Sentences with phrase «opinion evidence long»

Not exact matches

While the board's opinion could one day change, Polman is right about one thing: There is ample evidence to suggest that companies that focus on long - term sustainability outperform those with a shorter - term outlook.

As a theological opinion, Nestorianism had therefore been long in evidence in Persia.

I fear that it will take some years before public opinion supporting gay marriage (currently, in the US this is a majority; here there is conflicting evidence) goes into reverse, and even longer before gay couples are no longer allowed to adopt children.

Although there's plenty of room for differing opinions in the Christian faith, this film is one more piece of evidence that wherever you land, believers can no longer sit on the sidelines when it comes to issues of race, civil rights and how we interpret our past.

Mayweather dismissed almost all of Nichols» questions, insisting evidence is insufficient, people are entitled to their own «opinions», and «only God can judge» him when needled about his long history of domestic violence.

this myth for years that the arsenal board and shreholders are greedy and only care about money has baffed me for a long time now, there is no concrete evidence that that is the case just opinions that its the case, the board are there to just make sure that the club runs smoothly and do nt go bankrupt under there watch in the history of the club that all the board has ever done nothing more.

The report concedes that politicians may in the end reject the opinions of scientific advisers and long - established scientific advisory councils (SACs): «Scientific evidence is only one factor — albeit a very important one — in policy decisions.»

A five - year - long, bottom - up initiative scrutinising the way in which we «make policy» and allow scientific evidence and stakeholder opinion to influence it ends in Manchester in the margins of ESOF 2016.

They aren't adding long exposure because of climate change — they are adding it because prices broke above technical levels signaling an uptrend... Maybe that's due to climate change — but it's a stretch in our opinion to use that as evidence.

Climate science is long on opinions and short on evidence.

To point out just a couple of things: — oceans warming slower (or cooling slower) than lands on long - time trends is absolutely normal, because water is more difficult both to warm or to cool (I mean, we require both a bigger heat flow and more time); at the contrary, I see as a non-sense theory (made by some serrist, but don't know who) that oceans are storing up heat, and that suddenly they will release such heat as a positive feedback: or the water warms than no heat can be considered ad «stored» (we have no phase change inside oceans, so no latent heat) or oceans begin to release heat but in the same time they have to cool (because they are losing heat); so, I don't feel strange that in last years land temperatures for some series (NCDC and GISS) can be heating up while oceans are slightly cooling, but I feel strange that they are heating up so much to reverse global trend from slightly negative / stable to slightly positive; but, in the end, all this is not an evidence that lands» warming is led by UHI (but, this effect, I would not exclude it from having a small part in temperature trends for some regional area, but just small); both because, as writtend, it is normal to have waters warming slower than lands, and because lands» temperatures are often measured in a not so precise way (despite they continue to give us a global uncertainity in TT values which is barely the instrumental's one)-- but, to point out, HadCRU and MSU of last years (I mean always 2002 - 2006) follow much better waters» temperatures trend; — metropolis and larger cities temperature trends actually show an increase in UHI effect, but I think the sites are few, and the covered area is very small worldwide, so the global effect is very poor (but it still can be sensible for regional effects); but I would not run out a small warming trend for airport measurements due mainly to three things: increasing jet planes traffic, enlarging airports (then more buildings and more asphalt — if you follow motor sports, or simply live in a town / city, you will know how easy they get very warmer than air during day, and how much it can slow night - time cooling) and overall having airports nearer to cities (if not becoming an area inside the city after some decade of hurban growth, e.g. Milan - Linate); — I found no point about UHI in towns and villages; you will tell me they are not large cities; but, in comparison with 20-40-60 years ago when they were «countryside», many small towns and villages have become part of larger hurban areas (at least in Europe and Asia) so examining just larger cities would not be enough in my opinion to get a full view of UHI effect (still remembering that it has a small global effect: we can say many matters are due to UHI instead of GW, maybe even that a small part of measured GW is due to UHI, and that GW measurements are not so precise to make us able to make good analisyses and predictions, but not that GW is due to UHI).

Now as long as you accept that evidence is more important than opinion, then this is a statement of the obvious.

But sorry, I think I'll hold onto my current opinion on that matter till I see proper evidence (not just more words, I have read many millions in last few years and they could never do more than get me to step one a long ago), but thanks for the reply and your thoughts.

Gary Taubes wrote a long opinion piece in the NY Times this Sunday highlighting evidence that eating too little salt can actually increase mortality from heart disease.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion without criticism as long as it's based on solid facts and substantial evidence.

The system suffers from a long - lamented proliferation of «hired gun» rogue, medico - legal experts who earn a handsome living selling «independent» opinion evidence to deep - pocketed auto insurers.

As Tony Mauro explains at Legal Times, Justice Antonin Scalia's majority opinion did not repeal the knock - and - announce rule, but «said the traditional remedy for police violation of the rule — namely, barring the use at trial of the evidence found — is no longer required.»

In many circumstances now failure to comply with expert opinion requirements won't be fatal to the admissibility of opinion evidence as long as it meets the test above.

Our reports naturally have to contain all the relevant clauses and paragraphs but so long as I am giving my expert opinion which is always backed up by detailed comparable evidence, I don't seem to have found myself having had any major issues.

First, there is no longer a general rule barring opinion evidence on the ultimate issue.

So long as the Court, in hearing and determining applications such as the present one, is bound by the rules of evidence, as the Parliament has stipulated in s82 (1) of the [Native Title Act 1993 (Cth)-RSB-, the requirements of s7933 (and s5634 as to relevance) of the [Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)-RSB- are determinative in relation to the admissibility of expert opinion evievidence, as the Parliament has stipulated in s82 (1) of the [Native Title Act 1993 (Cth)-RSB-, the requirements of s7933 (and s5634 as to relevance) of the [Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)-RSB- are determinative in relation to the admissibility of expert opinion eviEvidence Act 1995 (Cth)-RSB- are determinative in relation to the admissibility of expert opinion evidenceevidence.35

Federal agencies can have broad police powers and federal regulators don't act independently to their whims, generally there is a long process of fact finding, diligence, evidence gathering and legal opinion before charges or allegations are made.