Sentences with phrase «question for the skeptics»

While many DIY investors are all for paying the least amount possible for commissions, the first question for the skeptics that arises is how exactly anyone can offer commission - free trading?

Not exact matches

Skeptics will question whether he is a little too corporate - friendly for the tastes of Democratic primary voters.

As for the miracle attributed to Blessed Teresa, «There are always skeptics who question every Vatican - approved miracle, and accuse the Church of manipulating the evidence, but the Congregation's medical board has very vigorous examination procedures, and stands by its decisions.»

Former skeptics had said as much, but the «I» in question had remained for them identified with the personal individual.

The title alludes to that book of the Bible so beloved by skeptics and pessimists, for the questions Jarman poses in poem after poem are challenges to the Preacher's resigned acceptance, and to his famous assertion that «all is vanity.»

Not only do Susan Pease Gadoua and I talk about the reality of assumed monogamy in The New I Do: Reshaping Marriage for Skeptics, Realists and Rebels, but many others, like columnist and author Dan Savage, have questioned why sexual fidelity should trump stability.

Obama Secretly Laid Out Why Climate Skeptics Are Bad For Democracy Former President Barack Obama said while debating climate change policy solutions is good for democracy, questioning the underlying science is bad for socieFor Democracy Former President Barack Obama said while debating climate change policy solutions is good for democracy, questioning the underlying science is bad for sociefor democracy, questioning the underlying science is bad for sociefor society.

King's questions for other skeptics and me typically miss this central tenet of science.

But skeptics question the sincerity of the movement's reflection, saying the accountability - focused rhetoric might be merely lip service paid to the promise of charter schools: independence in exchange for accountability.

But the more crucial question for dyed - in - the - wool gearheads is whether the Chiron is alluring enough to win over the skeptics and convert the non-believers.

A key site for addressing a wide range of questions raised by climate change «skeptics» is Skeptical Science (www.skepticalscience.com)-- in particular the questions discussed with references to the scientific literature at http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php.

Skeptic, did not become aware of the poll until it was all over, but would not have participated in any case, as questions other than climate questions held no interest for me.

The question is why someone who is practiced in coherent analysis would do that — particularly someone who identifies as a «skeptic» who is particularly interested in discussing claims of trends for which there aren't sufficient validation?

(New Scientist) Archer has perfectly pitched answers to the most basic questions about global warming while providing a sound basis for understanding the complex issues frequently misrepresented by global warming skeptics.

«7 questions with John Christy and Roy Spencer: Climate change skeptics for 25 years,» Alabama.com, April 1, 2015.

His comparison of «skeptics» with Flat Earthers is ungentlemanly for somebody with his social standing and raises the question whether he and the IPCC are driven in a corner!

My personal opinion for this reality is that Skeptics have studied the science and have very basic questions — questions that have yet to be answered.

For those who, without further question, either 100 % accept a theory or 100 % reject it, they are no longer skeptics, but cross over into the category of the True Believer or True Non-Believer.

Skeptics will tend to see the hiatus as evidence that, in general, that there is little or no AGW, while believers will tend to see it as being of little or no importance for the question; but this is because they (both of them) are using additional information.

when skeptics are forced to answer that question, the only safe hiding place for them is to say «they do nt know what effect added GHGs will have» and then when confronted with the vast amount of evidence that counts «for» a warming hypothesis, it does nt seem rational reject the theory that added GHGs will (all things being equal) warm the planet.

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?

I am a skeptic, I ask but one question, have for over 12 months and received zero answers to the question.

What I love most about «skeptics» is that they say that they don't doubt that ACO2 might warm the climate — they only have questions about the certainty related to the magnitude of the effect, but then they turn around and offer an argument like AK's that effectively argue that there is no scientific basis for reducing the uncertainties related to the magnitude of the effect.

This fact gives little incentive for people who tell «AGW skeptics» what they want to hear to correct their errors, since apparently many of these AGW skeptics will continue to believe them without question as long as they don't admit to being wrong.

Now that the science is settled, doesn't this question create a new avenue for the deniers and skeptics who want to say we don't need to do anything about it?

Such results would support the view that the USA is particularly notable for the presence of skeptics who question the need for strong climate change policy proposals.

The Telegraph apologized for creating the false impression that Dr. Pachauri had been earning millions of dollars from his consulting work, allegations that climate change skeptics seized upon to question the integrity of the United Nations climate panel he leads.

For example, when I discuss AGW with skeptics I ask them a simple yes / no question.

A brief set of questions and answers illustrates how any sort of examination of the «skeptic climate scientists are industry - corrupted» accusation doesn't reveal a nice, tidy, open - and - shut case against such skeptics, all that's seen is something begging for a deeper investigation of why the accusation exists at all.

I have yet to see Dr. Curry do anything but evade serious questions, attack her interlocutors, and seek the limelight for what as far as I have been able to discern are scientifically unsupportable conclusions that support false skeptic positions.

They were mum when subsequent articles and books by Ross Gelbspan libelously labeled [skeptic] scientists as stooges of the fossil - fuel industry... [and] when [a European skeptic] was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism.»

