Sentences with phrase «change debate thing»

Not exact matches

He does awesome in the debates because he is smart and he learns from his mistakes and the only thing his enemies can attack are his past position changes on social issues.

The interesting thing about this whole debate is how our ideas of how we interpret what the Bible says about what hell would be like have changed over time.

Holding did ok but Chambers was very cocky how many miss passes in dangerous areas did he miss place why didn't he booted the ball way down the field and take the pressure off at the first half the commentator spook of the inexperience of the defense and that liverpool did nt put enough pressure klopp rectified that straight away bang bang bang with runners and no protection while wenger face went all red with nothing to say the only thing that saved us really was the injuries for the game to take a change MR wenger is far to slow to fix things what is wrong with him he most not be in good health or something personnel worrying him cause after all he is the manager his got to have a fast thinking brain smell danger and act fast not seat and debate the issue with bold

Holding did ok but Chambers was very cocky how many miss passes in dangerous areas did he miss place why didn't he booted the ball way down the field and take the pressure off at the first half the commentator spook of the inexperience of the defense and that liverpool did nt put enough pressure klopp rectified that straight away bang bang bang while wenger face went all red with nothing to say the only thing that saved us really was the injuries for the game to take a change MR is far to slow to fix things what is wrong with him he most not be in good health cause after all he is the manager his got to have a fast thinking brain smell danger and act fast not seat and debate the issue with bold

If it where just possible to take these statistics, and sit down face to face with PGMOB, the FA and some media hacks, on a public forum, and ask them to explain them, along with the coincidence of how things changed following game 50 and Riley's subsequent appointment, I think that would make for a very interesting debate, especially if video evidence was allowed.

I just know at age 40 this is unfair and if things don't change I really am debating moving on cause I want a wife not a roommate and I want a lover, not a spouse.

But I do think that no matter what side of the traditional education debate you're on, we can envision that things can be different, that we can take different approaches and things can change.

I've read over and over again (not on this blog but on other message boards debating the same issue) that these allergy kids need to understand that they are not the centre of the universe and that they will grow up feeling entitled if everyone changes things to protect them.

Naturally we should also work with opinion leaders, since persuading bloggers, TV pundits and the like that the dominant Obamacare narrative is obsolete is the only thing that will change the broadcast - level public debate.

«The widespread belief now in the Labour party that whilst Jeremy is a good man with great Labour values who has done a lot for this party and I think changed the debate in this country about our economy, he's been right about lots of things,» he said.

He warned: «Let us remember one thing if there is a debate, if there is a leadership contest, if there is a change of leader is the British public really going to wear the Labour party carrying on in office, is it not going to ask for an immediate general election.

The only thing that is clear is that there continues to be great debate and uncertainty among these experts regarding the extent of natural climate variability versus human impacts, and what, if anything, enactment of economy - wide greenhouse gas regulations might do to alter our changing climate.

There is a real diversity of informed opinion on how important climate change is going to be to various things that affect humans, and there is a diversity of opinion on how to address this problem, but the debate over human - induced climate change is over.

In the meantime, watching the evolution of the debate over hurricanes and climate change, several things are clear.

As debate rages on about Common Core and its implementation across the nation, students are sitting in classrooms waiting for things to change.

Many things have changed, especially the demographics of the first grade classroom, since the late Jeanne Chall produced her landmark study, Learning to Read: The Great Debate in 1967.

While public control of public schools would still prevail, some things would not be up for debate; a new head of a hospital can change the slogan and reorganize the organizational chart, but she can not abolish morning rounds or change the basic standards of care.

I purchased a Kobo @ christmas time after debating between Kindle and Kobo, well what a mistake, 2 months in my rubber for page changing started to crack, I contacted customer service who said I could send it back and they would send me a new one, 1 month later the same thing happened so I contacted customer service again and asked them if they sent me a refurbished one and they said yes, I stated that when I bought it I purchased a new one not a refurb.

Whichever you think, one thing doesn't change in this debate.

The idea of student loan forgiveness has always been taken in one of two ways: An amazing policy that will help usher in a new wave of highly educated, unburdened workers, or an enormous cost for taxpayers and an ineffective policy.Whichever you think, one thing doesn't change in this debate.

Cai also arrived in Japan at the height of revisionist debates concerning Mono - ha (literally «School of Things»), a movement that had changed the course of Japanese art in the late 1960s by accepting Asia as a center, rather than periphery, of contemporary artistic practice and discourse.

It would be nonsensical to group all this together and try to name what is happening but one thing for sure is that the background conditions of art, the support structures, the connection to audiences and intellectual debates are going through revolutional change.

«The interesting thing is, that painting itself seems to offer a stage to reflect upon latest changes in technology and media, maybe as a result of all the debates and challenges it survived.

