Sentences with phrase «much an argument based»

Interestingly, McIntyre's quarrel with Mann et al is very much an argument based on a genuine consilience dispute in that McIntyre questions the statistical (ie, mathematical) validity underpinning Mann's methodologies.

Not exact matches

So, this argument that affirmative action somehow is causing it doesn't really seem to have much of a logical basis.

With more than a hint of exasperation, Scalia concludes: «One will search in vain the document we are supposed to be construing for text that provides the basis for the argument over these distinctions; and will find in our society's tradition regarding abortion no hint that the distinctions are constitutionally relevant, much less any indication how a constitutional argument about them ought to be resolved.

To recall, my criticisms were based not so much on the substance of Dr. Podles» psychological or anthropological research but on the use of that research for the rest of his argument.

It was this naive positivism that Kaplan accepted, rather than, for example, the much more sophisticated views of his philosophical mentor John Dewey, as the basis of his argument for religious naturalism.

At Home in the Universe covers much the same ground as The Origins of Order, but in a less technical manner, and it extends arguments based in biology to questions of wider interest, such as the place of humans in the cosmos.

«Although the book was written against her now dead half - sister,» continues Gonzalez, «Elizabeth resented much of what it said, for its arguments based on anti-feminine prejudice could just as easily apply to her.

Knowledge in the sense of direct first - hand encounter has so much higher standing than abstract argument based on logic that one could almost speak of anti-intellectualism in n - any groups.

They turned out to be based on erroneous information (weapons of mass destruction) and a dreamy idealism (democracy)» there was and is much to criticize» but the arguments for war in 2003 were articulate and admitted of just war analysis.

Furthermore, the Catholic emphasis on the role of natural law does nothing to dispel the idea that too much use of scripture in moral argument can be inappropriate or impolitic because it can make universal truths seem to be based only upon specific revelation.

When adversaries stick it to you from outside the club, always trying to cause a stir within and among us and we have so called fans agreeing with these failed pundits who prolly do nt even have a voice in their own households, we like illegitimate children back up their unsincere arguments, hell Piers Morgan does it from a place of genuine concern, the AKBs and AOBs too, Fatboy gooner and NY gunner on here even and we are happy to have them but when we thoughtlessly indulge and endorse those who would rather see us fail by always coming up with.unsolicited advise especially without any reasonable bases, we are as much enemies of the club we claim to love, cutting of our nose to spite our face... shame again.

It's been discredited no matter how much Laffer twists his argument (see: http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/01/the-new-laffer.html) Even if you argue it's still a misrepresentation of the Laffer Curve to automatically equate it with the New Right, Laffer himself can reasonably take some of the credit for that, having been closely aligned with the discredited economics of both the Nixon and Reagan adminstrations (see: http://www.newstatesman.com/books/2007/11/supply-side-economic-tax-rich) But the point is this: if Cameron decides to implement tax cuts on the basis of the Laffer Curve — in the belief that this will top up the government coffers - we're in trouble.

That election was particularly damaging to the SNP because so much of its rhetoric is based on the argument that Scotland is a fundamentally different, more socially - democratic nation than the rest of the UK.

If your argument is fairly based, then you should have no issue with someone with no training or education making $ 30.00 an hour or nearly as much as you (and i guess with as much as you like to flaunt your supreme intelligence) with a college education.

«The theories that Hawking and Mlodinow use to base their arguments on have as much empirical evidence as God,» wrote cosmologist Marcelo Gleiser on an NPR.org blog.

My arguments are based more on ethnography and anthropology than some of Paul's theorizing, but I arrive at pretty much the same place that he does.

Based on this evidence, it appears that there is no upper limit on the amount of fruit you can eat on a daily basis, and that any argument suggesting that fruit contains «too much sugar» is misinterpreting the scientific evidence.

i am asian / african looking for asian girl, i am simple, i like to creat relation based on trust and hoesty, i hate unnecessary argument and much talking, i like to survive peacefully and easily

For Martin, situated as it still is in the world of narrative - based commercial genre cinema, Passion forces us to ask challenge questions underscoring much of his book's subsequent argument and proposals:

It is for his funny ideas and skillful inclusion of many pop culture arguments within his films that he has built up a formidable fan base; It is for his oft - amateurish directing that his films aren't polished enough to reach much farther beyond this base.

«I want them to think through what they read online, to apply all the skills they learned in the class — evaluating source credibility, identifying logical fallacies, recognizing bias, basing written arguments on solid evidence — to social media platforms just as much as they do in their academic work.»

You have in your packet a blue sheet that gives you the order of the day, so I won't belabor that too much, but I will just remind you that we're going to start out with a session on history this morning; then go to a lunchtime segment that will focus on some of the relevant federal constitutional issues, including evaluations of the federal attacks on and defenses of the Blaine amendments; then we will finish off the day with a session that will focus on litigation strategy related to these amendments and some of the arguments being made for and against them in that litigation, as well as a focus on how debates over faith - based initiatives and school vouchers are affected by these particular state constitutional restrictions.

As so much of the «stick or paddle» debate is based on subjectivity, we've brought two Porsche 911s together at the Bedford Autodrome to see what a VBOX can add to the argument.

Stick - Shift Realities When the argument in favor of the stick shift is based on how much fun it is, it's undeniable.

