Sentences with phrase «skeptical arguments on»

Unless any of the many, many people who have argued against the conclusion that Jelbring's work is completely wrong and should have never been accepted in the first place wish to keep arguing, perhaps the more polite ones can concede in one last post and we can wrap this up and move on to N&Z, the «existence» of a real, live GHE, and maybe, just maybe, get to where the skeptical arguments on the list are much better informed and less likely to play fast and loose with the laws of nature or thermodynamics.

Not exact matches

A majority of the judges on a federal appeals court seemed skeptical of the government's defense for President Donald Trump's executive order restricting travel, during courtroom arguments Monday.

If you're still skeptical, consider this: In 2007, two researchers tried to gauge racial differences on capital punishment and assess how blacks and whites responded to arguments against the practice.

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.

Accordingly, as J. Bottum puts it («Christians and Postmoderns,» FT, February 1994), «postmodernity is still in the line of modernity, as rebellion against rebellion is still rebellion, as an attack on the constraints of grammar must still be written in grammatical sentences, as a skeptical argument against the structures of rationality must still be put rationally.»

Even arguments based on natural law have a prophetic character in our skeptical age.

I've been skeptical of their arguments, which requires a court to rule on the goings on in an independent legislative body.

New York's top court on Tuesday heard arguments on the controversial issue of aid in dying, and judges seemed skeptical during questions from the bench.

Particularly on a topic of such great public relevance, scientists need to consider carefully skeptical arguments and either rebut them or learn from them.

Citing peer - reviewed material on Skeptical Science, science reporter Chris Mooney re-examines how Soon's primary argument is debunked, for the Washington Post:

While your editor has some skeptical thoughts on this matter, Miller offers a compelling argument for being concerned about its role in spurring the nation's education crisis.

Milazzo had sounded skeptical of the plaintiffs» case during the August arguments, and she came down definitively on the side of the Orleans Parish School Board in Tuesday's order.

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.

All skeptical arguments are OK, as long as they are TRUE skeptics, not the fake skeptics that exists on a sliding scale such as Myr *.

Brad DeLong expresses qualified Skepticism Toward the Skeptical Environmentalist I think there's a much more fundamental problem in Lomborg's argument about global warming, as I argue here The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change cites a range of model estimates of the costs of implementing Kyoto using market mechanisms.

IMO, I see some «skeptics» make some reasonable arguments — even skeptical I would say, but at times they leave a stain on the nobility of skepticism.

The skeptical scientists» arguments are mentioned in the book and discussed in the appropriate places on this Website.

Given the magnitude of potential harms from climate change, those who make skeptical arguments against the mainstream scientific view on climate change have a duty to submit skeptical arguments to peer - review, acknowledge what is not in dispute about climate change science and not only focus on what is unknown, refrain from making specious claims about mainstream science of climate change such as the entire scientific basis for climate change has been completely debunked, and assume the burden of proof to show that emissions of greenhouse gases are benign.

By that analysis the CAGWists are not practicing science in the Aristotelian sense; that would be what causes all their repeated and widespread Aristotelian logical errors and refusal to accept opposing skeptical dialog on Earthly reality / Earthly observations and Earthly arguments.

What put me off for so long from accepting this, was the risible arguments from sites like «skeptical science» and the innumerate rants of so many commenters on sites like this one.

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.

After taking a week to thoroughly examine every point made on this blog (I know I probably missed a few) and every argument / counter-argument, I have actually found that most of the graphs and sites pointing out «substantial evidence» have been completely utterly inconclusive, and have left me more skeptical than I was before.

Given the magnitude of potential harms from climate change, those who make skeptical arguments against the mainstream scientific view on climate change have a duty to submit skeptical arguments to peer - review, acknowledge what is not in dispute about climate change science and not only focus on what is unknown, refrain from making specious claims about the mainstream science of climate change such as the entire scientific basis for climate change that has been completely debunked, and assume the burden of proof to show that emissions of greenhouse gases are benign.

This applies often to the paradoxical «skeptical certainty», i.e. to the fact that so called skeptics declare full certainty basing it on arguments that are actually totally false.

On AGW skeptical blogs, however, just as is the case on conspiracy theory blogs of any kind (e.g. vaccination, moon landing, 9/11), it seems like there is a tacit agreement between fellow skeptics, and also the blog host, never to point out that an idea is flat out wrong or an argument flat out illogical so long as it purports to refute the «official» accounOn AGW skeptical blogs, however, just as is the case on conspiracy theory blogs of any kind (e.g. vaccination, moon landing, 9/11), it seems like there is a tacit agreement between fellow skeptics, and also the blog host, never to point out that an idea is flat out wrong or an argument flat out illogical so long as it purports to refute the «official» accounon conspiracy theory blogs of any kind (e.g. vaccination, moon landing, 9/11), it seems like there is a tacit agreement between fellow skeptics, and also the blog host, never to point out that an idea is flat out wrong or an argument flat out illogical so long as it purports to refute the «official» account.

Jim D writes «I keep drumming on this issue, because 3.7 W / m2 is a number that even skeptical scientists agree with, and the arguments get muddied by feedback discussions instead of the importance and unprecedentedness of this forcing in our climate.»

I keep drumming on this issue, because 3.7 W / m2 is a number that even skeptical scientists agree with, and the arguments get muddied by feedback discussions instead of the importance and unprecedentedness of this forcing in our climate.

Delingpole was on first and gave a typical performance stuffed to the gills with strawman arguments and many «usual suspect» talking points that we have debunked beyond death here at Skeptical Science - «no warming since 1997», of course, plus a few throwaway comments about yoghourt - weavers and eco-loons, accompanied by much spirited heckling.

The app lists common arguments put forward by those skeptical of climate change, and gives the counter-arguments based on sound science.

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.

he has commented on other skeptical arguments which he accepts.

I know that because I have used it as an example to challenge Smokey to display some true skepticism by telling me what arguments on «HIS side» he is skeptical of.

Given some of the arguments against AGW, and its close relationship with oil & gas and mining, some people might have expected that GSA may have adopted either a neutral or skeptical position on AGW.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change lead author, Stephen Schneider of Stanford University, has previously rebuked the arguments of political scientist Bjorn Lomborg, contained in his book, The Skeptical Environmentalist, for «selective inattention to inconvenient literature and overemphasis of work that supports his lopsided views».

There are several posts on Skeptical Science (also check the «argument» page and recent archives), with links to published papers, as well.

Re RC's review of Koutsiyanis, I think they took issue with them relying very strongly on long discredited arguments from deep inside the «skeptical» corner.

I am also skeptical of the argument, advanced by Joseph Avray on behalf of the advocates» society, that the hearing fees are wrong because it is somehow impermissible for the government to charge for what is «a public good» — understood not in its strict economic meaning, but simply as something that benefits society as a whole.

The Court referenced authorities indicating how difficult it is to make the «different standards of scrutiny» argument on appeal, as credibility attracts high level of deference and appellate courts are rather skeptical of such arguments.

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.