It's probably conservatives trying to seize the attack ground in view of a possible pending debate about climate change in Washington, but the chorus of denialist opinion is so coordinated and their «logic» so simple it is convincing many, even among educated people (science PhDs) who can not be bothered to look deep into things but try to form an opinion based on a few journalistic pieces.

One thing that the debate on climate has taught is that to plan for the future you have to take account of climate change.

The most alarming thing about the climate change debate is that there is still a debate.

In any case, a less contested range of climate sensitivity would help change the debate to what to do, instead of if to do any thing.

All these studies taken together show at least two things: 1) there's a considerable infusion of scientific energy into studying this topic, which is one very positive by - product of the sometimes nasty (but also extremely high profile) debate that followed the publication of the Emanuel and Webster group papers in 2005; 2) many of the precise details of how hurricanes will change in a warmer world (or have changed already) remain contested.

It may be time to do the same thing for the hybrid debate over the role of climate change in propelling food price spikes and political instability in Egypt and other turbulent places.

To improve the debate, the first thing we have to do is remove the creeping determination by the IPCC to make anthropogenic carbon emissions and the words climate change synonymous.

The phrase has stuck and indeed so has the tactic, being used in front of audiences by all manner of advocates of all manner of things from creationism to «faked» moon landings to climate change denial, where it is a popular way of appearing to be winning a debate.

She was in London recently to give evidence to the UK House of Commons Energy and Climate Change select committee, and while here, generously agreed to meet me for a quick chat about some of the things we're both particularly interested in about the climate debate.

He is, however, a very important participant in the public debate on many things including climate change and is usually proved correct over time.

And for the real climate change debate, at the core it is the uncertainty and ignorance that shape things — perhaps more than any science.

UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown said, «I think the great thing about the Commonwealth conference is that we could find nations that were rich and poor, nations that were facing directly now climate change and nations who were debating it but hadn't felt the full impact of it, all coming together to agree something that, you know, if a third of the world can agree at the Commonwealth conference, then perhaps the whole of the world can agree at Copenhagen.»

So far, here in the United States, public debate over climate change has been little more than an endless series of arcane scientific and political talking points tossed back and forth on the Internet between those who believe AGW will destroy the planet and those who believe the whole thing is a massive hoax.

This increased exposure for CDR approaches, which encompass both biological (e.g. afforestation, ecosystem restoration, land management, biochar, and bio-CCS) and chemical (e.g. direct air capture, enhanced mineral weathering) techniques — is a good thing for the climate change debate: we will likely need to have scalable, sustainable, cost - effective CDR systems as well as ways to reduce our emissions to avoid catastrophic climate change.

Beyond all these things, however, we need to get to what this debate and this climate change alarmism is really all about.

Not because you are likely to change a single mind in the first three categories, but because the people in those three categories are who we must debate with in the hopes that those in the 4th category read one or two paragraphs and actually begin to think things through for themselves based on the facts.

There are not many things I am confident about in the debate over climate change.

The only thing holding back climate change is this skewed perception that it's still something to debate about.

One thing that could go a long way in awakening voters to the true stakes surrounding climate change this election would be to ask about it at a debate.

This was seen by many as the most controversial aspect of Heartland's attempt to «influence» the debate on climate change, because it is one thing to confuse political leaders (they almost seem to enjoy it), but quite another to spread misinformation to students.

One of the most interesting things about the climate debate is that in one place it involves people arguing about point A (in this case sensitivity), by assuming that B is well known (in this case temperature change), while not far away people are hotly debating B. Most of AGW science, including F&G, is based on assuming that the surface statistical model means are facts.

Beneath all the furious arguments and billion - dollar politics of the climate change debate lies a core assertion: human industry is pumping more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which is raising the temperature of the Earth, in a way that will harm all living things.

Many negotiators tell Ecosystem Marketplace that REDD itself is no longer a contentious issue, but that things get hairy when they try to digest the decision made in Bali to expand the land - use debate from REDD alone into broader issues of «conservation, sustainable management of forests, changes in forest cover and associated carbon stocks and greenhouse gas emissions and the enhancement of forest carbon stocks to enhance action on mitigation of climate change and to the consideration of reference levels.»

I accept that your current President has made a big difference and that a lot of things have improved in various aspects of this debate e.g. changes at the EPA, the Paris nonsense, etc..

I do follow this debate from a layman's perspective and the one thing I find really confusing is why when talking about climate science / climate change and the models being used, they never talk about weather modification programs that have been going on for over 70 years around the world.

«Things being debated now are details about the models,»... «Nobody is debating any more that significant climate changes are coming.»

And while the climate debate rages on we can at least stop worrying about the safety of the one thing that could actually cause instant global climate change — thermonuclear mass destruction.