The studies have been posted over and over for this, and the one «study» I saw attempting to show prayer worked was flawed to the degree that the «researchers» had
changed their study premise AFTER collecting the data: a serious intellectual honesty flaw.
Not exact matches
If you
study the conservative approach to climate
change policy long enough, the implication that they are trying to participate in a scientific conversation starts to fade away and you realize the underlying logic they are using actually starts from the conclusion that regulation and government intervention are bad and proceeds to the
premise that there is no real problem with climate
change, at which point, they pick around for snippets to support their
premise.
After a series of
studies conducted last November and December, Luntz concluded that most people do believe climate
change is real, but aren't necessarily going to support sweeping legislation on that
premise alone.
The charts provide ample factual proof, along with the
study's own
premise, that our modern climate
change is not unprecedented.
In response, the first category attempts to provide evidence to support the above - stated AGW
premise, whether from recent climate
change or from paleo - climate
studies.
Going back to the original
premise of this piece, that
change is needed, a new Georgetown Law's Center for the
Study of the Legal Profession states,
But advocates of the tax
change disagree with the
study's basic
premise.