Sentences with phrase «n't whether humans»

Now the scientific community is faced with a new question: asking not whether humans affect extreme weather events, but assuming they do and instead questioning the extent of their impact.

The real question we are faced with is not whether humans are changing climate.

So the important question is whether human changes match up or exceed to this 1 W / m ^ 2 size variation — and they do and go in one direction — not whether humans can make changes comparable to 1,366 W / m ^ 2 (they can't).

It is merely evidence as to whether the earth has warmed, not whether humans had a hand in it.

The issue is not whether the human body can cope with higher temperatures, but whether today's human civilisation (and ecosystems) can cope with the (probably unprecedently) rapid changes that are likely in the next 100 years.

In my opinion, the question is not whether human industry increases atmospheric CO2 or not (it does), but whether this will increase the earth's temperature significantly, knowing that fossil fuels reserves are limited and our infatuation with them will end in about 50 years.

In my view the question is not whether humans or natural cycles (or natural randomness) cause climate change.

If indeed this is the explanation, concerns about catastrophic increases in temperatures are groundless and the relevant question becomes whether Earth's de facto temperature control system overcomes the minor alleged theoretical temperature effects of CO2 increases, not whether human - caused CO2 emissions increase temperatures.

Not exact matches

Sorrell then referenced a speech given by WPP's third biggest client — and the biggest ad spender in the world — P&G's marketing boss Marc Pritchard, who said Google and Facebook were not doing enough to meet advertiser demands around measurement, brand safety, and viewability (the measure of whether an online ad had the ability to be seen by a human).

After a preliminary investigation, Police chief Sylvia Moir said that the collision that killed 49 - year - old Elaine Herzberg wasn't Uber's fault and the accident «would have been difficult to avoid» regardless of whether the other car was autonomous or human - driven.

Because one of Shomi's differentiators is human curation, we have the opportunity to take that content and test whether it was an anomaly or are people really digging it, or is it just not fitting our brand our audience?

«All in all, we've done our best to make sure all employees are happy with the program whether they have a dog or not,» Wpromote's Human Resources Manager Andrea Lagatta said.

That is, of course, a pretty dramatic vision of change in the next century, but Hanson is not alone in predicting that radical changes will follow the next major breakthrough in compu ting (whether that's human - level AI or brain uploading).

«If it's just straight health insurance, which I would bet it is,» says Suzanne Lucas, an Inc.com columnist and human resources expert, «then this is just a policy, and they're not going to have a say over whether it's Jane, who's happily married, or Stacey, who's a lesbian.»

Unfortunately humans are also prone to err in more serious situations — like deciding whether or not a patient is in need of open heart surgery.

Whether you're promoting a business, an idea, or a personal brand, don't overlook the importance of the keeping it human.

Joey Camire explores whether or not AI should have human rights, and the difference between intelligence and consciousness.

It's a carpe diem mindset, which I believe is human nature regardless of whether one has emergency fund or not, especially if someone is in their late 30s and has some life experience.

In the survey, we asked people whether they think human rights should be the Canadian government's top priority in its relationship with China, and whether they agree that Canada, in considering its trade relations, should not engage with a communist country with different values and cultures.

But parents and childhood experts have been wondering what effects smart speakers may have on young kids, who may not quite understand whether Alexa is human and maybe learn from barking orders at her that barking orders is OK.

¨ We believe in justice for all, whether in God or not; we believe as others, that we are due equal justice as human beings.

The president of Kinder Morgan Canada, Ian Anderson, recently claimed he is not smart enough to know whether human activity — i.e. the fossil fuel industry — causes climate change.

Marital indissolubility does not depend on human feelings, whether they are permanent or transitory.

In the end, whether there is or is not a God, I hope my faith has allowed me to lead a better life and be a better human being.

So whether the human body was specially created or developed, Catholics are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human SOUL is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our physical bodies are.

It doesn't matter to me whether this is «correct» exegesis — either the Bible finds some way of adapting to the modern notions of morality, or it gets left by the wayside on the ever growing dung - heap of rejected holy texts of human history — in my opinion, that's the historical moment we are currently faced with.

