Sentences with phrase «conclusion than the analyses»

This is a vastly different conclusion than the analyses that have been touted in the news media and by various special interest organizations, such as the Utah Foundation and Education Week.

Not exact matches

CONCLUSION: While this topic was not covered on TSLA's 1Q18 conference call last night (our analysis on this call will be published shortly), given Autopilot is among the main key drivers of TSLA's current valuation, and the «Autopilot was found by the U.S. government to reduce crash rates by as much as 40 %» line has been used by TSLA time - and - time again, we feel this development could prove more important than the company's earnings conference call yesterday.

Moreover, we took into account statistical analyses of the John Jay findings, including the fact that only 149 priests accounted for more than a quarter of all accusations, that can lead to the conclusion that the sex abuse crisis was significantly exaggerated.

I'm not saying this loose poll is a statistically sound analysis, but it provides much more evidence to support a conclusion than your religion does.

Frum's analysis rings true, but his conclusion is less than persuasive.

To test our hypothesis that studies with food industry sponsorship would be more likely to have favorable conclusions than those without industry sponsorship, we conducted a meta - analysis using Review Manager 5.3 software (Cochrane Collaboration).

After analysis hve cme to the conclusion that any player who has stayed more than 5 years needs to be sold.

Had the aim of this analysis been to identify characteristics associated with PPH, clearly these covariates would have been included (as would many of the maternities excluded from the analysis as described earlier), so it would not be appropriate to use these results to draw conclusions about the association between PPH and covariates other than intended place of birth.

The most important conclusion that we draw from our analyses of the 2006 and 2010 elections is that in the course of the 2000s, insiders became increasingly less likely than outsiders to support the center - left.

Here is where linguistic methods inevitably rely on interpretation of human readers of texts, rather than statistical measurement, so I would be foolish to draw any strong conclusions from such a basic analysis of two speeches.

Their data set had many more ornithischians — the group that includes Stegosaurus and Triceratops — than other such analyses; one of the conclusions of that study was that theropods and ornithischians were more closely related than once thought.

This conclusion is bolstered by the authors» analysis of data from a neighboring population of the same species, which revealed that females that bred in groups had a 30 % lower mortality rate than those that bred in pairs.

That's the conclusion of an analysis of satellite observations of more than 10,000 lakes in Siberia.

Had the author conducted a proper analysis of the role of the submarine today, rather than its former illustrious forbears of the Second World War, I suspect that he would have reached a different conclusion.

Because the meta - analysis comprises a much larger sample size than any individual study, it provides greater statistical certainty in conclusions.

An analysis of studies published in 2012 however came to the conclusion that 5 - HTP is no better than a placebo.

The FDA findings also reached similar conclusions to the independent analysis by the Chicago Tribune, with face cream tested by the agency containing mercury up to 131,000 times more than the allowable level.

From start to conclusion, Sex and Death 101 is an exercise in wheel - spinning hijinks much more than any analysis.

Their analysis of student achievement in New York City middle schools confirms parents» conclusion that children learn more if they stay in an elementary - school setting through grade 8 than if they move to a stand - alone middle school.

The findings, released last week, emerged from an analysis of data that yielded a different conclusion a little more than a year ago.

In fact, we come to the same conclusion in both analyses: the expected increase in student outcomes after the hurricanes due to population change is no more than 0.02 to 0.06 standard deviations, or about 10 percent of the difference - in - differences estimates in Figure 1.

A more recent meta - analysis by Kurt VanLehn that revisits Bloom's conclusion suggests that the effect size of human tutoring seems to be more around 0.79 standard deviations than the widely publicized 2 standard deviation figure.

At the other end, several recent analyses by serious investors have reached the opposite conclusion: that the market is no more than modestly pricey, if that.

I have a PS4 Slim and after viewing Digital Foundry 4Pro Analysis... I come to the conclusion if I want my AAA games in 4K or close to It's better to look elsewhere than the Pro.

A byproduct of the above analysis is the conclusion that future global warming can be predicted much more accurately than is generally realized.

The new analysis, which has not yet gone through peer review, appears to strongly undercut the widely cited conclusion by Robert Howarth of Cornell that leakage and other issues make natural gas a greater greenhouse threat than coal.

Maybe in that sense, I am an Empirical Bayesian, but I get very uncomfortable when I have a Prior that qualitatively changes the conclusions of the analysis, AND my data are not dominant AND I have no good physics motivated reason for choosing a prior with very different characteristics than my data.

This paper builds on a massive data analysis that has been heavily vetted for more than a year, but pushes into new terrain with particularly strong conclusions about the human forces driving warming.

The simple conclusion from your analysis would seem to say that the radiation intensity of say the 15um band through the atmosphere would not diminish (other than by the inverse square.)

