Jessup doesn't burden himself or his audience with even the slightest support for his assertions; his claims are as
much conjecture as anything else, his question largely rhetorical.
Not exact matches
I am not writing any of this to argue with anyone about philosophy, Scripture or anything else, nor will I
conjecture as to why this topic agitates you so
much.
There are no long - term research studies on the outcome of children with Selective Mutism
as they grow into adulthood, and therefore
much of what we believe occurs in adulthood for this population is
conjecture by experts with experience in the field.
It comes from the spinning space - time around the black hole and in fact it is not very well known, but that energy is there for the taking — up to 29 percent of the so - called rest mass energy of a spinning black hole is extractable — an d original
conjecture, which is not,
as I say [said], yet established fact, but certainly taken
much more seriously than it was at that time — 10 or 15 percent of the rest mass energy of the black hole, about half of the spin energy, is in practice according to our
conjecture, is in fact, the power source for these relativistically moving jets.
As it now stands, there will be
much conjecture.
There's a lot of
conjecture about why preschool investments may not pay off
as much as one might expect: the length of the preschool, parents» involvement, support services, low quality curricula, and poor oversight.
He doesn't say a word, sitting stiff
as a wire by the side of the defense counsel, and the daughters huddle next to each other in the front row, so pale and haggard that their
much - ballyhooed beauty is, I'm afraid, purely
conjecture.
I
conjecture that three changes in the way in which the climate problem is presented by the experts to the general public would make the conversation go better: acknowledge that climate constraints are unwelcome (thereby establishing empathy with general audiences,
as a doctor does when conveying bad news), present the science
as unfinished (thereby taking away the surprise factor that accompanies every new wrinkle — cf. the cosmic ray stories of a couple of weeks ago), and admit that no solution is wonderful (something hard for
much of our community, which loves some strategy and hates at least one of the others).
Much as I would welcome a cogent explanation for the widespread, but only spottily coherent, multi-decadal variations, Wyatt's «stadium wave»
conjecture doesn't provide such.
The biggest error of all the errors in the physics of the radiative greenhouse
conjecture is that they «explain» the surface temperature of 288K using Stefan - Boltzmann calculations based on the direct solar radiation PLUS about TWICE
as much supposed thermal energy input from the colder atmosphere.
As with
much of AGW, it is just a
conjecture, nor does it apply to the UAH data, because these contradict the surface data.
(58) CM says:...... I am only reproducing data
as available; formulating hypothesis out of
conjecture, and
much harder proving to a degree of wider acceptance (perhaps beyond my current competence) is a process where success is rare and long drawn out struggle, but failure is instant and frequent.
Actually that's not
conjecture, given Sen. Pat Roberts (R - KS) told Vox's Jeff Stein
as much, before dissolving into a bizarre «Thelma & Louise» metaphor that proves literally everyone else's point
much better than his own.
Imagine how
much better you will interview with someone by your side helping you define what your value is and how this get this across to interviewers and decision makers who may look at you
as a little long in the tooth, or not
as up to date on modern business strategies and technologies based solely on
conjecture about your age.