Sentences with phrase «happen by consensus»

«It must not bully them into doing this - serious improvements can only happen by consensus,» he said.

Not exact matches

The usual assertions are (1) that this kind of religion is today on the defensive; (2) that the defensive posture is occasioned by the flourishing of «conservative churches» (although the alleged liberal enervation is also seen in more autonomous terms); (3) that the growth in religious conservatism and conservative churches is itself the result of widespread reaction against «secular humanist» values and against those who hold such values; (4) that our society as a whole has been experiencing a breakdown in moral consensus, a loss of moral coherence somehow connected with a decline in oldline Protestant dominance; and (5) that some or all of these happenings have been quite sudden, so that the early 1960s can be taken as a kind of benchmark — as a time before the fall.

At its heart is a theological core shaped by the trinitarian and christological consensus of the early church, the formal and material principles of the Reformation, the missionary movement that grew out of the Great Awakening, and the new stirrings of the Spirit that indicate «surprising works of God» are still happening in the world today.

By 1980, however, the somewhat chastened magazine acknowledged he was not: «God is making a comeback Most intriguingly, this is happening not among theologians or ordinary believers — most of whom never accepted for a moment that he was in any serious trouble — but in the crisp, intellectual circles of academic philosophers, where the consensus had long banished the Almighty from fruitful discourse.»

It is surprising to me that it is often the activists who speak up in support of the scientific consensus around climate change (i.e. that there is overwhelming scientific evidence that climate change is induced by humans and is happening), who are the same activists who don't accept the scientific consensus and evidence that shows that GM crops can be safe.

The consensus is that Russia influenced the US election in Trump's favor (by eg hacking his political opponents and strategically using that information to influence public opinion; this may or may not have happened in coordination with some people from the Trump campaign).

And the number who denied the scientific consensus that human - caused climate change is happening declined by 10 percentage points among Catholics and 6 points among the US population in general.

Then argue for immediate overwhelming action since when of course the higher temperatures will naturally happen that will then naturally average out the entire relevant temperature record to the long - term middle - range amounts predicted by the consensus of the world's best climate science, well, it'll be pretty bad.

In 1998, Tony Lupo boasted that climate skeptics outnumbered the consensus view that global warming is happening and caused by people, proclaiming, «there is no scientific consensus whether global warming is a fact and is occurring.»

Opinions about the worst developments in 2010 — as viewed by those who voted in the Ednext poll — were sharply defined, while little consensus formed around the good that happened last year.

oit is with indignation that we are speaking othis document is not acceptable • Bolivia owe have learned about this document through the media, not through you onow we are given 60 minutes to accept something already agreed upon by other states owe are seeing actions in a dictatorial way othis is unacceptable and anti-democratic owe say to the people of the world: they shall judge upon it othe rights of our people are not being respected owe are not going to decide about so many lives in only 60 minutes othis is s group of a small number of countries oAPPLAUS • Cuba o4 hours ago Obama announced an agreement which is non-existant owe is behaving like an emperor owe have seen version being discussed by secretive groups in the last hours and days oCuba will not accept your draft declaration oat this conference, there is no consensus on this document oI associate my voice to Tuvalu, Venezuela, Bolivia othe target of 2 degrees is unacceptable o... • Costa Rica ofor the reasons that we have heard, this document can not be considered the work of the AWG - LCA and can not be considered by the COP othis can only be an INF doc, it's just for information oadditional question: in an earlier version, a CP.15 - decision, para. 1: there was a reference to a legally binding instrument to be adopted by the COP onow: we have a new version, but the reference to legally binding instrument disappeared • USA o [wants to speak, but point of order by Nicaragua] • Nicaragua othere is already a precedent where we have not been given the right to speech onow that you have mentioned we finally want to speak • Pres. [moving on] oUS does not appear on my list any more, so next one is Sudan • Sudan othere must be something horribly wrong here oI pushed the button when I saw Nicaragua raising their sign in order to support them • Nicaragua othis is a deterioration of the democratic system oand this happens at the most important conference of the UN for many years owe have draft decisions about how to carry forward the process ostates (lists names) have written a submission: • this has not followed the basic principles of the UN • inclusion • bottom up processes • democratic participation • equality of states oduring this consequence, many states expressed their position against such approaches othe only agreement we recognize is??

I found the «science community was shocked» comment by Rahmstorf to be very illuminating; that is what happens when you do «consensus» science rather than focusing on the uncertainties and challenging your science.

JC comments:» I found the «science community was shocked» comment by Rahmstorf to be very illuminating; that is what happens when you do «consensus» science rather than focusing on the uncertainties and challenging your science.»

As the scientific consensus strengthens by the day that climate change is happening now, that carbon pollution is causing it and must be regulated, the denial machine is getting increasingly shrill.

The Committee found no reason in this inquiry to challenge the scientific consensus as expressed by Professor Beddington, the Government Chief Scientific Adviser, that «global warming is happening [and] that it is induced by human activity».

A new survey conducted by a team of volunteers at Skeptical Science has definitively confirmed the scientific consensus in climate science literature - 97 percent of peer - reviewed papers agree that global warming is happening and human activities are responsible.

«He simply disagrees with the substance of my testimony — which is based on peer - reviewed research funded by the US taxpayer, and which also happens to be the consensus of the IPCC (despite Holdren's incorrect views).»

«A favourite ploy by [Anthropogenic Global Warming] alarmists is to repeat ad infinitem that the science about AGW has been settled and that there is consensus among scientists that it is happening and that it will have cataclysmic consequences for our planet,» writes Gerrit J. van der Lingen in the National Business Review.

If that happens, it will build on the growing consensus that climate models can't accurately predict squat, and should not be relied upon by policymakers for any reason - good for research but really terrible for reality - based policy.

but rather, because he needs us to agree with his misanthropic policy wish list — by convincing us, somehow, that because there is only one «scientific consensus» there is therefore (and here the «fraud» happens) only one answer — his and his ilk's — which, however he parses, means an attack on the present development and therefore well being of the developed and the underdeveloped of this world.

Gavin Schmidt can parse his words and insist on his «interpretation» as much as he wishes but his meaning is absolutely clear — despite his «uncertainty» post made after «climategate» had outed him: that global warming is happening, that this is caused, in the main, by human made GHGs, that, if mankind does not halt these GHGs, catastrophe will follow and that this is «settled science» and the «consensus».

«We have found no reason in this unfortunate episode to challenge the scientific consensus as expressed by Professor (John) Beddington, that «global warming is happening [and] that it is induced by human activity».»

We reuse all of the good ideas from Bitcoin and then we add this layer of encryption so that the payment of Zcash from one user to the next is included in the global replicated ledger for integrity (the recipient of the money can be sure that the payment has happened) and it's part of the global consensus but it's encrypted so no one else can learn of your behaviour by looking at the ledger except for authorised parties who you have given the decryption key to.