Sentences with phrase «least understood issues»

Drought is one of the most important but least understood issues in global environmental change.

Unequivocally, immigration is the most controversial yet least understood issue in America.

Not exact matches

Quite apart from the argument over OSFI - style oversight, the former federal official and others stress this segment of the market at least requires more transparency and clearer data so regulators and the Bank of Canada can better understand the credit landscape and the extent of high - risk loans issued by private lenders.

We will also be issuing a Freedom Of Information Act request to understand the reasoning behind their focus on the safest cars in America while they ignore the cars that are the least safe.

At the very least, considering opposite opinions on issues broadens our perspective and helps us to better understand others.

On this measure, again, we find that Fortune's most - and least - admired companies alike had board members with the training and experience to analyze complex financial issues and to understand what kinds of risks a company is taking on.

At least in the case of Sikh separatism in India, there are influential and articulate members of both sides of the debate over an independent «Khalistan,» so we have a better chance of properly understanding the issue.

But insofar as you do think there are differences between rightly understood Locke and the contemporary libertarian or classic liberal reading of natural rights applied to economic issues, perhaps you will wind up defending at least part of my theory.

And yet modernity was also understood as a philosophical and theological system that displaced, or at least threatened, what could be called the praeambula fidei — the «preambles of faith,» which include the truths of natural reason, particularly on philosophical issues close to sacred doctrine.

The issue of freedom and that of the existence of inner states arise at least partially out of a prior understanding of causality.

Yahweh in hebrew means my Lord and is a common reference meaning supreme God.In the bible satan is referred specifically as the adversary in hebrew or slanderer in greek its quite clear there is no confusion.Satan is not in the same league as God he is sovereign in fact God has satan on a leash and limits his control particularly over his people as we read in Job.Christians need to realise that satan can influence us if we walk according to the flesh.In the case of David calling a cencus meant he gave in to his pride he wanted to know how many soldiers he had believing numbers would give him the upper hand and so Satan took advantage of his weakness and Davids choice displeased God.David of all people should have known as he as a young man had defeated goliath a mighty warrior and it was because of his faith and trust in God that he overcame.But it wasnt God that made David make that decision it was his own and satan tempted him and he gave in to that desire In the two verses there is no confusion if you understand how God and satan operate i did at one stage have the same issue with Jesus sending the demons into the pigs why would he help satan or at least it appeared that way?

If we understand it as accurately telling what was in the mind and heart of God, then we have to deal with the issue of why did God create us in his image, knowing that he planned to destroy so many of us, and tell the rest of us that, at least in certain circumstances, it is fine with him if we destroy each other.

The will to dream dreamt dreaming is what we dividedly do least and only in the sparsity of dreamt dreaming issues did we come of Age in the enlightenments of science and its ongoing understandings of spiritually to be so dreamt dreams of daytime believers daring to dream the dreams of one's lifetimes!

The will to dream dreamt dreaming is what we dividedly do least and only in the sparsity of dreamt dreaming issues did we come of Age in the enlightenments of science and its ongoing understandings of spirituality to be so as dreamt dreams of daytime believer dreamers daring to dream the dreams of one's lifetimes!

One of the obvious difficulties with these suggestions is that the fundamental issue as to how the individual churches themselves have internalized different understandings of baptism as being a part of their existence and self - identity, an existence and identity which has very often been at least partially shaped as a reaction to the teachings propounded by other churches, has not been adequately addressed.

The fact is that, even though every other racial minority is at least split on the issue, as a party the Democrats and their black leaders have adopted an exclusively statist understanding of minority rights.

Of course this was intended as a way to issue commemorative coins and stuff, not as a fiscal measure; but at least as I understand it, the letter of the law would allow Treasury to stamp out a platinum coin, say it's worth a trillion dollars, and deposit it at the Fed — thereby avoiding the need to issue debt.

One piece that has bugged me a little is that I don't understand how oro - facial habits could be THE causative factor in poorly developed dental arches (and subsequent crooked teeth) if hundreds of generations before us had perfectly straight teeth but had never addressed this issue (at least purposefully).

Regrettably, through all the NCLB trashing, Winerip never described these issues so that lay readers, almost certainly unfamiliar with this context, could at least understand the current environment let alone learn about the complexity of the law and the challenges of designing policy for our decentralized system of schooling.

The overall purpose is to help young people gain better knowledge and understanding of their rights as EU citizens and to: enable young people to engage with an issue which will be foremost in the news for at least the next twelve months, and possibly longer; understand the choices facing the UK government, other EU governments and the EU institutions, on this issue; think critically about the issue of citizens» rights in the context of Brexit, coming to their own opinion about the best way forward, and gaining a better understanding of the impact upon themselves and their communities.

