Sentences with phrase «just accept the paper»

Not exact matches

You know what?The SENILE FOOL probably can't read the papers due to him continually dribbling down his chin.I honestly despise this Manager.I will never accept that he is able to do his job anymore.He is like that grumpy old uncle you never got a present from at Xmas.Fergie was still rebuilding his sides at Wengers age.He refused to allow himself to be considered as an also ran.Wenger now just has nothing left to offer.

The difference between the way I see the Daily Express and Daily Mail, and the way people who don't like Untold see Untold, is that I just accept that the Express and Mail, fanatical right wing papers that they are, are not going to be changed by me moaning about them.

The De Blasio camp was surprised when the Times took Cuomo's side on dropping the tax increase, urging the mayor to «accept the offer and declare political victory» just two days after the paper had emphatically endorsed the educational goals of mayor's pre-k push.

The commenter also noted that «in the paper, it is recorded that the journal Cell accepted this paper just 4 days after submission.»

Pathogens & Immunity, which has just started to accept submissions, has «reasonable flexibility» about the length of the papers, he adds.

«It took just 6 weeks for this paper to be accepted, and I think that's inadequate,» he says.

Just like any other paper, you will be required to follow step by step instructions in developing a custom college research papers that would be accepted by your university or college.

Here's part of the problem: Scientists are human, just like you and me, and they occasionally defend wrong ideas because they propagated in a time where some novel but wrong papers / books were written, and seemed right at the time, and the consensus accepted them, because it agreed with their biases.

James Kanter and I have a story in today's paper about a new tack by the Bush administration aimed at clarifying, for Europe particularly, that the United States is not opposed to any new climate treaty — just all of the formulations that have bubbled up since 1992, when the first global pact was accepted by nearly all countries (it was signed by the first President Bush).

This point is further driven home by a another paper just accepted in Geophysical Research Letters by Colorado State University's Elizabeth Barnes.

You have just stated that the paper is not what it claims to be and what it has been widely accepted to be.

Soon and Baliunas just showed there was a mountain of evidence for the medieval warm period and other natural climate variability in history — a very good paper that is now accepted by climate science as more indicative of what actually occured in climate history.....

It appears to me that you think we should just ignore the very many warts, abrasions, stress fractures and totally broken portions this paper, which in the end says very little, and accept it as its conclusions, because the conclusions are plausibly correct.

The Journal of the American Statistical Association still publishes good papers supporting a skeptical / lukewarmist position (as does the AAAS's Science Magazine), but I expect that the board of the ASA has just raised the bar for accepting studies not supportive of the consensus.

I have just had a paper accepted for publication in the Proceedings of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, to appear in a special issue on climate change and urban areas.

I would suggest the important point to accept, for most commenators on this blog, of the Santer paper is not so much the figure of 17 years, which I would agree is probably debatable, but that the concentration on annual figures which we see in «it hasn't warmed since 1998» type arguments is just a nonsense.

This paper just shows that using the «accepted» guesses, that the «accepted» methodology shows that the modeled guesses are high by a factor of nearly 2.

Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer - reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic.

As I have repeated, one paper can be a fraud or bad and slip through peer review so it is not wise to just accept the claims of any given paper.

Can I assume that you have a really hard time accepting the fact that scientists identified a 6 - year - pause in Arctic sea ice decline in a peer - reviewed paper... and I have just extended their pause - plot another 4 years?

You can be like most AGW assholes and bury your head in the warm sand, or you can be like many money grubbing AGW climate modelers who could not find their way out of a paper bag with scissors and a match, or you can accept that I just laid out the absolute fact to you.

It's like when your paper is finally accepted after many rounds of peer review and you're so tired of the whole thing that you're just happy to see the back of it.

Just as scientists would not accept the findings in a scientific paper without seeing the primary data, so should they not rely on Thomson Scientific's impact factor, which is based on hidden data.

If that number is for instance 80 pages, it can accept 10 8 - page papers, or just one with all the intermediate steps included.

I'm happy to say that I'm a co-author on a paper that examines this technique and its robustness in some detail (though not as much detail as I would like, but of course GRL has stringent length requirements)-- just accepted in GRL.

After making a few incomprehensible marks on your papers, and informing you to change a neutral pronoun to masculine, he smiles at you and accepts your papers with the admonition that it's just this one time that he'll allow your disastrously hideous efforts to pass through his portal to lawyerly success.

Just about everyone in the world can understand and make an inquiry of an electronic register, and an e-register can accept inquiries on paper too.

Perhaps this means that what is needed is for some inventive counsel to convince an appellate court to misuse an SCC decision, as plaintiff's counsel did with Walker Estate in Resurfice; or, for a trial judge or appellate court to accept, as I point out in the paper, that the SCC jurisprudence requires the conclusion that, in Canadian negligence law, events may occur without having causes (and not just in Stoner, B.C.).

«It really wasn't too difficult; it just took a few phone calls and we had a local recycling center that would accept our paper for free,» said Skinner.

Most just accept and do not question the papers and of course banks slant it heavily in their favor.