Sentences with phrase «justify other conclusions»

Not exact matches

Religion, on the other hand, begins with the conclusion, then works backwords to justify itself.

The twenty - two named varieties grown during 1882 and 1883 at the New York Agricultural Experiment Station seem to belong to C. annuum L., and while we are not prepared to affirm that they all can be identified with one or the other of the above named species, yet we think there is probable identification sufficient to justify the conclusion that no strongly marked sorts have appeared during the five centuries of European culture.

In other words, the MOST important piece of information, the information we MUST have in order to draw conclusions about safety is missing from the new paper and its absence is both inexplicable and impossible to justify.

While there was a lot of interesting science in this paper (the new methodology, the range of results etc.) which fully justified its appearance in Nature, we were quite critical of their basic conclusion — that climate sensitivities significantly higher than the standard range (1.5 — 4.5 ºC) were plausible — because there is significant other data, predominantly from paleo - climate, that pretty much rule those high numbers out (as we discussed again recently).

Take, for example, a standard that states students must be able to justify conclusions, communicate findings to others, and respond to others» arguments.

On at least a couple of occasions it was pointed out that there are many other independent lines of evidence justifying the conclusion that the global average temperature is rising, and that it is rising dramatically.

While there was a lot of interesting science in this paper (the new methodology, the range of results etc.) which fully justified its appearance in Nature, we were quite critical of their basic conclusion — that climate sensitivities significantly higher than the standard range (1.5 — 4.5 ºC) were plausible — because there is significant other data, predominantly from paleo - climate, that pretty much rule those high numbers out (as we discussed again recently).

Some hope that our governor will veto this waste of money, others hope that no one will step forward to conduct the «study» — the conclusion has been defined, they just want scientists to justify the conclusion.

Because I gave an extreme example, it is difficult to justify crossing against the light, but in some other example, there might be a better argument to balance a conclusion based on argument from ignorance.

We should be careful not to push the conclusions beyond what we can securely justify — and this is not much other than a confirmation of the general conclusions of the TAR.

There are many well - known observational issues concerning the detection of a «hot spot» so these conclusions are not really justified, but you're correct that theoretically the water vapor and lapse rate feedbacks are not independent of each other.