I don't think anyone is going to
conclude much of anything from that bit of political theater.
Since it's some balance of the two (with an uncertain split) it is extremely difficult to simply use medieval temperatures to
conclude much of anything.
Not exact matches
I
concluded at the time
of the riots that
of all the things the government now needed to do, it was the married family which most urgently needed to be rebuilt: I was and remain as certain
of that as
anything I have ever written, and I have been saying it repeatedly for over 20 years: I was saying it, for instance, when I was attacking (in The Mail and also The Telegraph), as it went through the Commons, the parliamentary bill which became that disastrous piece
of (Tory) legislation called the Children Act 1989, which abolished parental rights (substituting for them the
much weaker «parental responsibility»), which encouraged parents not to spend too
much time with their children, which even, preposterously, gave children the right to take legal action against theirparents for attempting to discipline them, which made it «unlawful for a parent or carer to smack their child, except where this amounts to «reasonable punishment»;» and which specified that «Whether a «smack» amounts to reasonable punishment will depend on the circumstances
of each case taking into consideration factors like the age
of the child and the nature
of the smack.»
If they can't think
of anything they saw, heard, or smelled, and don't know all that
much about how perceptual bias works, they might just
conclude that some invisible threat was actually present.
Look at the way she depicts a face in a classical manner or purposefully places globs
of dried paint on the canvas, and you are likely to
conclude that she can do
anything she wants with paint and pretty
much does.
If I attempt to put myself in the position
of a robot from Mars who doesn't know
anything about the climate change debate except that it seems important to humans, I don't believe I could
conclude that anyone was «taken to the cleaners» in this exchange (assuming a robot from Mars knows what that expression means:) I think I'd have to
conclude that both participants were framing the issue in different ways and so there wasn't a meeting
of minds, nor any change
of the needle by either one on the attitudes
of the other, nor likely
much to help inform locals who were just as mystified by the debate as I was.
As for the second prong, CS
concludes (read their full analysis here) that Prius owners aren't spending the money they save on gas
much differently than money any
of save on
anything else — sure some
of it goes towards carbon - intensive activities, but that fraction is hardly enough to come anywhere close to negating the energy savings earned by the fuel efficient auto.