Sentences with phrase «main arguments here»

So there are two main arguments here.

I will have a few more comments about the role of conservative scholars, especially Strauss - influenced ones, in an additional post, but let me finally wind up the main argument here.

That's my main argument here for this hemp dates bite size.

That's my main argument here for this hemp dates bite size.

The main argument here concerns ideology: how people define duty and responsibility both within and without national borders.

That is the main argument here in this article, using documents and evidence and presented in a mostly even - toned fashion.

Not exact matches

Here are some of Trump's main arguments for exiting the pact — and what the numbers say about them.

But rather than responding under Twitter's 140 character constraint, I'd like to address here a few of the main arguments currently being advanced by industry in defense of BLBT.

Here is what you wrote — «Despite the fact that a Fall 2012 Cochrane Library Review (considered the gold standard of independent inquiry and scientific objectivity) reports that home birth is as safe or in many cases actually safer than hospital birth, the American obstetrical community continues to publicly oppose homebirth, citing safety concerns as their main argument.»

The analysis here does suggest that there is credibility to the party's argument that they would be able to exert a moderating influence on the policy proposal of whichever one of the two main parties wins enough seats to lead the government.

Here's my summary of his main anti-multiverse arguments:

Here are our main arguments why our particular writing company should better be selected among the big number of essay writing services existing on the web.

I realize it's kind of late for making suggestions, but here goes anyway: Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner claim to have falsified the existence of an atmospheric greenhouse effect.It looks like you have addressed T&G's main arguments (eg, about the 2nd law), but I wonder if it might be appropriate to put in a brief description of what it means to «falsify» something in the scientific sense — ie, essentially what T&G must show (and failed to show) to make their case that there is no greenhouse effect: namely, 1) experimental evidence that shows the opposite of what an atmospheric greenhouse effect would necessarily produce and / or 2) evidence that the greenhouse effect would actually violate some physical law (eg, 2nd law of thermo) The pot on the stove example is obviously an attempt to show that you get a colder temp with the water than without, but I think it's worthwhile explicitly stating that «because T&G failed to demonstrate that the pot on the stove example is a valid analogy for the earth, they failed to falsify the atmospheric greenhouse effect» And you could also add a sentence stating that «because T&G failed to show that the greenhouse effect would require a violation of the 2nd law [because their arguments were incorrect], they also failed to falsify»

I understand that this point of an analogy for an argument is entirely peripheral to the main game here, but I still don't see why people should get a free pass to Make Stuff Up.

And, that speaks to the main problem with a place like WUWT: Lots of things here are shown to be incorrect by people (including myself) but since much of the readership is not capable of judging the actual scientific arguments, the incorrect science remains undebunked in the eyes of many here.

The main argument against the claims Salby professor is so (I think) here isotope 14C (NOAA).