It is the soul that we have to purify whether being religious or not religious to live in a code of understanding as the only judge is God and no human is to judge another although might try to guide but not hart..

but they are human, whether you like it or not!!

Were a person to have violated a court order directing the return of a runaway slave when Dred Scott was the law, would a genuinely held belief that a slave was a human person and not an article of property be a matter the Court could not consider in deciding whether that person was guilty of a criminal contempt charge?

Contraception is a sin because it is God's decision whether or not a human is alive at any given point, right?

Considering the human spectacle today, forty years after the document whose widespread rejection reportedly broke Paul VI's heart, one can't help but wonder how he might have felt if he had glimpsed only a fraction of the evidence now available — whether any of it might have provoked just the smallest wry smile.

It is true that in the early stages of pregnancy, there is «profound disagreement» whether or not to protect the unborn human being in the womb.

I am not a big fan of human nature, whether it be that of atheists, Hin dus Agn ostics or Christians.

To not only claim to know there is a God but to claim you know his name and how he wants all his slave humans to behave is beyond hubris, it is self deification, claiming to know the mind of God, regardless of whether you rely on some ancient book for that knowledge or not.

I really don't see what he gains from being indifferent and idiotic about the issue, but for the mere fact he can't make up his mind whether humans are a cause behind global climate changes makes me think this guy isn't fit to run the country.

Thus, for example, I will not address the question of whether we could rightly conduct the first experiments in human cloning, given the likelihood that such experiments would not at first fully succeed.

Once again, this article is about the slaughter of an innocent human not whether evolution is fact (which it is) or not.

not the Bible or God... humans have the capability to make choices, and they will make wrong ones... whether consciously or not.

I don't know how that can come as a great surprise to anyone with much experience in human friendship, whether same - sex or different - sex.

This conclusion can not be helped (and I will try to explain why), but at issue is the idea of «human exceptionalism» — i.e., whether human beings are exceptional, and if so in what ways, and with what environmental, moral, political, and cosmic significance.

The March 12, 2015 issue of Nature magazine contains an essay — not an original thesis, rather a summation — by two English geographers entitled «Defining the Anthropocene,» the subject of which is whether (and starting when) human activity has so altered the global environment as to constitute a new geologic age: the Anthropocene Age, as successor to the 11,000 - year Holocene Epoch that is itself part of the larger 2.6 million year - old Quaternary Period (or Great Ice Age).

I have contended further that one can not know what the essence of experience is, or whether temporality is a part of it, merely through generalization of features found in human experience.

and «such a god is not worthy of worship» shifts the argument to whether humans (the creation) gets to decide whether God (the creator) is worthy.

It would still be true, I think, that the content of such an experience, and even a fully adequate and somehow (impossibly) guaranteed inventory of that content, would not alone provide any nonarbitrary basis, intuitive or articulate, for distinguishing what is essential to the experience simply as an experience, and what is essential to it as a specifically human experience — nor even for determining whether there is anything peculiarly one's own in the experience, as distinguished from what is essential to human experience as human or as experience.

They say at the end: «More generally, they call into question whether religion is vital for moral development, supporting the idea that the secularization of moral discourse will not reduce human kindness — in fact, it will do just the opposite.»

He has also created spiritual beings, angels and human souls, which have free will; they are also governed by God's laws — His commandments — but they are free to decide whether or not to obey.

«Having one thing in common, whether it be a belief or enthusiasm or hobby or political mission, does not make you immune, individually or as a class, to all the other ridiculous social baggage humans carry with them all the time.

Thus, when we consider whether or not human beings are naturally religious, we need to reject the empiricist notion that we can read human nature off the surface of human behavior.

People often can not understand the question of human nature because their way of understanding it is framed (whether they know it or not) by the ideas of positivist empiricism.

And we are forced to witness to our conviction that not only human beings but also all things, especially all living things, are of worth both to themselves and to God regardless of whether they are of worth to human beings.