Sentences with phrase «over a skeptic like»

Andrey Zvyagintsev's majestic portrait of casual political corruption has been almost universally praised, and even managed to win over a skeptic like myself, who disliked all his previous films.

Not exact matches

I mean, we skeptics already recognize that the supposedly - universal moralities of the various religions have changed tremendously over time, but people like Christians love to say their morality is universal and unchanging.

Like skeptics, you know, [Skeptics] in the Pub in Saint Louis, we've started a new group last summer; over 100 people, some [months] show up at the pub, conveniently across the street from the high - rise where we live and the bartender, she is kind of skeptics, you know, [Skeptics] in the Pub in Saint Louis, we've started a new group last summer; over 100 people, some [months] show up at the pub, conveniently across the street from the high - rise where we live and the bartender, she is kind of Skeptics] in the Pub in Saint Louis, we've started a new group last summer; over 100 people, some [months] show up at the pub, conveniently across the street from the high - rise where we live and the bartender, she is kind of new age.

I think the skeptics, at least over the past five years or so, were proven right with regard to the artists who are making abstract paintings that are perfect for the way they are consumed: They make a lot of them, there's a green one and a blue one and a pink one, and you can collect them all like toys in a Cracker Jack box, which is what they're all about.

I find concerned liberals are loath to talk about how consistently wrong climate models have been or about the «pause» in global warming that has gone on for over fifteen years, while climate skeptics avoid discussion of things like ocean acidification and accelerated melting in Greenland and the Arctic.

But their PNAS publication also referred to natural climate cycles, superimposed on the trend line, like ENSO and solar variability, both of which have been net contributors to global cooling over 1998 - 2008 [so climate skeptics can not — as they still do — point to either the Sun or El Niño to explain the world's temperature graph over that period of time].

I don't see skeptics at war with the military over considering this risk (I would like to hear from the skeptics on this one); rather I see some skeptics at war over the CO2 stabilization policies.

So no need to appeal to the usual, debunked «skeptic» talking points about urban heat island effects and the like, in order to explain lack of amplification over land.

The alarmists would like nothing better than to pull one over on skeptics, since that keeps them from arguing substance and, say, revealing their data, codes and methods.

It is not surprising that there are many skeptics who like I am, are very knowledgeable in many of the over lapping fields, of gas chromatography, anthropology, radio graphics of X-ray and particle physics, biological plant and animal processes, agriculture, high power radio transmission and reception, and its attendant multiplexing of signals, mining, reforestation plans and progress realities, nuclear, gas, and coal power plant construction techniques, organic gardening, astronomy, stellar physics, global circulation pattern drivers, and have also spent considerable time out doors in a tent and sleeping bag.

Litmus test questions with number scores for responses, or color shades on the Italian flag spectrum are all well and good (and definitely an improvement over the stale dichotomies) but do these have a shot of replacing terms like «skeptic» in popular discourse?

A favorite argument among climate scientist «skeptics» like Christy, Spencer, and Lindzen is that «internal variability» can account for much or all of the global warming we've observed over the past century.

However, while we are on the subject of climate Groundhog Day (where every day repeats itself over and over), let me tell you in advance what stories skeptic sites like WUWT and Bishop Hill and Climate Depot will be running in the coming months on the IPCC.

We shouldn't forget, these «Skeptics «are the exact same creatures who support whatever our President does, love to tell women they're not intelligent enough to know what's right for them... quibble over sick little details, like does cigarette smoke really harm infants and all the other «moral «things these great REAL Americans stand for.

When somebody who is purported to be a responsible scientist and the custodian and curator of a central repository of historic temperature data writes «I would rather destroy the data than hand it over to skeptics» then, amazingly, like the IRS, the very data in question is destroyed, I would say that the «profession» has taken a severe black eye and has some serious reputation restoration work to do.

Alarmists want to fight the war over whether the greenhouse gas effect of CO2 is true and whether the world has seen warming over the last century, both propositions that skeptics like myself accept.

I would like to switch topics to one I am engrossed in for one moment and ask you: Do you believe that skeptics are wrong to suspect that CMIP5 is systematically over projecting forcing / sensitivity?

Why, over at CA and other skeptic places, folks like me expect and demand access to a scientist's work regardless of our credentials or ability to understand.

Featuring an Intel Atom Z3580 processor, 4 GB of RAM, 64 GB of internal storage, and a 7.9 - inch 2048 × 1536 pixel IPS LCD display, Asus is banking on laptop - like specs and a metal body to win over the skeptics.