Our plans for implementing the proposed initiative will include the following activities: (1) continuing to build their evidence base to understand for whom their intervention works best and least, and in what contexts; (2) refining their program model with a sharp focus on producing the materials that will be needed to achieve successful replication at scale; (3) solidifying the commitment of the selected scaling champions (i.e., the person who will drive the continuing development of the intervention and its implementation at scale); and (4) building the infrastructure necessary to support effective scaling, including the development of a business plan and training support structure, along with the successful navigation of intellectual property issues.

I have heard grumblings that there could be some «geographic» issues at play here with the issues I'm experiencing, and while I don't understand why or how that would be the case, with Doug and Simon being in Ottawa we could at least maybe validate or throw out my results data.

People understand anthologies, and what a collection of essays on a specific issue will generally look like, so this was a new topic / issue (in the UK publishing market at least) in a familiar format.

Of all the issues regarding spousal RRSPs, perhaps the least understood are the rules regarding withdrawals

Dear Nail, my name is kunle Feyisetan and I have been following your articles for months but I have decided not to write you until I understand some issues about you methods but as at now I've understood at least 50 % of what you are talking about.

More and more people are seeking out naturally reared puppies because their first dog or dogs died from some ailment brought on by being vaccinated. This seeking out of a naturally reared puppy is a great first step however, it needs to be understood that unless the puppy is at least 4th generation they may still have at least some minor health issues / symptoms to deal with as the body discharges these inherited toxins.

And your talking about raging and tanterms, I have been cool and looked it from all sides, and tried to give criticism in a civil way, or at least I thought I had... I have never kicked anything over lol, and I'm actually still playing the game, the game in itself is the best I've ever played and I just don't understand the last 20 - 30 minutes and I've read so many articles, if I would have been able to understand the ending (like many others) I doubt it would have even been a issue.

White's work is, for me at least, really at the center of certain things going on in contemporary abstraction that i am still trying to understand, for instance the problematic issue of the self and how much it is invested in the work, or even where / how / if the self is.

Or at least learn where to look for better analysis and a more cogent understanding of the facts and issues.

No, none of these issues is a insurmountable, let alone a disqualification, but these are issues that need to at least be fully understood if not solved.

It may well be that those involved are clarifying the issues for themselves, which is a positive, but I at least don't feel I'm building understanding by reading through the discussion.

Climate scientists have understood this to be the case since at least the early 1990s, and since then scholarly consensus on the issue has only strengthened.

OTOH he clearly understands the issues and his agenda (at least on climate and energy policy) is vastly superior to others.

To appreciate the issues involved in comparing estimates of surface and lower tropospheric temperature trends, it is necessary to have at least a rudimentary understanding of these three kinds of measurements and the uncertainties inherent in each of them.

Yes, overall I'd say the response here has been a plus, at least in terms of my understanding of the issues raised.

It would take a very, very long conversation with tremendously patient, eminently sensible parties to even begin understanding why I regard «AGW» as being among the environmental issues least deserving of serious concern.

Or at least expect architects to understand what the key issues are.

BTW, I don't share your predicitons, relative to the NAS Panel, because at least some of the Panel members are good scientists, understand these issues, and can't and won't overlook the facts.

We won't change their minds, and their numbers aren't large enough to impact policy in a major way; at least in the U.S. such individuals don't count climate change as very high on the agenda of things they care about (I understand that in several other countries, this is a more salient issue).

I don't know, I'm not part of that conspiracy, and I see a lot of assertions on here and elsewhere by people who imply they are smart, or at least smart enough to know more on this issue than the climate scientists who actually professionally study it, who throw around large highfalutin science terms, but that repeatedly misconstrue the basic climate change issue itself, conflate the process of science with Climate Change refutation, seem to have an extensively poor understanding of the issue, and take small select bits of data as part of the ongoing total picture of increasing overall corroboration, to falsely equate that with a flaw in Climate Change theory itself, or as a referendum on it.

I will tell you that AFAIC, your accusation of handwaving is at best pointless, and at least in my opinion, (FWIW — which ain't much, particularly as someone who can't understand the technical issues being debated) only undermines your own argument and taints your credibility.

This list of questions makes it clear that someone at least understood EXACTLY what the issues were and what UEA / Jones were accused of by sceptics.

There are issues that do need addressing or at least understanding.

Other studies have shown a similar effect: Republicans who think they understand the global warming issue best are least concerned about it; and among Republicans and those with higher levels of distrust of science in general, learning more about the issue doesn't increase one's concern about it.

Or you could go and do a bunch of work to go to the site and read varveology and get a co-author who understands the issue (or at least consult one) to determine if the confounding is more a 10 % issue or a 100 % one.

A least, not until he understands the systemic issues better.

At least the reporter wanted to understand the issue.

I think that if you are to take a stance on these complex issues, you must at least understand the arguments.

It's worthwhile trying to understand how they work, not least because some of the same tactics are now being used in debates over other issues, like Social Security.

At the very least, let them know that you understand the issues they face.