Sentences with phrase «of nonsense arguments»

Good one, I hope any normal person that stumbles upon this blog can recognize the level of nonsense arguments presented here that «appear» to be based on scientific discoveries, but really aren't.

«I hope any normal person that stumbles upon this blog can recognize the level of nonsense arguments presented ``

You know that means we get to hear plenty of nonsense arguments and statements, but we wouldn't have it any other way!

Not exact matches

The argument of socialism's impracticality is nonsense which can be sustained only so long as one is ignorant of the variety and complexity of the socialist tradition.

I have yet to see any proof of a god, and most of this nonsense is about their god, so at some point their arguments or lack of them will always have that one huge hole in them.

The argument that the Catholic school is in some way anti-ecumenical is plain nonsense, of course.

Moreover, he opines that these proofs are essentially arguments that reduce to absurdity any alternatives to panentheism by demonstrating their incoherence or vacuousness.68 Moreover, the proofs may show that the idea of the dipolar deity or the Unsurpassable Object of our worship is not nonsense.69

An alternative formulation is that the world as a unity is explainable only by the divinely inclusive love that binds the many into a single cosmic structure; and, therefore, the world of secular experience is nonsense if God does not exist.79 Similarly, one neoclassical version of the traditional teleological argument would be that the fact that the world has any order at all is only to be explained by an eternal divine Orderer, because apart from God it is impossible to understand why chaos and anarchy are not unlimited and supreme.80

I'm the kind that will offer real arguments and intellectually smack the nonsense out of the uneducated theist.

This is a recursive argument and hence makes a nonsense of the whole approach.

I hate strength of schedule arguments more than I hate red zone fade routes, five - hour football games, and that this dumbass sport I love continues to get away with a bunch of nonsense because of a cynical, decades - old definition of «student athlete.»

But even you admit that Barton should have been booked for the Arshavin tackle, which would have stopped the rest of the nonsense, again part of my argument.

If this sounds like the garbled nonsense of a madman, it is because that is the logical level upon which Gove's arguments are being formulated.

If you can't ask a question without including an irrelevant and nonsense «the other side» argument, you should add a source or more information; as it stands, the actions of the NAACP do not match your quotes.

My observation and it does really make a nonsense of the argument is that Member of Parliament is not a job for life, unless the members of the CLP continue to vote for you.

There really is no argument for making abortion illegal, it's just the last gasp of nonsense from Britain's increasingly irrelevant religious fundamentalists.

Capehart's argument is nonsense, as is the whole, «creating a climate of hatred,» theory.

In 2004, computer scientist and linguist Gordon Rugg at the University of Keele, UK, published a persuasive argument that the manuscript is, in fact, nonsense.

So let me see: Jones and Wigley get accused of scientific misconduct and fraud, publicly, based on a nonsense argument by Pat Michaels.

The amount of regurgitated nonsense, logical fallacies, appalling personal comments and smears against the whole scientific community that pass for argument on WUWT and similar, simply preclude most reasonable conversations on the subject.

I agree COMPLETELY that the whole paleo / low - carb thing is based on a whole lot of «fantasy» argument nonsense, as you said.

After having a heated argument with his mother, he's lured into taking a babysitting job caring for the kids of Mrs. Pedulla: the stern and studious Slater (Max Records), no - nonsense wild child Blithe (Landry Bender) and Mafia-esque exchange student Rodrigo (Kevin Hernandez).

This is such nonsense it almost doesn't require a response, because there are people out there who have a knee - jerk reaction against Apple that goes beyond critical thinking, but in the hopes of reaching more open - minded readers who might be tempted by that argument, let me address it.

Second, your argument that Amazon is only interested in the «10 % of ideas that are truly valuable» is nonsense.

A great article, and necessary in my opinion; the amount of nonsense spouted by the anti-Vita brigade can be easily pulled apart from the very nature of their argument.

This overlayered rush of nonsense turns out not to be just one misconceived artwork, but the exhibition's very argument.

