Sentences with phrase «nonsense about»

I don't buy this nonsense about having only one web site being an advantage.

Alan M., Had CREA or your local association informed you of the way to operate your business to allow the statistics you have just created to be available to consumers, all this nonsense about mere postings and discounts and rebates would be mute.

I'm tired of profoundly ignorant and misinformed people like you always spewing delusional nonsense about Samsung copying Apple.

And while Samsung might try to spin some nonsense about the Note 8 still having all day battery life (we'll know for sure when we review it), if Samsung is truly looking to cater to bleeding edge enthusiasts, it should've have found a way to at least keep battery capacities the same.

The latest example is all the nonsense about gender pay gaps.

If you asked why, they'd probably give you a bunch of nonsense about how their skills are more suited to negotiation, or writing, or management, when the real reason is probably that they can't stand the thought of being the center of attention.

If you people want to attempt an improbable comeback, stop that idiotic nonsense about the science being settled.

Or were you agreeing with my criticism of Jimbo's nonsense about «local effects»?

Wegman believed a lot of nonsense about AGW: he testified that CO2 is heavy and thus concentrates near the ground, and that a 2 degree global temp increase would not be significant because the temperature changes that much every day!

But what about all this nonsense about «The Team» getting an easy ride («pal reviews» etc) whereas our Noble Teamslayer doesn't?

All this nonsense about skin layers and IR not being able to warm water is frankly more of the nonsense speculation similar to the «I can't imagine how the heat gets to the deep ocean» theorizing.

This is the best answer ** for the general public ** to nonsense about short wobbles, pauses that either don't exist or don't matter, etc. etc..

So various tame conservation biologists came up with all sorts of nonsense about how polar bear populations were dwindling and how the melting of the ice floes would jeopardize their ability to feed themselves etc..

It's a sad statement about humanity that clear nonsense about human - caused global warming can get any traction at all.

The Occupy Wall Street movement, in a really big way, blew open the lid concealing the powerful forces that were spreading nonsense about the financial crisis.

These people who deny AGW today are exactly the same sort of people as those idiots who bought the nonsense about Columbus proving the Earth was roundâ $?»

Not some abstract conceptual nonsense about Nature's balance or homeostasis.

Consider Dr. Naomi Oreskes, who wrote in the Washington Post last December: «We need to stop repeating nonsense about the uncertainty of global warming and start talking seriously about the right approach to address it.»

What a load of self - righteous nonsense about the American legal system and who is more of an expert on the issues.

The current two - party - politics nonsense about Alternative Facts is a symptom of the insanity caused by extreme ideological polarization.

As recently as 2009, Kevin Trenberth emailed Michael Mann and other advocates regards the PDO's effect on natural climate variability writing «there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO.

It is understandable that many may shed a tear when a great scientific mind like Hawking's descends into utter scientific nonsense about climate change.

Morano: «Wasted IQ... Hawking is hawking nonsense on climate... Hawking has been hawking this comic routine about Venus and Earth since at least 2007... Hawking is hawking bullshit on the UN Paris Pact... Hawking descends into utter scientific nonsense about climate change.»

The Warmist response is furious handwaving and pseudo-scientific nonsense about absorption spectra, thermalisation, and so on.

You can't get away with saying nonsense about this technology and not be responsible for the accidents and the damages that you're causing.

But to proceed to depend on handwaving and specious nonsense about the simplicity of energy balance calculations, demonstrates the Warmist disconnect from reality better than anything I could say.

If you're willing to swill nonsense about clean coal and emissions capture, you can get funded, get tenure, get published, and get paid.

Here, read about the guy and let's have no more nonsense about engineers versus physicists for starters.

I don't buy the scaremongering CAGW nonsense about man - made CO2 because the Science and Physics clearly do NOT support such claims.

Global scientific institutions have done zero to stop world leaders and global NGOs talking nonsense about the looming apocalypse.

They read what supports their beliefs, such as solar and wind industry making up complete nonsense about how pumped hydro, CAES, and batteries are viable now or will be in the very near future.

or 3: the whole kit - n - kaboodle... along with all the nonsense about having 6 degK increase by 2100 AD?

Any fool can fling this sort of unsubstantiated nonsense about.

Usually you just rabbit on some nonsense about sensitivity that I have stopped reading.

This blog has become some sort of combination of mystery story and gossip column couched in nonsense about systemic feedback loops.

I agree with you in one respect: to sort out all the nonsense about climate, one can go a long way just by meditating on ice core data.

It pays to remember this when the nonsense about 91 % to 100 % consensus is thrown around, it is very much just a peer pressure version of appeal to authority.

As for all this nonsense about «symbology» and «blue horses» etc, what can I say?

And once again you are talking confused nonsense about heat flowing in only one direction.

When we can not even agree on what the temperature projections REALLY ARE (taking into account all known feedbacks and current measurements), then how can we EVER expect there to be meaningful climate action when we keep spouting nonsense about how hot it's going to get?

There are a bunch of particularly nasty serial second law abusers hanging around climate sceptic blogs at the moment spouting nonsense about the greenhouse effect being impossible because a cold object can not heat a hot one.

The Daily Mail runs all kinds of nonsense, from baseless gossip about the famous, to anti-science on all kinds of topics, from antivaxerism to «Frankenfoods» nonsense about GM crops [2], to climate denialism.

Guest Post by David Middleton I ran across a really funny story on Real Clear Energy last Friday... Once you get past all of the nonsense about fracking polluting groundwater and global warming hysteria, the article really gets «interesting.»

Unsurprisingly, the ads are full - on, unsophisticated attacks on climate science, complete with hardline contrarian nonsense about current global «cooling» and the pre-eminient role of the sun.

For the first a systematic disassemble of the paragraph of his speech in which the comment appears and the one following would have him looking a fool (e.g. just read the nonsense about «placing the burden of proof on showing there is no human influence» and try and link that in some way to what scientists do wrt null hypotheses).

And as for other examples of peer - review failure a la Hockey Stick, well, gee, off the top of my head: — Steig and his stupid West Antarctica - on - fire nonsense, — Marcott et al and their ridiculous hockey - stick - in - oz guff — Camille Parmesan and her nonsense about butterflies moving down a mountain or up it, who cares.

Nor, to my knowledge, has Nurse spoken out against politicians talking nonsense about solar and wind, a topic on which James Hansen, to his credit, has spoken out, condemning as sentencing his grandchildren to drinking green koolaid.

As for the nonsense about not having archive capacity in 2003, here is evidence to the contrary:

Surely you do not think scientists or anyone else should sit idly by when politicians talk nonsense about scientific issues?

For example, Montford disparages me for criticising politicians who talk nonsense about science.