Sentences with phrase «effect go in the other direction»

Not exact matches

In four other surveys, the effect goes in the expected negative direction, even if it does not reach conventional levels of statistical significancIn four other surveys, the effect goes in the expected negative direction, even if it does not reach conventional levels of statistical significancin the expected negative direction, even if it does not reach conventional levels of statistical significance.

Our minds are scattered, move in this direction, then that one, are easily distracted by others, loud, effected by whichever direction our emotions are going, extremely gullible, impressible and needy, so needy in fact, they often all out lie to us to fill their endless desires for pleasure.

What a review shows is one hypothesis has grown through research while others were dropped, found to be going in the wrong direction, were negligable in strength and effect.

In other words, of the possible variation which Curry first suggests, off of the extreme reading that the «could be» one end of the equation = - the one that just happens to have the maximum plausible natural variability that the IPCC could even reasonably conceive, in Curry's estimation, be exactly what the natural variability here in fact IS, but then from there goes extreme again, and concludes that within her own plus minus 20 % range — guess what — IT ALSO goes in the extreme direction, away from the mean of natural variability averaging out and the change we see is our influence (which assuredly it is not, but the point is it is impossible to pinpoint any small range, though Curry here does it anyway) so that in effect IT IS 50 % to 60 % (or 70 % when she adds on that «anthropogenic is 50 % or lesIn other words, of the possible variation which Curry first suggests, off of the extreme reading that the «could be» one end of the equation = - the one that just happens to have the maximum plausible natural variability that the IPCC could even reasonably conceive, in Curry's estimation, be exactly what the natural variability here in fact IS, but then from there goes extreme again, and concludes that within her own plus minus 20 % range — guess what — IT ALSO goes in the extreme direction, away from the mean of natural variability averaging out and the change we see is our influence (which assuredly it is not, but the point is it is impossible to pinpoint any small range, though Curry here does it anyway) so that in effect IT IS 50 % to 60 % (or 70 % when she adds on that «anthropogenic is 50 % or lesin Curry's estimation, be exactly what the natural variability here in fact IS, but then from there goes extreme again, and concludes that within her own plus minus 20 % range — guess what — IT ALSO goes in the extreme direction, away from the mean of natural variability averaging out and the change we see is our influence (which assuredly it is not, but the point is it is impossible to pinpoint any small range, though Curry here does it anyway) so that in effect IT IS 50 % to 60 % (or 70 % when she adds on that «anthropogenic is 50 % or lesin fact IS, but then from there goes extreme again, and concludes that within her own plus minus 20 % range — guess what — IT ALSO goes in the extreme direction, away from the mean of natural variability averaging out and the change we see is our influence (which assuredly it is not, but the point is it is impossible to pinpoint any small range, though Curry here does it anyway) so that in effect IT IS 50 % to 60 % (or 70 % when she adds on that «anthropogenic is 50 % or lesin the extreme direction, away from the mean of natural variability averaging out and the change we see is our influence (which assuredly it is not, but the point is it is impossible to pinpoint any small range, though Curry here does it anyway) so that in effect IT IS 50 % to 60 % (or 70 % when she adds on that «anthropogenic is 50 % or lesin effect IT IS 50 % to 60 % (or 70 % when she adds on that «anthropogenic is 50 % or less.