Sentences with phrase «quite implausible»

BC claimed that the constitution is limited to the documents referred to in s. 52 (2) of the Constitution Act, 1982 (though the Supreme Court's recent decision in L'affaire Nadon seems to make that claim quite implausible).

I find such arguments (coming from either side) to be quite implausible.

This claim can only be an opinion, as it would be quite implausible that Colose read every articles written on the whole hurly burly to express it.

Brandon Shollenberger must admit that these two possibilities are quite implausible for our case, so his counter-argument, albeit ingenious, is only academic and applies only to a version of my argument which could easily modified.

Is it quite implausible in a warming scenario?

I did not say, and do not believe, that «no weather event can on its own be taken as a an indicator of climate change», and in particular hold that hurricane Sandy, mere category 1 that it was, was in fact in its details an event that would be quite implausible in the baseline climate.

One who does not believe in God, for example, may find the existence of free, nonhuman, immaterial persons such as Satan quite implausible; one who already believes in the existence of at least one such free, nonhuman, immaterial person — i.e., God — may find it much less implausible.

That explanation is, I believe, quite implausible.

Not exact matches

Musk's assertion during the conference call that Tesla will «quite likely» be profitable as of the third quarter this year based on strong sales of the Model 3 sounds implausible, since Model 3 production remains a question mark.

However, this mechanism is a quite slow and it is highly implausible that these politicians are sensible to EU fines against the country.

«Even small proportionate losses in trade (or lost growth in trade) with the EU would require quite dramatic — and probably implausible — increases in trade with such countries.»

This one endearingly eccentric, familiar detail — nothing brings down the house quite like the peek - a-boo intrusion of a boom mike — helps make palatable such an implausible showdown and its comically dated mise - en - scène.

I suggest look at the fossil sequences of human ancestors from early apes to australopithicus, homo erectus and homo habilis to homo sapiens, and notice how they morph one into the other quite smoothly, all explained by Darwinian evolution, while with respect the old testament verision is clearly a creation myth like you find in early greek and roman culture etc, an imaginative guess, and very implausible in light of our current understanding of things.

I believe a 4 C commitment by mid-century is plausible, but a realized 4 C is somewhere between quite unlikely and implausible, and it appears that this distinction got scrambled along the way from IPCC to Birol to Anderson.