Sentences with phrase «carefully at the arguments»

If you really look carefully at the arguments and the science, the skeptics have it all over the true believers.

Not exact matches

But attend carefully, and you'll find that nearly all of these arguments reduce to a list of factors that make the investment environment feel good at the moment.

If you carefully and thoughtfully work through the logic James» argument up to this point, and then look at the objection, you must include all of James 2:18 - 19 in the objection.

He reflects carefully on the basic dilemma» that defending democracy and its rights and liberties may require an abrogation of at least some of those rights and liberties, at least for some persons and for a limited time» and he explicitly sets out to make a moral argument rather than the legal and political - theory arguments favored among critics of the war on terror.

Natural variations are a given, a non argument, I suggest to look up very carefully at the Arctic ocean proper, with high resolution shots, here:

And in addition, think about all the wasted energy the «climate community» spent mitigating the impact of «deniers,» when «skeptics» could have helped out by listening more carefully to the «climate community,» and trying to understand «the climate community's» arguments, and adding to progress on increasing our understanding of the causes of climate variability and change — rather than apologizing or ignoring the input from scientists like Fred Singer — who deliberately lifts a conditional clause from a larger sentence, divorces it completely from context, and creates a fraudulent quotation in order to deliberately deceive, or Ross McKitrick who slanders other scientists on purely speculative conclusions about their motivations, or guest - posters at WUWT who call BEST «media whores,» or the long line of denizens at Climate Etc. who falsely claim that the «climate community» ignores all uncertainties towards the goal of serving a socialist, eco-Nazi agenda to destroy capitalism.

Well, it looks like the press release was carefully worded, and referring back to Anthony Watts article on his blog which is criticized at the beginning of the RC article, i see no wrong claim there... Hiss main argument is written in bold: «The IPCC is under scrutiny for various data inaccuracies, including its claim — based on a flawed World Wildlife Fund study — that up to 40 % of the Amazonian forests could react drastically and be replaced by savannas from even a slight reduction in rainfall.»

It demands close attention to factual details that matter; a winnowing out of details that don't matter; a reliance on concrete facts coupled with a disavowal of breezy generalizations and characterizations; a building up of facts into step - by - step arguments from which conclusions naturally follow; the marshaling of reasons that will earn the respect even of an opposing audience; a dialectical approach in which countervailing facts and counterarguments are carefully disarmed; a defense not of the first positions you might take, but of the best ones; and, at least in your early development as a legal writer, a stripped - down style that contains not a whiff of ornate embellishment.

The BIICL paper submitted that «a carefully drafted written submission can, when skilfully used at the oral hearing, enhance the impact of argument... the use of a skeleton argument allows the advocate two shots at persuading the court of his case».