Sentences with phrase «empirical evidence pointing»

Where's the empirical evidence pointing to anything anthropogenic?

I would suggest that the saying the absence of the hot spot in the face of other lines of empirical evidence pointing to warming would be decidedly NOT skeptical.

The only answer I can give you at this point in time is: «All empirical evidence points to «yes».

With that said, all empirical evidence points to the fact that climate science remains unsettled and that the CO2 - centric CAGW hypothesis is essentially without clothes.

Thus, they apply the reductionist assumption at its extreme, and systematically deny the empirical evidences pointing in the opposite way.

I could be wrong, but that's where the physics of CO2 points, and that's what the empirical evidence points to at the moment (no warming for a decade while CO2 continues to increase).

You seem to push this a lot, but as I say, the empirical evidence points in the other direction — a strange state of affairs, given your propensity to tell people to learn more science and your willingness to say words to the effect of «the facts speak for themselves».

Not exact matches

I don't have a ton of empirical evidence for that last point, other than the fact that hedge fund managers get paid a lot, and there is therefore no obvious lack of incentives to manage a hedge fund.

The only things that points to any «god» are lazy, underdeveloped minds like yours that just want to conveniently fill in the gap with «goddidit» instead of tracing cause after cause backward to the beginning with provable, empirical EVIDENCE.

But I pointed out that there was new evidence — from biblical studies and from various empirical studies in the human sciences, especially psychology and sociology — that completely undermined the traditional understanding of homosexuality as a chosen and changeable state.

As for failure to show that God exists, as I've asked elsewhere, just what kind of «evidence» are you looking for, and just how long do you think it is going to be before you begin to contradict yourself, when it is pointed out to you that your empirical demand for «evidence» will only take you so far when it comes to knowing anything?

Although scientists behave as if their theories are facts, often arguing ferociously against critics, key paradigms of science can shift rapidly and fundamentally when empirical evidence reaches a tipping point.

The point is that there is no way to claim one version of Bible interpretation is more correct... there is no empirical evidence to point to.

At this point Whitehead produces his oft - cited statement about empirical support «both from the evidence for peculiar instances of telepathy, and from the instinctive apprehension of a tone of feeling in ordinary social intercourse» (PR 469).

What irked Macintosh was that Wieman talked about God as «the growth of meaning and value in the world» and saw no evidence pointing to God as a person; Wieman thought that Macintosh, though starting with empirical evidence, proceeded to interpret God in terms of human wishes rather than in terms of the facts.

You're more likely to win people over by pointing to empirical evidence rather than screaming «that's racist!»

As others have also pointed out there is a wealth of empirical evidence that supports the fact that infants who sleep better have better child - mother interactions (i.e. http://www.jaacap.com/article/S0890-8567 (09) 64116 - 2 / abstract)- again, more references can be provided upon request.

Incidentally (and that's really only incidental to my point), that's not really a matter of opinion or unknowable, there is empirical evidence and models that performed quite well.

Others, like me, are convinced that no theoretical or empirical evidence exists for such a claim, and that a widespread belief in the existence of such a point of no return threatens to push ecological science and its application in the wrong direction.

While DeSantis does not rule out the possibility that human activity might have contributed, she pointed out that there's no empirical evidence that they did.

But what if the absence of empirical evidence for such an infinitely dense, physics - defying point bothers you?

We have some evidence that a teaching model may be more powerful in the long run, but the empirical data are not entirely compelling at this point in time.

At any point over at least the last 50 years, a synthesis of available empirical evidence would have suggested, quite unambiguously, that students having difficulty at school, especially those disadvantaged by their socioeconomic backgrounds, learn more when they are working in heterogeneous rather than in homogeneous ability groups (e.g., Oakes, 1985; Yonezawa, Wells, and Serna, 2002).

Still, others point out that there is no empirical evidence to support the economics argument that school choice fosters productive competition among schools.

This means that administrators who use these measures for high - stakes purposes could be confronted by teachers who could rightly argue, and point to empirical evidence, that their ranking would have been different under different assumptions.

And I must insist, because this is the most important point of all: there's no compelling empirical evidence that increasing student mobility improves student outcomes.

Well, where are the scientific understanding and empirical evidence to determine 350 ppm is the starting point?

