Sentences with phrase «known skeptic in»

Not exact matches

Moshe Milevsky, a finance professor at Schulich and one of Canada's best - known home - ownership skeptics, has long argued that for young people with limited means and unrealized career potential, stowing most of their wealth in a single illiquid asset is foolhardy.

Little do these skeptics, who rain on the home business owner's parade, know is that the number of people working from home, and making very good annual incomes, has grown by leaps and bounds in recent years.

That's a winning formula for anyone, but it especially matters to entrepreneurs, who often face skeptics in their professional lives and need to know the people closest to them believe in them.

Noel once told me that he started his walk away from Christianity in that context; graduate school finalized that journey and when I came to know him, he was a massively articulate, Bible - steeped skeptic with little taste for the cultural Christianity that characterized all too much of the deep South.

Even the skeptic Franklin knew the Bible intimately, because of his upbringing in a Puritan household in Boston.

Unless your faith has been picked apart and stress - tested to the max by the most articulate, brilliant, and well - spoken of critics and skeptics, and still emerge from the fire intact, we may not even know why we believe what we believe in.

Two of these remarkable episodes are almost universally known, being fodder in every Sunday School as well as Skeptics» Club, to say nothing of folk - song and spiritual — the three friends in the fiery furnace and Daniel in the lions» den (chs.

In 2012 the lines between the sacred and the profane will get even more blurry: Scientists will religiously maintain their search for the elusive God particle (they won't find it); evangelical sports superhero and Denver Bronco quarterback Tim Tebow will continue to be both an inspiration to the faithful and an object of scorn to skeptics (he will be watching, not playing in, the Super Bowl); at least one well - known religious leader or leading religious politician will be brought down by a sex scandal (let's hope all our leaders have learned a lesson from former Rep. Anthony Weiner and stay away from sexting); and the «nones» - those who don't identify with one religion - will grow even more numerous and find religious meanings in unexpected places (what TV show will become this season's «Lost»In 2012 the lines between the sacred and the profane will get even more blurry: Scientists will religiously maintain their search for the elusive God particle (they won't find it); evangelical sports superhero and Denver Bronco quarterback Tim Tebow will continue to be both an inspiration to the faithful and an object of scorn to skeptics (he will be watching, not playing in, the Super Bowl); at least one well - known religious leader or leading religious politician will be brought down by a sex scandal (let's hope all our leaders have learned a lesson from former Rep. Anthony Weiner and stay away from sexting); and the «nones» - those who don't identify with one religion - will grow even more numerous and find religious meanings in unexpected places (what TV show will become this season's «Lost»in, the Super Bowl); at least one well - known religious leader or leading religious politician will be brought down by a sex scandal (let's hope all our leaders have learned a lesson from former Rep. Anthony Weiner and stay away from sexting); and the «nones» - those who don't identify with one religion - will grow even more numerous and find religious meanings in unexpected places (what TV show will become this season's «Lost»in unexpected places (what TV show will become this season's «Lost»?)

I've never been a skeptic, never been disillusioned with the Church or Christianity like I am now, and I've never struggled with cynicism about the Christian culture, so it all feels new and foreign and terrifying, like I don't know where this is coming from or who I am becoming in the process.

No wonder that poor Wolfson, whom I knew well, became a complete skeptic in religion.

If the claim were substantiated, THEN saying «No it doesn't» would be a positive claim in need of proof by the skeptic.

Jan 04,2016... Capitals goalie Olaf Kolzig knows what the skeptics say: Washington's appearance in the»98 Stanley C...

In addition to co-authoring The New I Do: Reshaping Marriage for Skeptics, Realists and Rebels, I have an essay in Nothing But The Truth So Help Me God: 73 Women on Life's Transitions, which you can buy here, and in Knowing Pains: Women on Love, Sex and Work in Our 40s, which you can buy here (all proceeds go toward the Breast Cancer FundIn addition to co-authoring The New I Do: Reshaping Marriage for Skeptics, Realists and Rebels, I have an essay in Nothing But The Truth So Help Me God: 73 Women on Life's Transitions, which you can buy here, and in Knowing Pains: Women on Love, Sex and Work in Our 40s, which you can buy here (all proceeds go toward the Breast Cancer Fundin Nothing But The Truth So Help Me God: 73 Women on Life's Transitions, which you can buy here, and in Knowing Pains: Women on Love, Sex and Work in Our 40s, which you can buy here (all proceeds go toward the Breast Cancer Fundin Knowing Pains: Women on Love, Sex and Work in Our 40s, which you can buy here (all proceeds go toward the Breast Cancer Fundin Our 40s, which you can buy here (all proceeds go toward the Breast Cancer Fund).