I appreciate that RC is intended to provide a more technical analysis than other blogs, but I skimmed that article once and then read it properly and I'm still not certain what conclusion I'm supposed to draw — or even if there is one.

[The main conclusion of this analysis is that sea level uncertainty is not smaller now than it was at the time of the TAR, and that quoting the 18 - 59 cm range of sea level rise, as many media articles have done, is not telling the full story.

And if the scientific conclusion is so sensitive to statistical procedure, then I would look at the assumptions defining that theory, rather than getting bogged down in yet another statistical analysis to prove or disprove it.

What we haven't seen is any substantive analysis of the body of research saying anything different than the conclusions in AR5 or as the site you cited says:

It focussed on the Analysis, rather than either the Discussion and Conclusions»

It focussed on the Analysis, rather than either the Discussion and Conclusions; it falsely accused us of saying that the IPCC 4AR did not say something when our paper actually cited the 4AR and described what it said; and it deceitfully tried to claim that a Figure was flawed.

For the entire Northern Hemisphere, there is evidence of an increase in both storm frequency and intensity during the cold season since 1950,1 with storm tracks having shifted slightly towards the poles.2, 3 Extremely heavy snowstorms increased in number during the last century in northern and eastern parts of the United States, but have been less frequent since 2000.11,15 Total seasonal snowfall has generally decreased in southern and some western areas, 16 increased in the northern Great Plains and Great Lakes region, 16,17 and not changed in other areas, such as the Sierra Nevada, although snow is melting earlier in the year and more precipitation is falling as rain versus snow.18 Very snowy winters have generally been decreasing in frequency in most regions over the last 10 to 20 years, although the Northeast has been seeing a normal number of such winters.19 Heavier - than - normal snowfalls recently observed in the Midwest and Northeast U.S. in some years, with little snow in other years, are consistent with indications of increased blocking (a large scale pressure pattern with little or no movement) of the wintertime circulation of the Northern Hemisphere.5 However, conclusions about trends in blocking have been found to depend on the method of analysis, 6 so the assessment and attribution of trends in blocking remains an active research area.

Social science is more subjective, the data more open to interpretation, the analysis more open to the challenge that the conclusions represent mere opinion rather than cold, hard fact.

The first conclusion is that the total uncertainty is larger than that presented in either analysis unless we really have valid reasons to use a specific prior.

Doe this mean that the National Research Council should / will revisit their conclusion: «Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium»???

Even so the only mainstream media on the first page was this from the Guardian, which is more an analysis of the methodology than its conclusions - and a reprint of a Spiegel piece from the GWPF, which unsurprisingly talks (ironically?)

These were: the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) hypothesis is invalid from a scientific viewpoint because it fails a number of critical comparisons with available observable data, the draft TSD was seriously dated and the updates made to an abortive 2007 version of the draft TSD used to prepare it were inadequate, and EPA should conduct an independent analysis of the science of global warming rather than adopting the conclusions of outside groups such as the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and U.S. Government reports based on IPCC's reports.

I see no analysis that gets you to that conclusion, other than the conclusion itself.

As the authors wrote, «These inconsistencies are so important and sufficiently abstruse that in our view EPA needs to make an independent analysis of the science of global warming rather than adopting the conclusions of the IPCC and CCSP without much more careful and independent EPA staff review than is evidenced by the Draft TSP.»

These are complicated methods being discussed and a lot of it is more than just proper method; it involves proper interpretation of what methods are applicable, how to apply them, and what conclusions can be drawn about the analysis drawn from them.

Anyone who made this check would have to come to the conclusion that there are not enough skeptical analyses coming into print, rather than the opposite point of view from folks like James Hansen and Al Gore that skeptics are harming the process and need to shut up.

I thought his preference was based on the conclusions he could draw from it (avoiding stuff that gave the «wrong» message), rather than a rigorous scientific analysis.

Similarly, when one examines the papers of some of the contrarian signers, one is struck by how often the background and conclusion sections go way beyond what can be supported by the analysis (which is itself often less than compelling).

2) your reporting only of storms whose intensity should be higher (e.g. cat 4 and not 3), while not mentioning storms that went the other way (e.g. cat 4 to cat 3), particularly in view of Bruce Harper's earlier analysis, lends your analysis subject to the suspicion that you have started with a conclusion and then analyzed and reported the data solely to support the conclusion, rather than presented an unbiased analysis.

If I showed that GDP growth in a single month under Obama was less than the average over 66 years under Ramses II, and tried to draw some conclusion from that, I think someone might challenge my analysis.

Therefore they have decided to support the application of the precautionary principle by stating the uncertainties as less than any objective systematic analysis can support and using subjective judgments as a more reliable basis for quantitative conclusions than they really are.