Sentences with phrase «by arguing»

Did the CJEU simply sacrifice the supremacy of the UN Charter because it bought into the legal tricks of a Saudi businessman and his legal team, persuading the judges in Luxembourg by arguing that, to paraphrase the late Johnnie Cochran: «If the legal orders don't fit, you must acquit»?

Sebelius responded by arguing that investing in prevention could decrease costs down the road.

You began by arguing sea level was rising because of TOA imbalance had started after industrial revolution.

Its first task was to erode confidence in the science on which environmental concerns were based by arguing that the scientists had become politicised and were using their research, or allowing it to be used, to advance an anti-corporate political agenda.

or by arguing that the written records cover small areas 1000s of km apart?

As Michael Levi at the Council on Foreign Relations points out, «to make the case that Keystone XL would greatly increase GHGs, one has to start by arguing that blocking the pipeline would substantially curtail oil sands production,» and that the production would not be replaced by other sources.

Wells begins by arguing that:

By arguing that each member does not provide enough evidence, they are missing the point that when the evidence is added together it is true for the class.

If I may, and please take this in the sincere, honest and helpful way that it is intended... I do wish that Gavin had not edited your response, but it seems that you got carried away with its length, and in any event in the end it wasn't necessary, because you were «tilting at windmills» by arguing things that people here really don't even blink at (such as outrageous claims by fools in the media which are mere misunderstandings or distortions of the actual science, which is what the people here know and pay attention to).

Cohen tries to explain this away by arguing that Exxon only funded such groups because they were against the Kyoto Protocol (which it still firmly rejects) and not because they vehemently denied the existence of global warming.

Foreign leaders, corporations, investors and activists have been pushing hard to keep the Trump administration in the pact by arguing that the US has nothing to lose by staying.

Armstrong concluded his talk by arguing that scientific evidence should be required for all climate regulations.

In the 1970s, when global temperatures were cooling, some scientists could not resist the lure of press attention by arguing that a new ice age was imminent.

It is more correct to say that Emanuel argues * against * simplifying or ignoring uncertainty by arguing against the sole focus on centre values.

Rather than fight that by denying the science, I fight that by arguing that policy takes science into account, but its clearly not ruled by science.

And, by arguing that coal generation in South Carolina can be adequately managed by following EPA emissions regulations, these groups imply that carbon emissions and climate change just doesn't matter as long as nuclear plants can be stopped.

The USFWS justified lifting the 2014 ban by arguing that well - managed trophy hunting can benefit conservation «by generating funds to be used for protecting wildlife habitat, monitoring populations, wildlife management programs and law enforcement efforts».

Phil Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust, said, «The president can no longer wiggle out of aggressive action by arguing that the science is inconclusive.»

«Modelers defend this situation... by arguing that aerosols have cancelled [sic] much of the warming (viz Schwartz et al, 2010)... However, a recent paper (Ramanathan, 2007) points out that aerosols can warm as well as cool»

Yet this final argument turns the entire body of prior claims upon its head by arguing that the states actually «want more regulation, not less, and that they wanted regulation sooner rather than later.»

If Appleton wants to make her point by arguing that the models are wrong, or the conclusions overstated then by all means she should.

Klein makes the point by arguing that the climate - denier crowd at the typical Heartland Institute gatherings:

However, by arguing in this way Courtney has only proven that he is absolutely clueless with respect to statistical analysis and the conclusion that can validly be drawn from the fact that a test for statistical significance fails.

They are often linked to right - wing think - tanks and some of them were also involved in trying to halt anti-smoking regulation by arguing that negative health effects of smoking were not proven.

Global warming enthusiasts have responded to the absence of warming in recent years by arguing that the past decade has been the warmest on record.

U.S. policymakers, for example, have often made the case for climate policy by arguing that it will strengthen U.S. industry.

By arguing that climate change poses threats that we may be able to adapt to, Michaels and Cato have unwittingly acknowledged that the EPA is right to regulate GHG emissions due to the threat they pose to public welfare.