Trump's likely pick to fill the role of a top scientist at the USDA — Sam Clovis, best known for hosting a conservative talk show in Iowa — is a climate change skeptic with no background in science.

Like skeptics, you know, [Skeptics] in the Pub in Saint Louis, we've started a new group last summer; over 100 people, some [months] show up at the pub, conveniently across the street from the high - rise where we live and the bartender, she is kind of skeptics, you know, [Skeptics] in the Pub in Saint Louis, we've started a new group last summer; over 100 people, some [months] show up at the pub, conveniently across the street from the high - rise where we live and the bartender, she is kind of Skeptics] in the Pub in Saint Louis, we've started a new group last summer; over 100 people, some [months] show up at the pub, conveniently across the street from the high - rise where we live and the bartender, she is kind of new age.

Doubting or rejecting the science on climate change no longer makes someone a «skeptic» or «denier» in the views of a leading news organization.

Doubt in science is generally considered a good thing, so what can you do when you want to make sure everyone agrees with the «consensus» and you have these annoying doubters known as climate skeptics getting in the way?

I don't even know what to say about this because it makes the scientist in me raise such a skeptic's eyebrow, but listen.

Finally, for those who have drudged up the old argument that nothing can be known for sure, something for you to consider is that if nothing can be known, if you wish to take the philosophical stance of the ultimate skeptic, then you have no business engaging in any persuasive arguing.

Some of you may not know me, but those of y ’ all who do, know that I am a major skeptic (I blame it on being a bio major in a past life.)

Release date: February 2 Cast: Helen Mirren, Jason Clarke, Sarah Snook Director: Michael & Peter Spierig (Daywalkers) Why it's great: Yes you've certainly seen this sort of «skeptic in a haunted house» premise before, but when the house is this creepy — and the cast is this impressive — there's nothing wrong with curling up with a very familiar ghost story even if you mostly know where it's headed.

Starring Craig Robinson (The Office, This Is the End) and Adam Scott (Parks and Recreation, Big Little Lies), Ghosted is a comedy about the partnership between two polar opposites — a cynical skeptic and a genius «true believer» in the paranormal — who are recruited by a secret government agency, known as The Bureau Underground, to save the human race from aliens.

Smith, the most outspoken skeptic among the trainees, was not a Luddite — she uses her Web site to dispense assignments and readings to her students — but she worried about what might be lost in trying to funnel her teaching know - how through the tablet.

Almost since the death of Shakespeare in 1616, some skeptics and critics have continued to raise what has become known as «the authorship question,» a challenge to the notion that the lightly educated man from Stratford could actually have written...

Plenty of cynics and skeptics are offering doomsday prophecies, but this warning in particular gives me pause, reminding me not to leap before I know how high the tide.

Because we all know that only a few of you are clicking this link (ahh skeptics), I'd love it if you'd keep the hype alive by commenting in the article about how amazing these fake «stocks» are and how you're taking action today.

Speaking of Bob Carter and his article in the Telegraph, he is a well - known climate skeptic, whose escapades are documented (keeping in mind in the bias of this sourcewatch website, of course) here

But in short, if a radical skeptic were to claim that all of this is simply a mass delusion, then in logic he couldn't claim to know this or to even know that the proposition were meaningful.

In an email exchange on the general issue of scientists and policy debate last weekend (just before she flew to Antarctica), she said: «If we as scientists go beyond what we know into our personal opinions and values, we begin to engage in the same sort of personal speculation masquerading as authoritative that we dislike when it is done by the skeptics.&raquIn an email exchange on the general issue of scientists and policy debate last weekend (just before she flew to Antarctica), she said: «If we as scientists go beyond what we know into our personal opinions and values, we begin to engage in the same sort of personal speculation masquerading as authoritative that we dislike when it is done by the skeptics.&raquin the same sort of personal speculation masquerading as authoritative that we dislike when it is done by the skeptics.»

In the tropics is wet and dry - / - in subtropics and temperate climates changes four time a year, WITH EVERY season = migratory birds can tell you that; because they know much more about climate than all the Warmist foot - solders and all climate skeptics combined — on the polar caps climates change twice a yeaIn the tropics is wet and dry - / - in subtropics and temperate climates changes four time a year, WITH EVERY season = migratory birds can tell you that; because they know much more about climate than all the Warmist foot - solders and all climate skeptics combined — on the polar caps climates change twice a yeain subtropics and temperate climates changes four time a year, WITH EVERY season = migratory birds can tell you that; because they know much more about climate than all the Warmist foot - solders and all climate skeptics combined — on the polar caps climates change twice a year.