At oral argument, plaintiffs described this case as part of a series of cases intended to move the entire industry... more and more to zero revenue sharing, based on the notion that zero revenue sharing is much less expensive for plans and for participants.

Much of the argument for Nintendo to create mobile games was based on the idea that Nintendo could not survive just selling its own consoles.

PS, one of the reasons I like to use other folks» cites is that it prevents cherry - picking, and when «my» arguments are based on «your» cites, «you've» got much less wiggle room.

It's been remarkable to see the lengthening line of Republican politicians, particularly presidential hopefuls, chiding Pope Francis for pressing the case for action to stem global warming given how much conservatives have stressed values - based arguments on important issues in the past.

Much criticism is given to the projections and of big (AOCGCM) models, at least some of which is based on arguments using simple, some might say simplistic, models.

The Nature commentary by Penner et al. on which this argument is based actually says that on top of the global warming caused by carbon dioxide, other short - lived pollutants (such as methane and black carbon) cause an additional warming approximately 65 % as much as CO2, and other short - lived pollutants (such as aerosols) also cause some cooling.

You say that this uncertainty is used «to argue that environmental policies based on concerns over global warming are not even worthy of support», but it seems to us that it is less the case that your objection is based on an argument made as much as the fact that they outlined a difference of opinion.

Based on this argument I think that the fraction of additional CO2 that remains in atmosphere for very long time doesn't bring anything worthwhile to the discussion of risks of climate change, it's just another distraction that makes reasoned discussion only more difficult as long as our understanding of climate change and it's consequences is not very much better than it's now.

Actually you're partly right, in hindsight I can't believe I had so much argument with Themm as it was based on a misunderstanding of his main point, not helped by his strange way of saying it.

Although the conclusions reached in this post are initially counter-intuitive, we here explain why ethical arguments are in some ways much stronger arguments than self - interest based arguments and the failure to look at climate change policies through an ethical lens has practical consequences.

In other words, a case can be made that the ethical arguments are actually much stronger than self - interest based arguments at least in some very important ways.

(Personally I try to avoid appealing to the authority even of a discipline let alone that of an isolated paper, and much prefer arguments based not on any authority other than that of first principles and the best available data.)

Now I know that weather is not climate and ten years is a short duration — though not that short considering that climate change advocates base much of their argument on 30 year intervals (1910 - 1940, 1970 - 2000).

This question is designed to expose the fact that because delays in ghg emissions based on costs to the polluter makes the enormous threat of climate change much more difficult to solve and more likely that serious harms and damages will be experienced, therefore arguments for delays in reducing ghg emissions based upon cost raise moral and ethical issues because the delays are making the problem much worse, more difficult to solve, and great harms inevitable.

This kind of argument has taken several different forms such as, climate policies simply cost too much, will destroy jobs, harm the economy, or are not justified by cost - benefit analyses just to name a few cost - based arguments made frequently in opposition to climate change policies..

Unlike Kiehl and Trenberth who base much of their argument on published supposition and make the horrible error of not leaving any energy in their balance to create fossil fuels, Miskolczi rigorously sets about working from the actual spectral effects from atmospheric gases and provides a properly justified but theoretical scientific case for demonstrating the errors of Kiehl and Trenberth.

You make two further points that at base are not technical arguments so much as statements of your point of view.

Joe: «You make two further points that at base are not technical arguments so much as statements of your point of view.

He made the point well that much of the argument about climate consists of the scientists having to refute claims made by sceptics based on minutiae without regard for the bigger picture (2008 being colder than 1998 despite the general warming trend, or corrections upwards to the temperature of a single Tasmanian weather station despite the fact overall there was no bias).

Doing so can not be easy, since internet discussions typically vary wildly in terms of quality and coherence, and ad hominem attacks are quite high in web - based paleoclimate discussions, making it hard to know how much personal acrimony tints the arguments.

While actual scientists are trying to piece together every little part of an otherwise almost un-piecable long term chaotic and variable system in response now to a massive increase in net lower atmospheric energy absorption and re radiation, Curry is busy — much like most of the comments on this site most of the time — trying to come up with or re-post every possible argument under the sun to all but argue against the basic concept that radically altering the atmosphere on a multi million year basis is going to affect the net energy balance of earth, which over time is going to translate into a very different climate (and ocean level) than the one we've comfortably come to rely on.

Ridley's opinion articles, such as one professing «fossil fuels will save the world» published in the Wall Street Journal, form much of the basis for the coal company's arguments submitted in March.

Following my recent post, a number of commenters suggested that I ought to respond more directly to the arguments of James Hansen and others for a CO2 target of 350 parts per million, as opposed to the 450 ppm that forms the basis of much current policy discussion.

«I (William: The Obama administration of course means all fellow warmists do not have patience for scientific discussion as the warmists can not win the argument based on science) don't have much patience for people who deny (William: deny in this context means to present facts that disprove the faulty hypothesis) climate change.»

On that basis I think we can fairly infer that renewables can be enablers of fossil fuels every bit as much, and that any old green argument to satisfy investors will do.

This comment has already gotten too long, but I'd like to point out that based on what we know so far, it looks very much as if Salby is making the same mistake that McLean made (in attributing the temperature rise to ENSO) and, even more similarly, that Mr Lon Hocker made in a post at WUWT in which he made virtually the identical argument to this one (temperature changes explain the atmospheric CO2 trend).