Sentences with phrase «points about the consensus»

Not exact matches

As Slate's Phil Plait pointed out, Scaramucci was actually wrong about there being a 100 % consensus that the Earth was flat.

But when you ask what to do about it, that consensus quickly devolves into finger - pointing — at recycling companies like Waste Management for failing to innovate, at the American public for their lazy recycling habits, at producers for creating plastic packaging that is increasingly difficult to recycle, and even at the federal government for not passing strong legislation that encourages better practices.

As investors, we are generally happier when the consensus is worried and we highlighted some concern about this very point at the beginning of the year.

Bell said recent quarterly results have seen outperformance of about 3 to 4 percentage points better than analysts» consensus estimates on average, compared with the 5.7 percentage points earnings are currently running ahead.

There appeared to be consensus on another point as well: that there is something strange about this alliance between American Evangelicals and the Russian Orthodox, that it needs explaining.

The point is not that more is better; rather, the numbers reflect the consensus among Whitehead scholars about Hartshorne's place among them.

The authoritarian consensus about global warming that actively suppressed dissent, as Climategate revealed, is a case in point.

In a pluralistic society such as ours, therefore, finding a common consensus of desirable qualities necessary in human society as a beginning point for discussion about the role the media play in contributing to, or detracting from such shared qualities, is awfully elusive.

«Several years ago we did some research among various parts of the industry and we learned there is a general consensus that at one point during the year, the food and consumer product industry needs to come together to learn together, meet together, talk about what's going on in the business and enhance their business together,» President and CEO Leslie G. Sarasin says.

The whole point is there is no consensus top tackle because there are too many questions about all of them.

As the climate changes, studies have pointed to the idea that dry spells increase in frequency and wet spells increase in intensity, although there is not a consensus about what will happen to the Indian monsoon, Singh said.

Thus, what science has to say about an issue appears to be a reasonable starting point for lawmakers or bureaucrats seeking to forge consensus on a given issue; in a time of extreme polarization, there is some reason to believe that science can offer common ground.»

As I pointed out when I first started this site, there is no major consensus about the number of arms the Milky Way has.

Possibly with the phenomenal growth of the internet and the aforementioned increase in cougar dating sites available to mature women in the UK, of late there seems to have been a «tipping point» in opinions about older women opting for cougar dating — and the general consensus now seems to have become: «If the lady and her beau are happy, so what; it's not a big issue.»

A consensus for change is developing, but as Bridget Terry Long points out in a new policy proposal commissioned by the Hamilton Project, reform efforts often sidestep substantial questions about how to improve academic preparation and — importantly — help students avoid remedial placement altogether...

In 2002, the same year that Levine published A Mind at a Time, ten different national organizations, including the Department of Education and the Learning Disabilities Association of America, released a report describing points of consensus about learning disabilities.

In other words, we need clarity and consensus about the point of content learning — independent transfer.

As scholars have pointed out, there is no consensus about the percentage of teachers who should be identified as underperforming or superior in any given year.

The research also points for the need to come to established consensus about whether instability of measures of teaching performance is a problem or not, and what level of stability is needed to make either high - or low - stakes decisions about teachers.

Pierrehumbert unwittingly makes the point, I believe, that disagreement about what goes into the models (e.g. arguably unrealistic radiative forcing in Spencer's) is precisely why there is no consensus on the subject of AGW, media repetition of that insistence notwithstanding.

-- How about THIS: «Thus the weight of evidence points to increasing potential intensity in the region where Pam developed, and consistent with this, increasing intensity of the highest category storms based on satellite - derived measurements» — How about THIS: «All of this is consistent with the strengthening consensus that the frequency of high category tropical cyclones should increase as the planet warms (Knutson et al., 2010).»

What about his point that in 70 ties the «consensus» was that we see the begining of cooling and the new ice age.

Sandalow sensibly suggested that the National Academy of Sciences be used to inform the Senate on where the consensus of the science is, and Benedick made some excellent points about how legislation can be successful in the face of scientific controversy and uncertain predictions.