A point that comes across in the book is that these models shouldn't be trusted without significant empirical evidence, particularly when policy is being based on them.

The point Pekka is trying to make is that it can be measured indirectly but its impact can not be proven without empirical evidence.

Deniers repeatedly ask for empirical evidence, yet must be failing badly at communicating that this is the crucial point because none of the esteemed lead authors of IPCC working Group I seem to have realized that this paltry point is all that is needed....

The starting point should be simple physical models backed up by empirical evidence.

Over the last couple of weeks, I've seen four major reports (details over the fold) from very different sources, all making the same point: decarbonizing the world economy will involve economic costs that are (a) small; and (b) far outweighed by the benefits And, the empirical evidence so far is strong.

IOW we have no empirical measurement of the magnitude of GHG radiative forcing This point is the ONLY one you have raised that even comes close to providing empirical evidence that CO2 is a GHG (which I am not disputing), BUT this provides NO empirical evidence to support IPCC's CAGW premise.

Perhaps manacker will be so thick as to prove his point by asserting that this is not empirical evidence, or that this is not like Feynman would like, or that his own ignorance is better than any of this.

You have given me a lot of verbiage and most recently a list of items, which I have gone through point by point to demonstrate to you that you have provided no empirical evidence to support the IPCC CAGW claim (as I outlined it for you, based on the AR4 report).

I point to the absence of any * empirical evidence * for any other energetically sufficient forcing that could account for the observations.

Your latest waffle of 220 words again misses the point, getting into a discussion of whether CAGW is a «premise» or «conclusion», musing about the semantic difference between a «forecast» and a «projection» and citing a post on a Roger Pielke Jr. blogsite about «predictions», but NOT citing the empirical scientific evidence to support the IPCC premise of CAGW.

Forgive me if I point out that I see no empirical evidence for any supposed recent sea ice «recovery» on the Atlantic side of the Arctic:

At this point in time, the satellite empirical evidence is significantly more trustworthy as it does not suffer from the constant monthly historical revisions that both NOAA and NASA perform on their respective temperature datasets.

Clearly, as the critics point out, this revision is not based on any known physical science principles, nor on any new empirical evidence, but instead on a political agenda that demands «scientists» find more global warming, pronto, for the Paris 2015 climate elite bureaucrats hookup extravaganza.

Unfortunately for the Pope, James Hansen and other hysterical climate doomsday soothsayers, the real world empirical evidence clearly shows that the world's climate is self - correcting and not prone to those scary predicted tipping points and runaway disasters from growing atmospheric CO2 levels.

We've been told by the climate experts that increases in atmospheric CO2 levels will cause Earth to warm rapidly and dangerously, to the point where civilization's existence was threatened... but what if these «experts» were completely wrong and there is actual empirical evidence to prove them wrong?

Other Republican candidates should gleefully (and aggressively) point out that Huntsman is indeed «crazy» because he refuses to accept the latest climate research and empirical evidence that proves natural forces are the primary forces driving warming and climate change, not the trace gas CO2.

The AGW hypothesis of tipping point, climate positive feedback is proven false after decades of zero empirical evidence supporting it.

In the summary of Chapter 7, one can read that the effects of variation in solar radiation are negligible You seem to miss the whole point.: «The Chapter 7 authors are admitting strong evidence («many empirical relationships») for enhanced solar forcing (forcing beyond total solar irradiance, or TSI), even if they don't know what the mechanism is.»

Despite the evidence of the public's growing dismissal of alarmism, and the indisputable empirical evidence that the IPCC «climate experts» and their models have been abysmally wrong for a very long time, along comes a «scientist» like Myles Allen, confirming for all that scientific honesty is now at a low point convincingly within the Twilight Zone.

I have pointed out to docrichard that I am rationally skeptical of the IPCC CAGW premise as outlined in AR4, which is based on a mean value for 2xCO2 ECS of 3.2 C, as this premise and the ECS estimate upon which it is based is not corroborated by empirical scientific evidence (Feynman)

This is Girma's point, and it is pretty hard to invalidate based on empirical evidence, as you will have to admit.

It is pure speculation at this point with no empirical evidence to narrow it further.

Note for Alarmists: there is no point saying the IAMs say so or SCC so estimated $ 37 / t CO2 or whatever unless you can show the empirical evidence to calibrate the damage functions used in the IAMs or other models.