7:22 p.m. Updates below Quite a few professional climate skeptics have been crowing in the last few days about a 20 - percent downward shift in the short - term forecast for global temperature (through 2017) from Britain's weather and climate agency, best know as the Met Office.

The e-mails, attributed to prominent American and British climate researchers, include discussions of scientific data and whether it should be released, exchanges about how best to combat the arguments of skeptics, and casual comments — in some cases derisive — about specific people known for their skeptical views.

And there are still people taken in by the «skeptic» side as well; I know of one very bright economist who is an example of that.

However, since a high proportion of misnamed «skeptics» are in fact deliberate liars, who endlessly repeat assertions that they well know have been repeatedly shown to be false, it will probably have little effect on the fake, phony, Exxon - Mobil sponsored «debate» about anthropogenic climate change.

OK - this is off topic and I know comments like this invoke just the hysteria I don't want to incite from skeptics, but are the weather patterns we are seeing in Iowa (intense precipitation) consistent with what one would expect from warming predictions?

Among them, Pascoe says, are «General Motors, known for funding climate skeptic think tanks like the Heartland Institute in the U.S.; you have BMW, which is doing equal things in Europe, trying to weaken emission standards.»

The purveying of propositions like these by a few scientists who do or should know better — and their parroting by amateur skeptics who lack the scientific background or the motivation to figure out what's wrong with them — are what I was inveighing against in the op - ed and will continue to inveigh against.

Do any include forwarded replies from skeptics in the thread so we know they are real?

In fact, all skeptics that I know of that work in that businesIn fact, all skeptics that I know of that work in that businesin that business.

So I imagine many «skeptics» in the late 1980s were aware that a cyclical upswing was on the cards (in particular, we now know of course that the AMO turned strongly + ve into the 90s)

In reality, the vast majority of «IPCC global warming» skeptics are not climate change deniers, which honest, objective scientists and reporters know.

They are true skeptics that know the incompleteness of the knowledge, and try to find and extend the small islands of knowledge in the huge ocean, while the skeptics think that everyone follows the second model and that they are in the vanguard, when they emphasize the holes in the «Swiss cheese» model of knowledge.

Even though this series of blog posts concerns a prominent complaint filed in 2007 against the UK Channel Four Television Corporation video «The Great Global Warming Swindle,» my objective is to show how a thorough analysis of any given accusation about skeptic climate scientists being «paid industry money to lie» shatters the accusation to bits no matter where the hammer strikes.

I think that in the past your attribution of «normative» has been rather selective — but be its good to know that at least in this case you're willing to characterize the science of a «skeptic» as «normative.»

No, because most skeptics realize there is some anthropogenic impact which is all that is required to be in the 97 %.

Pt 4, «The Wunsch / RealClimate Thing»: In this instance, we are asked to believe that a common citizen, Dave Rado, outraged over lies in «The Great Global Warming Swindle», somehow also knew one of the «seemingly skeptic» scientists in the video had been hoodwinked to appear in it, and that the scientist this confirmed this via a direct email response regarding the inquiry Rado sent mere hours after watching the videIn this instance, we are asked to believe that a common citizen, Dave Rado, outraged over lies in «The Great Global Warming Swindle», somehow also knew one of the «seemingly skeptic» scientists in the video had been hoodwinked to appear in it, and that the scientist this confirmed this via a direct email response regarding the inquiry Rado sent mere hours after watching the videin «The Great Global Warming Swindle», somehow also knew one of the «seemingly skeptic» scientists in the video had been hoodwinked to appear in it, and that the scientist this confirmed this via a direct email response regarding the inquiry Rado sent mere hours after watching the videin the video had been hoodwinked to appear in it, and that the scientist this confirmed this via a direct email response regarding the inquiry Rado sent mere hours after watching the videin it, and that the scientist this confirmed this via a direct email response regarding the inquiry Rado sent mere hours after watching the video.

These days any skeptic, or even «lukewarmists» like Tom Fuller, knows that the discussions on RealClimate are not in good faith, that heterodox comments will be censored, deleted, ignored, distorted or ridiculed as a matter of course and regardless of merit.

The wipeout is all - encompassing in these cases: how can someone accuse others of pushing false science assessments if you have neither the expertise to dispute the assessments nor the evidence to prove that industry and skeptic scientists collaborated to push material they both knew were lies?

As you may know, the HADCRUT global surface temperature dataset, often preferred by climate «skeptics», got increased Arctic coverage in ver 4.

He's a distinct minority in the field, and neither his scientist peers who dispute his findings nor the more polemic climate skeptics who find his research useful know what to make of him.