oit is with indignation that we are speaking othis document is not acceptable • Bolivia owe have learned about this document through the media, not through you onow we are given 60 minutes to accept something already agreed upon by other states owe are seeing actions in a dictatorial way othis is unacceptable and anti-democratic owe say to the people of the world: they shall judge upon it othe rights of our people are not being respected owe are not going to decide about so many lives in only 60 minutes othis is s group of a small number of countries oAPPLAUS • Cuba o4 hours ago Obama announced an agreement which is non-existant owe is behaving like an emperor owe have seen version being discussed by secretive groups in the last hours and days oCuba will not accept your draft declaration oat this conference, there is no consensus on this document oI associate my voice to Tuvalu, Venezuela, Bolivia othe target of 2 degrees is unacceptable o... • Costa Rica ofor the reasons that we have heard, this document can not be considered the work of the AWG - LCA and can not be considered by the COP othis can only be an INF doc, it's just for information oadditional question: in an earlier version, a CP.15 - decision, para. 1: there was a reference to a legally binding instrument to be adopted by the COP onow: we have a new version, but the reference to legally binding instrument disappeared • USA o [wants to speak, but point of order by Nicaragua] • Nicaragua othere is already a precedent where we have not been given the right to speech onow that you have mentioned we finally want to speak • Pres. [moving on] oUS does not appear on my list any more, so next one is Sudan • Sudan othere must be something horribly wrong here oI pushed the button when I saw Nicaragua raising their sign in order to support them • Nicaragua othis is a deterioration of the democratic system oand this happens at the most important conference of the UN for many years owe have draft decisions about how to carry forward the process ostates (lists names) have written a submission: • this has not followed the basic principles of the UN • inclusion • bottom up processes • democratic participation • equality of states oduring this consequence, many states expressed their position against such approaches othe only agreement we recognize is??

As Professor Barry Brook, Adelaide University said a couple of months after your proclamation about the up - coming ice - age QUOTE: There are a lot of uncertainties in science, and it is indeed likely that the current consensus on some points of climate science is wrong, or at least sufficiently uncertain that we don't know anything much useful about processes or drivers» (http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/).

A few points that have caught my interest so far: • dealing with complex problems using complex tools, ideas • the idea of reconciliation in scientific debates is to try different approaches in an experimental meeting for attempting nonviolent communication in impassioned debates where there is disagreement • reconciliation is not about consensus, but rather creating an arena where we can have honest disagreement • violence in this debate derives from the potential impacts of climate change and the policy options, and differing political and cultural notions of risk and responsibility.

They routinely complain in general terms about how the consensus science is wrong, never pointing out specific research or researchers, and instead offering up simply rhetorical spew.

Here it is: «In the original AAAS talk on which the paper was based, and in various interviews and conversations after, I repeated [sic] pointed out that very few papers analyzed said anything explicit at all about the consensus position.

From a partisan political point of view, I don't actually care much about the false claims of» 97 % scientific consensus», since (as Dan has pointed out in the past) they don't actually work persuading people, and for a significant fraction of the population actually serve to turn people against it.

And it proves my point that the argument about the substance of climate science is obscured by second hand arguments about the consensus.

Well, I'm about 99.99 % certain that when the consensus hits the «tipping point» where 51 % of the scientist think that anthropogenic global warming is bullshit, that those very same warmers will suddenly start screaming about how a consensus isn't scientific, even though it was certainly good enough when that consensus was on their side of the fence.

More to the point, we can see as much confusion about what the consensus is from climate scientists, world leaders, and activists as we can see from any group of sceptics.

You're absolutely correct that there was consensus at one point about luminiferous aether, and it was proven to be BS because of new evidence.

In a December 30, 2010 Financial Post article, where Lawrence Solomon pointed out a major flaw in one source for the claim that there is a «97 % scientific consensus» on man - caused global warming, he said the following about a group of supposedly «climate specialist» scientists:

A new opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal attacks the 97 % scientific consensus on man - made global warming while completely missing the point on what scientists are actually saying about climate change.

To support this notion, Hackney first feels compelled to point out more about the junk science funding of people who question the existence of the scientific consensus:

I submit that Oreskes has long been little more than a mouthpiece in this issue, basically just parroting what was already said in various talking points about a «scientific consensus», journalists not needing to give equal time to skeptics, and that a set of Western Fuels leaked memos indicts such skeptics as paid co-conspirators with fossil fuel industry people.

However, as Mr. Outing points out, presenting a «balanced» view of global heating doesn't make sense — there isn't anything resembling a serious debate about whether human beings are causing global heating because the current scientific consensus is that human burning of fossil fuels is causing global heating.

Personally, I could care less about Gavin Schmidt but to the point, the supporters of IPCC consensus didn't show.

The point being that there is a great deal between observing the effect of CO2 on the planet and claims about what it means — distance which has been obscured by many green advocates» use of the consensus without regard for its actual substance.

So, maybe I should elaborate on my point about some claiming that no such consensus exists.

This requires — as Karl Sauvant and Federico Ortino rightly point out in a recent study — consensus - building processes about underlying assumptions and objectives for investment law reform.

Unlimited responses for each discussion, optional e-mail alerts for responses, and summarization of points of discussion and agreement — all move you and your spouse to a workable consensus about the terms and conditions of your divorce.