Sentences with phrase «implies fact and evidence»

Not exact matches

The phrase «starting to see some evidence» implies that the truth of the hypothesis is in fact a foregone conclusion, and it's just a matter of time before we find real evidence that supports its.

«[In the absence of] any direct evidence of conspiracy, the government's complaint is necessarily based entirely on the little circumstantial evidence it was able to locate during its extensive investigation, on which it piles innuendo on top of innuendo, stretches facts and implies actions that did not occur and Macmillan denies unequivocally.»

The government, said Macmillan's response (pdf), found a «lack of direct evidence of conspiracy», and its complaint is therefore «based entirely on the little circumstantial evidence it was able to locate during its extensive investigation, on which it piles innuendo on top of innuendo, stretches facts and implies actions that did not occur and which Macmillan denies unequivocally».

In fact, we are told, that over 70 % of the mutual funds fail to beat the market, presenting this as an evidence to somehow imply, in some convoluted logic, that we are better off handing over our money to the same mutual funds and invest passively, rather than take control of our own portfolio.

In fact, this report does nothing more than imply a causal link between predation by cats and declining bird species — providing nothing in the way of evidence.

As I recall, they reviewed maybe as many as 200 peer reviewed papers from all over the place, and reached a conclusion that the MWP and the LIA were not «Northern Hemisphere» phenomena, as Michael Mann tried to imply in his hockey stick graph, but were in fact true global events, with evidence for that coming from all over the place.

In fact, there was good evidence that the disappearance had been taking place since the nineteenth century, and had nothing at all to do with us driving cars — as implied in the film.

Let me lay out a further deduction for you «experts» who continue to thoughtlessly dismiss the definitive evidence, which is required to correct and advance climate science from this point on, and for the benefit of interested laypersons (and the all - capitals doesn't imply yelling, just what I have learned is a necessary emphasis, to get you to focus upon the facts — YOU ARE INCREDIBLY STUPID, ALL OF YOU, AND YOU DO NOT DESERVE TO CALL YOURSELVES, OR BE EMPLOYED AS, SCIENTISTS, MUCH LESS EXPERand advance climate science from this point on, and for the benefit of interested laypersons (and the all - capitals doesn't imply yelling, just what I have learned is a necessary emphasis, to get you to focus upon the facts — YOU ARE INCREDIBLY STUPID, ALL OF YOU, AND YOU DO NOT DESERVE TO CALL YOURSELVES, OR BE EMPLOYED AS, SCIENTISTS, MUCH LESS EXPERand for the benefit of interested laypersons (and the all - capitals doesn't imply yelling, just what I have learned is a necessary emphasis, to get you to focus upon the facts — YOU ARE INCREDIBLY STUPID, ALL OF YOU, AND YOU DO NOT DESERVE TO CALL YOURSELVES, OR BE EMPLOYED AS, SCIENTISTS, MUCH LESS EXPERand the all - capitals doesn't imply yelling, just what I have learned is a necessary emphasis, to get you to focus upon the facts — YOU ARE INCREDIBLY STUPID, ALL OF YOU, AND YOU DO NOT DESERVE TO CALL YOURSELVES, OR BE EMPLOYED AS, SCIENTISTS, MUCH LESS EXPERAND YOU DO NOT DESERVE TO CALL YOURSELVES, OR BE EMPLOYED AS, SCIENTISTS, MUCH LESS EXPERTS.

An elemental question begs to be corroborated in more than one way for sheer fairness: When the main pushers of the idea that the «reposition global warming» phrase insinuate it is proof of an industry - led disinformation effort employing crooked skeptic climate scientists — Naomi Oreskes saying it indicates a plot to supply «alternative facts,» Gelbspan saying it is a crime against humanity, and Al Gore implying it is a cynical oil company effort — are they truly oblivious to the necessity of corroborating whether or not that phrase and the memo subset it came from actually had widespread corrupting influence, or did they push this «evidence» with malice knowing it was worthless?

What I see as the problem is that their p and q values when propagating upwards in the tree don't seem to be weighted, implying that physical evidence at a given input stage is equal to opinion evidence in another input stage (given the fact that this is software, I'm guessing it can't tell which evidence is factual vs opinion.)

Joseph P. Day Realty Corp. v. Chera (308 A.D. 2d 148)- broker's complaint for commissions reinstated where questions of fact exist as to whether broker was the procuring cause of a commercial tenant and if there was an implied contract which arose from landlord's acceptance of the benefits of broker's services; broker must plead and prove a contract of employment, express or implied, and in the absence of an express contract, an implied contract may be established in some cases by the mere acceptance of the labors of the broker; broker failed to establish that it was a third party beneficiary of lease agreement between landlord and tenant where provisions in lease merely provided for indemnification between the parties and did not expressly set forth that one party would be obligated to pay the broker's commission; indemnification provisions in the lease agreement do provide evidence of implied contract of employment with landlord where landlord agreed to indemnify tenant against brokerage commission claims from all brokers including plaintiff and where, to the contrary, tenant's reciprocal indemnification excluded plaintiff; triable issues of fact exist as to whether broker was the procuring cause where broker introduced the parties, showed the space to tenant's representatives, was involved in weekly negotiations with the parties over the lease terms, conveyed offers on behalf of tenant to landlord and participated in the meeting with the landlord and tenant at which the lease terms were finalized