Now, if your tendency is to trust models you will respond by arguing that the models are not flawed in this regard.

By arguing the «hot spot» doesn't exist, Evans is contradicting his previous claims about negative feedbacks and low climate sensitivity.

It has blocked action by arguing that countries like China and India must first do more.

More than anything else, his style of logic is reminiscent of the creationist quacks who set out to undermine evolution by arguing that it's a «theory» that hasn't been «proved.»

Yet by arguing against nuclear you are implicitly arguing for more dangerous technologies

Stuart made a very valuable contribution several years ago by arguing that we ought to focus on species that were in imminent danger of extinction, i.e., those whose ranges were endemic to the area of destroyed habitat.

His goal, mirroring the playbook of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, seems to be to sideline environmental concerns by arguing that you're either for fossil fuels and ending energy poverty or for limiting risks of (and from) human - driven climate change and impoverishing humanity.

They do so by arguing things like: Climate change is a hoax, so we don't need to regulate the things that are causing it.

I hope this shuts up «Kim», «Raven», «Sanjong» and some of the other posters who insist on wasting everyone's time by arguing the Earth is cooling.

perhaps including increased risk — remember how many decades the tobacco companies go by arguing that no individual smoker could attribute his particular lung cancer to any specific cigarette product?

It's painfully easy to paint oneself logically into a corner by arguing that either (i) vigorous natural variability caused 20th century climate change, but the climate is insensitive to radiative forcing by greenhouse gases; or (ii) the climate is very sensitive to greenhouse gases, but we still are able to attribute details of inter-decadal wiggles in the global mean temperature to a specific forcing cause.

(I once read a right - wing Letter to the Editor who decided to combat this «they have 5 times our population» argument by arguing that emissions should be rationed by land area.

In 2004, the Dane made his name as a green contrarian with his bestselling book The Skeptical Environmentalist, and outraged scientists and green groups around the world by arguing that many claims about global warming, overpopulation, energy resources, deforestation, species loss and water shortages are not supported by analysis.

Goodnough carefully negotiated this difference by arguing at once for the diversity of Kline's process and the importance of the sketches used only in retrospect:

We came to a mutual agreement that by arguing with real passion, regardless of how divergent our viewpoints may be, as long as we could transform that energy into tangible action, we would find ourselves in a perpetual state of becoming.

Judd responded to such charges by arguing, in his typically deadpan style, that «Art need only be interesting» and that it was «Something you look at».

The influential exhibition shifted the discussion away from conceptualism to focus on figuration by arguing that what many of the most interesting contemporary artists — Janine Antoni, Matthew Barney, Mike Kelley — had in common was their reimagining of the body.

Judd responded to such charges by arguing, in his typically deadpan style, that «art need only be interesting» and that it was «something you look at.»

At first Toad ignores her comments bluntly by arguing that Mario is his friend; however, she continues to persuade the mushroom retainer by telling him that with the power of the gem, he could become the new King of the Kingdom and achieve respect from the others.

A statement today from the mayor's office, which stills maintains that city resources would not have been directed to the marathon, summed up their decision by arguing, essentially, that it simply would have been in bad taste.

PETA, in turn, asked the court to throw out the lawsuit by arguing that the dog was unlicensed so was not worth anything, the dog had no value beyond the cost of replacement for another dog, they had permission by the property owner to remove community cats so they can not be guilty of trespass for entering and killing a dog, and the family is not entitled to punitive damages because PETA's theft and immediate killing of a happy, healthy, beloved dog is not «outrageous» conduct.

By arguing that all pit bulls in shelters should be killed, PETA and others are necessarily driving those who aim to adopt a pit bull to breeders who will gladly meet the demand.

As someone who owns, and attempts to remain current on, the breed, I would like to just add a comment here for consideration by those arguing for and against the addition of content regarding the Ugly Dog Contest.