Sentences with phrase «sceptics so»

If cash buys you memes, then why are the poorly - funded sceptics so much better at creating them?

Since they denigrate the sceptics so much (the remaining 3 %) and declare publicly that they should not have a voice; I'm betting the politicians also think that 97 % of the public also believe it.

Not exact matches

And in the meantime, some sceptics feel that Google will not - so - subtly be encouraging publishers to use its ad network and analytics, since they already work with AMP.

so, automatically many people will look at that with sceptic ism.

So, today's doubters need to be pressed hard as to why, if the alternative versions of Jesus (mystic, moral teacher, misguided healer) advanced over the last few centuries can be taken seriously, it never occurred to any sceptic in the ancient world to make these very obvious challenges.

just so that the sceptic in question can....

The crust is just so delicious it's crazy, it's so full of flavour and the texture is just perfect — even the sceptics I've given it to loved it!

So delicious, even brussel sprout sceptics enjoyed them... thanks for this one!

So this dish will satisfy even the hungriest raw food sceptic!

It should also show to sceptics that a genuinely committed leader can make a difference to a country's graft culture and that they deserve international support in doing so.

So, just like George Osborne sent his junior minister David Gauke into the Commons to answer tricky questions on Google and tax last week, the hapless David Lidington, Minister for Europe, was despatched to fave the wrath of Euro - sceptic MPs.

So what on earth was he doing playing up to his Euro - sceptic MPs?

Kennedy would not have legitimised what he knew was a toxic brand, nor played second fiddle in a government whose pro-austerity, anti-welfare, Euro - sceptic trajectory he so distrusted.

And although some of those who may have left us for Ukip, or still vote Labour due to having a Blairite EU sceptic MP, John Mann, Simon Dankzuc and Frank Field, could be attracted to voting for a new Merged Moderate / Libdem party, would any such party ever attract those who now vote Conservative, that Blue Labour has so cleverly targeted.

Sceptics said that the shapes were ambiguous and that the molecules could have been formed at temperatures of 650 °C or so.

In so far as some sceptics and deniers are proclaiming that carbon dioxide - induced anthropogenic global warming may be «the scientific fraud of the century» then surely the issues surrounding it must be the scientific debate of the century.

Their concerns have been sparked by two simultaneous developments: increasing public criticism by key Republicans of research funded by agencies like the National Science Foundation (NSF) and a congressional power shift that has placed many vocal so - called climate change sceptics and opponents of environmental regulations in positions of power.

I assume research has been made and investigated for the article to be written, so why not share the sources to calm us sceptics.

Sceptics may enter Folsom with suspicion, but these are extraordinary scenes, so shocking and dynamic they might be mistaken for exorcisms.

It was in a unit for year 7 on belief and I wanted to explore why so many people in the world are atheists and sceptics.

Even if you are the deep - seated sceptic, the game A Vampire Romance Extended Edition won't leave you indifferent to the love story between young artist Leila Zaraostre and ancient, but so handsome vampire Uriel Ruthven!Free Download A Vampire Romance PC Games Free Download For PC / Laptop Full Version and start playing now and rember it's Hidden Object Games For PC / Laptop, it's the best Free PC games for kids, girls and boys!All listed games are absolutely free games for download!It's classic games, best notebook games and high graphic games we hope you enjoy your life with this mini, mugen and steam games don't forget your mission play these free games now!If you like this pc game, you can play The Lonely Hearts Murders too.

CEO Satya Nadella is a known Xbox sceptic, so I think it's not too far fetched that Xbox is basically constantly fighting for recocnition and money within the whole company.

So he is giving heart to the sceptics, not defeating them.

So what is it with these gentlemen denier - sceptic - contrarians?

I've been discussing climate change with lots of people at campaign stalls recently, and it has opened my eyes as to how far this «balanced» climate sceptic reporting is shaping the thinking of even those people who are concerned and want to see some action («I am aware that flying might make climate change worse, but I'll still do it because the warming may just be part of a natural cycle — I would stop if I was more certain»; «I am worried, but I have also heard that it is just water vapour which makes us warmer, so we just don't kow if this CO2 thing is true, everybody seems to have a different agenda» etc.).

Sometimes sceptics say things like «the models say the oceans should have boiled off by now, but they haven't, so the models are trash».

THe real danger is not so much the sceptics / denialists.

Those so called sceptics always dismiss the science and never add anything substantive to the discussion.

Could you point me in the direction of sources for the sceptics arguments and counterarguments so I can present a balanced and convincing account of this issue?

But I can't actually think of any British scientist with a solid record of published research in climate science who is a sceptic, so maybe this isn't surprising.

The sheer gullibility and credulous belief of so many self - described sceptics is just crazy.

This is encouraging, because the 25 % who do not «believe» that temperatures have risen are plainly in denial; the evidence for warming is so strong that just about all the prominent so - called sceptic scientists acknowledge it.

At very least the publicity was so poor that it got very little uptake from the many readers of climate sceptic blogs... of which there are much more than of consensus blogs.

The logic of the «industry funded sceptics» argument seems to be that scientists can't possibly have an honestly held position which contradicts the «consensus» because the consensus can not possibly be mistaken, so their opinion must have been paid for.

It's because discussing science with so called climate sceptics, (IMO deniers), is akin to discussing Evolutionary theory with religious fundamentalists.

I'm accusing him, and most other so - called climate sceptics, of allowing their political views to guide, or override, their scientific judgement.

From this point of view it doesn't even matter if the sceptics are right, so long as they are sceptical.

That's an argument than even deeply non-technical non-scientists of the general public (and Congress / Senate) can understand - part of their «figuring out who knows what about science» mental toolkit that Dan so admires - which is probably why climate science communicators on the sceptic side are so keen to communicate it.

There are many interesting comments from proponents of human caused climate change (AGW or anthropogenic global warming) and from sceptics which show an astonishing range of differing interpretations and understandings of the so called Greenhouse Effect none of which bear much relation to the actuality.

So, there really is a lot of hypocrisy regarding the null hypothesis by sceptics.

The facts were plain: the journalists didn't know what the consensus was, nor what the argument of the sceptics was, and so they didn't notice that the putative sceptics» arguments were not in fact outside of the consensus at all.

It is populated, however, by Bob Ward (him again), and Steve Jones, whose views on sceptics on the BBC is not so different, as reported here, back in 2011.

There is a lot of room for the sceptics between this position and H1: AGW (it obviously narrows as the confidence levels reduce, but so does what is being claimed on either side).

So, anyone can self - identify or be designated as a «denier» / sceptic, «lukewarmer», or «warmist» with respect to ECS, and yet take any position WRT policy.

«So you are saying there is a large scale conspiracy changing historical measured temperatures and only climate sceptics are telling the truth about it?»

If this were not the case, and putative lukewarmers (and deniers and sceptics, for that matter), were not the objects of green demonology, perhaps the geometry of the debate would not be so significant, and neither would the supposed fundamental axis (ECS).

So you think the leading lights of climatology would have paid greater attention to the sceptics had they approached them as lickspittles begging a favour from the Great Gods?

You are the * FIRST * skeptic — and so far, the * ONLY * sceptic — to answer * AT ALL *, much less correctly.

So the sceptics should try and falsify AGW and the GE.

what it demonstrates is how far so - called «sceptics» will go to create doubt about climate science in the in the public perception.