The amount of regurgitated nonsense, logical fallacies, appalling personal comments and smears against the whole scientific community that pass for argument on WUWT and similar, simply preclude most reasonable conversations on the subject.

Also, back to the media, I'm amazed that the media (here, I'm talking in general and on average, not Dot Earth) don't point out the nonsense and un-wisdom in some of the arguments that suggest that we, in America, should be able to have per capita emissions that are an order of magnitude higher than those of people in many other countries.

[Response: This line of argument is total nonsense, and your intuition about what happens to a can of water in a warmer vs. colder room is correct.

Most of these arguments are self - serving nonsense as I discussed in my August speech.

«An entirely equivalent argument [to the error bars] would be to say (accurately) that there is a 2K range of pre-industrial absolute temperatures in GCMs, and therefore the global mean temperature is liable to jump 2K at any time — which is clearly nonsense...»

This morning, Korman repeatedly slammed his hand down on the table for emphasis, interrupting the government counsel's every other sentence with assertions like, «You're just playing games here,» «You're making an intellectually dishonest argument,» «You're basically lying,» «This whole thing is a charade,» «I'm entitled to say this is a lot of nonsense, am I not?»

Sea ice is highly dependent on many conditions not the least of is wind so I would suggest your argument is nonsense.

Considering that at least 43 % of the letter's signatories have received money from the fossil fuel industry, being given large sums of money just for being climate «skeptics» and publishing error - riddled nonsense like this op - ed, the sheer nerve it must have taken to make this «follow the money» argument is astounding.

They've done this repeatedly and they're simply getting tired of people bringing the same nonsense arguments up over and over again after M&M have repeatedly been proven correct in nearly every point they've made.

A related argument is that it is * impossible * for summaries of cited sources to be plagiarized... also nonsense... but if so, then there's W. 11.4 Summaries issue tally and at the very least the 4 categorized «B» and «C» (in caps), and in Bold seem especially obvious candidates for fabrication, as they all make explicit change to the text to change meaning significantly.

I would suggest the important point to accept, for most commenators on this blog, of the Santer paper is not so much the figure of 17 years, which I would agree is probably debatable, but that the concentration on annual figures which we see in «it hasn't warmed since 1998» type arguments is just a nonsense.

This immediately disarms al those who brought along their physics books expecting to hear arguments from the Claes Johnson's Book of Nonsense.

The opposing speaker who followed me opened his remarks by saying that was a professor who specialized in lecturing on feedbacks and that he had not understood a word of my argument, implying that it was nonsense.

Mostly the article simply repeats old nonsense, but there is one new deceptive argument typical of those like Jacoby who know nothing and whose stock in trade is bluster about everything including climate change.

I worry about the minute detail involved; 0.1 per decade here, an adjustment there, the arguments over statistical methods, the use of models, the fact that a global average is nonsense etc..

What a bunch of mugs you lot are — all your arguments have been answered and exposed as nonsense on climateaudit.org, but you will never go there to discover how wrong you are, will you?

The phony skeptic argument is that cold is not part of the rollercoaster, which to me looks like obvious nonsense.

What's boring is having to scroll past reams of posts spouting nonsense that's been heard ad nauseum before, posts refuting such nonsense using arguments that needn't be given because they're talking to the denier's hand, and others talking about the knowledge, mind sets and motives of the deniers.

As some left - wingers start to follow in the footsteps of these unlikely bedfellows, they too will find their association with specious arguments and simple nonsense reduces their credibility — and along with that lost credibility goes the opportunity to shape policy in ways that might be more to their liking.

I am determined to get to the bottom of this because this is a KEY premise on which AGW energy is based and all other energy arguments depend, and it's simply nonsense.

But, of course, this «oil companies fund denial» nonsense is a zombie argument; it's been put back to death so many times, it's barely worth repeating: oil companies also fund research and organisations that are impeccably green.

Solomon condensed and coalesced the scientific opinions of the swelling ranks of academic heretics into three arguments: man - made global warming was a crock; unscrupulous politicians and NGOs were getting powerful and rich by perpetuating the myth; and, if the nonsense continued, the Western World would be a much poorer place.