Sentences with phrase «claim deniers arguments»

Not exact matches

The claim of privileged access is not saved by arguing that each of us intuitively grasps this self without analysis or argument, that each of us singly grasps the essence of experience in this intuition, and that the analysis or argument is required only (1) to call it to the attention of those who have not noticed it, or (2) to defend the claim of such an intuition against those who deny it for no or bad reasons, or (3) to develop its implications and describe its content.

It seems that opponents of raising the PA are now reduced to denying that the policy actually exists in the form that Clegg claims it does and the party website claims it does in order to maintain their argument.

Apple has vehemently denied conspiring with publishing industry heavyweights to artificially inflate ebook pricing, countering Department of Justice claims that Steve Jobs attempted price fixing with the argument that Apple and the rights holders were in fact strongly opposed throughout negotiations.

A California federal judge Tuesday denied Valve Corp.'s bid to dismiss or transfer a suit alleging it infringed lip - sync animation technology, rebuffing the video game company's claim that it didn't have an improper venue argument until the U.S. Supreme Court's recent TC...

Here, «it was very well known» and «proved by countless experiments» and the general «handwave to the past authority of Arrhenius / Tyndall / Fourier», enough to «prove they were right», while refusing to fetch any of these claimed empirical studies — those denying the Dogma were being successfully marginalised further by this wave of supercilious blocking of arguments from AGWs all the while they were hypocrically proclaiming their repulsion to the blocking of discussion on the science and objecting to the malpractices such as hiding open access of data.

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.

If that's the case then Nova's argument here collapses because she can't represent you all and claim you are not denying anything.

Similarly, Monbiot claims that climate change deniers — the ones he compares nuclear sceptics to — have not produced their scientific arguments from an objective, transparent, impartial basis; they are driven by a commitment to a «free - market ideology», or more straightforwardly, by their lust for profit.

By misrepresenting this, Jeff and others are attempting to frame the argument in such a way as to claim that skeptics are denying any influence of CO2 whatever.

There is no doubt that you claimed that climate modeling efforts are NOT science, and yet you deny that you have made a philosophy of science argument.

The point of the paper was not to rehash all the scientific arguments that establish HIV as the cause of AIDS or to rebut all the claims of HIV deniers.

Considering what a mess the Monday testimony and lawyer argument on the effect of the new claim construction was (because, frankly, both parties had previously hedged their bets as they didn't know what the appeals court would do), the jury is probably now very confused about it (and Judge Koh did the right thing by denying both parties» motions for judgment as a matter of law since there are reasonable arguments for and against infringement, for and against validity).

Further, Wife's attorney did not cross-examine Husband with respect to the exact amount of the capital loss tax credit when he denied the $ 75,000 figure, and conceded in his closing argument that Wife was claiming half of a $ 37,070 capital loss carry forward.

Magistrate Judge Grewal denied certain Samsung motions related to Apple expert reports on the alleged infringement of the» 381 patent, tbe alleged invalidity of the» 711 patent, the alleged non-infringement of the» 711 patent, an expert report on damages, an expert report on the importance of design to consumers (a cornerstone of Apple's argument in this case), and certain trade dress claims.

If they can find a reason to believe that you were at fault and responsible for the accident, then they will do exactly that in order to deny your claim for damages — and they use lots of arguments to support their position.

Although the court here denied the First Amendment claim they upheld the student's impermissibly vague argument, but also held that even if a student is disciplined for accessing a site at school they must still meet the substantial disruption test in Tinker.

Numerous courts castigated the company for unscrupulous tactics, nonsensical legal arguments, and lack of objectivity amounting to bad faith in denying claims.

Defendant finally argued the time records were incomplete / unreliable, but the appellate court dispatched this one by noting this factor was used to deny a requested lodestar enhancement by plaintiff's counsel such that the defense did get some traction on this argument, but traction already factored in by the lower court in reducing claimed fees.

Justice Humphries Dismissed WestJet's arguments and denied its application to strike the claim paving the way for the claim to be heard on its merits.

The trial court also rejected plaintiff's argument that our client was judicially estopped to deny plaintiff's entitlement to fees because our client (unsuccessfully) claimed fees earlier in the litigation.

It is unfortunate that the legal rights aspect of their case would not be eligible for funding under the old CCP, and that funding could be denied altogether if the panel viewed the s. 15 argument as unmeritorious — regardless of the strength of the other Charter claims.