But today, I come over to find some serious love for Mr. Smith, who's spending him some tax dollars in order to steer the science of climate more towards what he, as a freakin» politician, thinks is
the more valid interpretation of the evidence.
Not exact matches
You seem to think that your
interpretation of the bible is somehow
more valid than other
interpretation.
Michael offers a
VALID interpretation of Scripture here (and there is a much
more detailed look at these scriptures at http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian).
If this isn't your intention, then I'd encourage you to find ways of communicating that there is
more than one
valid interpretation of any one blog post.
According to Steve scripture is by the prophet's own
interpretation, which in reality is no
more valid than ours.
He suggested that the
more accurate conversation would focus on whether the
interpretation and use of the test results is
valid.
Not to recognize this reality leads us to using the 2014 SB achievement levels and disseminating
more than three million student test scores for California students and schools that have no basis for
valid interpretations....
@ 32, no, a layman could form a
valid opinion that the subject was unsettled, if the evidence to date appeared to support
more than one
interpretation.
From a scientific point of view the exact execution and framing could be criticized on certain aspects (e.g. ECS is linearly extrapolated instead of logarithmically; the
interpretation that recent record warmth are not peaks but rather a «correction to the trend line» depends strongly on the exact way the endpoints of the observed temperature are smoothed; the effect of non-CO2 greenhouse gases is excluded from the analysis and discussion), but the underlying point, that
more warming is in store than we're currently seeing, is both
valid and very important.