on this thread, I really do not see that the basic point made by VS has been refuted in any way.

Maybe you can explain how your comment is a response to the very basic point that the IPCC did not only say that more than 50 % since 1950 was anthropogenic, they also said that the best estimate was that it was all anthropogenic?

Sorry Nasif, not pi, how about four... but you should get my basic point.

# 440 Brian, remember, the basic point was old temperature records, lack of accuracy data, and how it might be possible to wring some more information out of that data.

Which was my basic point.

But the basic point is that we know there's enough CO2 in the easily available oil and gas to take us up to the dangerous level of atmospheric CO2.

There are many others, but my basic point is its in human nature to want quick answers and one can succumb to hype due to ignorance.

(That's assuming their climatology test was set at something they would describe as 66 %, but the basic point stands whatever probability level it was labelled.)

There is no excuse for being unaware of basic point everyone discussing the paper has acknowledged then calling people «naive» for their beliefs.

To the basic point of the post - what is it that is bad about the arctic being more melted in the summer?

The basic point is that you can get a lot of different results from PCA, depending on how you normalize (centre) the data.

But that's not the only basic point McKewon got wrong.

Donner mentions China - but yes, his basic point stands: globally, there are only signs of increased carbon fuel consumption.

I highly doubt that even Kevin Trenberth disagrees with that basic point.

In this post her basic point is that others should accept the belief of an economist who says that in spite of his suggestion making no economic sense, we should follow it because his «unsubstantiated fears» are high.

Which is in part why I found Gavin's comments unintelligible as well as not even addressing Judith's basic point.

Rephrasing the same arguments will not change your basic point.

Especially when my basic point was right anyway.

All the same, he said, «the basic point stands.»

One could argue about the level of probability to assign to this premise, but this is a basic point, which Zeke did not even consider, because it lies outside the paradigm of his thinking.

Basic point being, these are people collectively operate in the realm of «climate change sociology» under the unsupportable premise that man - caused global warming is settled science, thus it is up to them to explain to the rest of us what's wrong with the mindset of skeptic climate scientists....

Jim D's basic point is this: it doesn't matter that ethics and integrity were ditched in order to facilitate a preferred political announcement, because later examination upheld the findings.

The basic point and the one relevant to climate change, is still relevant — oceans still have an enormous moderating effect on temperature over time (though if there is a huge increase or decrease in re radiated atmospheric heat it is going to then affect the oceans initially).

However my basic point remains valid.

His basic point is that journalists have given up on their job of explaining because of a fake democratic belief that our opinions are more important than informed analysis.

The basic point is that on calm days, Tmin will be affected by both the UHI and the NSTI, but on windy days both effects will be moderated.

I quite like Phil jones's work, in fact one of his books is on my Christmas present list (hint) The basic point as I understand it from Willis was that Jones deliberately avoided responding to a FOI request.

You continue to weasel around about this basic point in a way that makes us think you've never done any observational science.

So, the basic point made is very simple — uncertainty does not preclude action.

Let's not lose track of the basic point: The «economic contamination» of the temperature record is a crock, no matter what economists and business section editors think.

To the basic point of the feared rise in sea level, what do you believe Webby?

I don't understand why you are missing his basic point.

It would be very helpful to have something authoritative on this basic point.

Mr. Biggs — you bring up a basic point that no one has answered for me, which is, «What would the climate / temp / weather be like outside if no humans were here?»

Pekka - I hope you noticed that I have in no way denied the basic point that humans are emitting large amounts of CO2 and that those emissions might possibly have an impact on the planets long term climate.

The basic point is that studies that assume AGW are largely irrelevant to the debate over AGW.

The latter point I emphasize in boldface is the same basic point that Teya Ryan made about how equal - side reporting does no more confuse the public, causing them to have no idea which side is right.

My basic point was the essential enabling role of Mr. Revkin in service to NASA - gaters.

But that will have to wait for other posts, while the basic point comes down to this: no matter which angle Gelbspan's accusation against skeptic climate scientists is viewed, it is full of holes.

But all this business about water vapor is losing sight of my basic point, which I would make as follows.

It seems odd that with your keen interest in this subject you haven't spent much time or effort on examining the basic point of the case for serious damage from AGW.