Sentences with phrase «skeptical argument does»

This is why this common skeptical argument doesn't hold water.

Not exact matches

Last year in one of my blog posts I argued that although I remained very skeptical about the sustainability of the China growth model I nonetheless believed that China bulls could make a plausible argument but were failing to do so largely because they did not address the three questions that were fundamental to the debate on the sustainability of the Chinese growth model.

If two millennia of argument have not finished off Gnosticism, that most protean of heresies, it seems unlikely that contemporary arguments, no matter how persuasive orthodox believers may find them, will do the job with the unconverted, the skeptical, or the hostile.

Try following this again, it's not about education level it's about belief, the secular argument is that people of that age were not skeptical and that is just not true to think otherwise is «chronological snobbery» > Just cause it's written doesn't mean it's true.

However, if you only object to the fact that I said it, please understand that I do not buy into the whole «it is immoral to be skeptical of the Catholic religion» argument.

The judges appeared skeptical of industry's argument that the agency did not take the proper steps to determine that it was «appropriate and necessary» to regulate those pollutants.

10:30 a.m.: Energy Secretary Steven Chu rebuts the argument of skeptical economists who pose this riddle and answer: How many economists does it take to change a light bulb?

He doesn't see the skeptical arguments as anything other than sourceless items unhooked from time.

I did reference it, true, and I must say I'm skeptical, but the argument that most puzzles me is best exemplified by what Stefan wrote here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/what-ocean-heating-reveals-about-global-warming/

Even people who don't agree with me on everything and are somewhat of a skeptical bent should see some advantage in making common cause to get rid of the junk science arguments being made by a lot of the skeptics.

One of the most persuasive skeptical arguments (to me) that I have come across but doesn't get much play is the «Impacts» issue.

The statement that only 55 % of human CO2 emissions have been removed by the biosphere / biosphere is something you'll have to prove, which is hard because as far as I'm aware human CO2 does not posses an isotopic signature that can be easily differentiated from natural sources — the arguments you often hear on Skeptical Science are measurements in changes of the C12 / C13 / C14 atmospheric mass, not individual CO2 molecules, which can be misleading.

But they do have to eat, and almost all the research money right now is available for scientists pushing the alarmist side of the argument, not the skeptical one.

There are a host of papers that support skeptical arguments but she did not do that fine an analysis.

Along the same lines, I do not find credible arguments that any product of peer review is therefore inherently corrupted by tribalism — any more than I feel that any «skeptical» analysis in the «skeptical» blogosphere is inherently flawed due to tribalism among «skeptics» as a group.

I reject arguments (I frequently see) that it doesn't exist, and I'm very «skeptical» about arguments that there's a «vast asymmetry.»

In fact both teams have done their jobs in that the skeptical arguments are well known.

In the report (PDF), which recants many of the popular skeptical arguments regarding climate change, Schwartz claims that [Al] «Gore's brand of over-the-top climate hysteria has nothing to do with reality,» and that «Most of the greenhouse effect is natural and is due to water vapor naturally in the atmosphere, as well as natural levels of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, and a few other greenhouse gases.»

There is too much we don't understand to claim more, and IMO it weakens the skeptical argument to make egregious claims of «disproof» of AGW just as much as the CAGW claims of «proof» of catastrophe weaken their claims.

Sometimes he clearly grasps what he is talking about, at other times he is simply arm waving like a hummingbird and even if he perfectly understands his own post, it is not cogent to the skeptical argument conveyed, nor does the technical correctness of it, in any way support CAGW.

Since Dr. Pielke didn't care to pop in to Skeptical Science and talk to us, I'll just have to consider his arguments, and my responses to them, in this post instead.

I'm probably saying huge mistakes, but these aren't compelling evidence that the source of CO2 is «man - made» at all (although I'm not really much skeptical about it, I do worry about rigor and integrity of logical arguments).

No doubt we will see «skeptical» arguments similar to those on climate sensitivity, that if we don't know precisely which shade of grey we're facing, then black must surely be white, and all uncertainty must favor benign outcomes.

I guess I'd add that this is understandable, given that the denier camp really doesn't have much actual science to use as ammunition or to build their arguments on, and thus they tend to wage their campaign by cherrypicking data, or seeking to attack narrow and often out - of - context passages found in scientific papers or in simplified postings about those papers found on sites like Skeptical Science.

It is the latter that causes me to ask, and seriously this is not rhetorical or smart - * ss, do you actually know the mainstream skeptical scientific arguments?

Even for those skeptical of Roberts» argument, the reader can feel just a little sympathy for the state of Alaska, which did all it could do under the law and was still prohibited from constructing the generator.

A lot of our arguments have to do with me being skeptical about him cheating on me, even though he doesn't really give me reasons to think so.