The pattern for those «skeptics» is one of starting out with what sems like a reasonable question, then not accepting the explanations, degenerating into denial, libertarian fantasies, and conspiracy theories while asserting counterfactuals, before their politeness finally expires and moderation kicks in.

I was criticized for participating in the book «Slaying the Sky Dragon» but did so because they were tackling a question that few, including most of the skeptics, ignore; the actual role of CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

But the next question is, considering how Gelbspan's «evidence» supposedly proving industry executives paid skeptic climate scientists to be part of an orchestrated disinformation effort is actually an accusation built on a foundation of sand, how long will it take for the Casten campaign to erase Gelbspan's endorsement entirely?

An elemental question begs to be corroborated in more than one way for sheer fairness: When the main pushers of the idea that the «reposition global warming» phrase insinuate it is proof of an industry - led disinformation effort employing crooked skeptic climate scientists — Naomi Oreskes saying it indicates a plot to supply «alternative facts,» Gelbspan saying it is a crime against humanity, and Al Gore implying it is a cynical oil company effort — are they truly oblivious to the necessity of corroborating whether or not that phrase and the memo subset it came from actually had widespread corrupting influence, or did they push this «evidence» with malice knowing it was worthless?

Start dissecting their narratives, comparing them side - by - side while looking for physical evidence corroborating Ross Gelbspan's «industry corruption» accusation against skeptic climate scientists, and a very different picture becomes clear: these people's narratives don't line up right, they collectively have no evidence backing up their accusation, and this prompts serious questions of whether core leaders of the global warming movement are totally oblivious to this situation, or if they knew their narratives had no merit from the start.

This begs for three final elemental questions: What climate science expertise do enviro - activists have to prove that skeptic climate scientists» assessments are lies?

So much for the notion that «skeptics» don't doubt that the Earth has warmed and that ACO2 is partially responsible (the only question is the magnitude of the effect).

Global warming «skeptics» — scientists and others who question whether the scientific debate is truly settled and ask for real data to support the claims of the alarmists — are frequently attacked in the press, by politicians (including President Barack Obama), and on countless blogs and Web sites.

So I would recommend — modestly — that skeptics try very hard not to buy into this and redirect all such discussions to questions such as why the models are in such terrible disagreement with each other, even when applied to identical toy problems that are far simpler than the actual Earth, and why we aren't using empirical evidence (as it accumulates) to reject failing models and concentrate on the ones that come closest to working, while also not using the models that are obviously not working in any sort of «average» claim for future warming.

Willis, for example, is a systems skeptic as he questions the whole governing equation.

And I think you hit the nail on the head with: «5) Once we scientifically - oriented Skeptics accept the reality of the Atmospheric «greenhouse effect» we are, IMHO, better positioned to question the much larger issues which are: a) HOW MUCH does CO2 contribute to that effect, b) HOW MUCH does human burning of fossil fuels and land use changes that reduce albedo affect warming, and, perhaps most important, c) Does the resultant enhanced CO2 level and higher mean temperature actually have a net benefit for humankind?»

The villains [in Crichton's book] are frustrated because the data do not prove that global warming is causing rising sea levels This is a particularly strange example for Will (and Crichton) to choose, since even the most ardent «skeptics» do not question that sea levels are rising, and that this is almost all due to the warming of the planet.

The question to be answered for the skeptics is «when» the current heating and sea - level rise stopped being natural.

The Coordinating Lead Authors explained that «climate skeptics» often point to this warm spell to question the IPCC for not acknowledging such warm spells.

Scheduled speakers include some of the nation's best - known global warming skeptics, including Anthony Watts, a television weatherman; Timothy Ball, a former University of Winnipeg professor who has been sued for libel by Michael Mann, a prominent mainstream climate scientist; and Alan Carlin, a former Environmental Protection Agency analyst who claims he was muzzled when he raised questions about the agency's finding that atmospheric carbon dioxide is a threat to human health and the environment.

Certainly that is one good question for reporters and investigators to ask, but a better question would be to ask just exactly how and why Connolley became a reviewer and whether this turn of events was what lead to the number of people who contributed to Rado's complaint, and the type of material within the complaint which supposedly support the accusation about «industry - corrupted» skeptic scientists.

Even more troubling for the fake «skeptics», however, is that 78.92 % of climate scientists are significantly convinced (> 4 reponse) that»... climate change poses a very serious and dangerous threat to humanity» (question 22).

But then, we could ask if people who genuinely fit the old definition of journalists — such as those seen on the PBS Newshour — are committing acts of journalism when they don't report half the story of global warming, and can't answer the direct question of why they've apparently excluded skeptic climate scientists» lengthy and detailed viewpoints from their program for the entire 20 year time their news outlet has been discussing the issue.

During a 40 - minute question - and - answer session, the noted bitcoin skeptic suggested that JPMorgan is optimistic about the potential use cases for bitcoin's underlying distributed ledger, the blockchain, and other distributed ledgers.