Sentences with phrase «so skeptics»

So the skeptics retreated to a view that Ebell still holds.

The answer to that question is «no», so the skeptics should not be claiming that there has been a slowdown as if it were an established fact, it isn't.

So the skeptics say it is going to get cooler as AGW theory says, just as CO2 will go up by a certain amount (8 ppmv by 2015), the global and sea temperatures will rise.

It's a hard claim to falsify because of the unknowns so skeptics often skip it.

So skeptics are right in saying that water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas.

So the skeptics ARE saying that the thermometer temperature didn't rise that much over land, and that is why this is a big deal?

Jim D: So the skeptics ARE saying that the thermometer temperature didn't rise that much over land, and that is why this is a big deal?

After reading two dozen or so skeptics makng their points, I knew it was time for an alarmist troll to peek out from the cracks to post a lame challenge to the instructive graphs as presented.

Forced, dragged to comply, the BoM finally releases a little bit of side - by - side data so skeptics can start to compare old and new thermometers

On the contrary my point was that it was two sided, so skeptics being threatened is no objection to my point.

So skeptics, who often admit the loveliness of the math, have long dismissed string theory as an untestable fantasy.

So skeptics will argue that raising interest rates would be self destructive.

And so skeptics and cynics can insist on denying what's right in front of our eyes.

It hasn't been proven, so the skeptic's position of disbelief is more logical than the believer's position.

I was so skeptic when I saw this film was coming out.

So a skeptic questions everything but accepts what the preponderance of evidence is, and a denier falsely claims that until all aspects are resolved we know nothing and should do nothing — often motivated by the latter.

Not exact matches

That may be why WeWork has a tech - level valuation of $ 20 billion — though skeptics question whether it should be treated like a tech company, given that real estate is so integral to its main product.

Skeptics may not believe so — that the very reason for Netflix's success is because it's not a cable company service — but that's overstating it.

The cuts are so sizable that skeptics view them as unsustainable.

«For anyone driven crazy by the faux warm and fuzzy PR of the so - called sharing economy Steven Hill's Raw Deal: How the «Uber Economy» and Runaway Capitalism Are Screwing American Workers should be required reading... Hill is an extremely well - informed skeptic who presents a satisfyingly blistering critique of high tech's disingenuous equating of sharing with profiteering... Hill includes two chapters listing potential solutions for the crises facing U.S. workers... Hill stresses the need for movement organizing to create a safety net strong enough to save the millions of workers currently being shafted in venture capital's brave new world.»

Some skeptics believe the PC crisis has been orchestrated and fuelled / promoted by the Mandel camp deliberately so they can sail him in as «the savior.»

So, to skeptics regarding the value of international diversification, I would ask: Does the country you live in have a lot of debt?

Part of his job is avoiding the worst - case scenarios, and if he assumes he will be successful at doing so, he never will turn dark enough to satisfy the skeptics.

So, the skeptics ask, how will value recover absent a definitive macroeconomic rebound?

So, that would not have claimed skeptics cryptocurrency, bitcoin less resembles a bubble and all the evidence suggests that there is a future for cryptocurrencies.

The term Reductionist is the accurate term for 95 % of so called skeptics.

So the term skeptic is highly inaccurate and misleading.

Others have already done much of this, and so have skeptics, and it's set up so they can tell you it's all nonsense to trip you up... it's your choice who you'll go to... and that's where you'll end up.

They already know the truth, and so view their job as making a case against any arguments from skeptics and doubters.

All the skeptics out there reading this, you obviously like to read so why don't you go do some real research and read the Bible to get information about Christianity or ask The Creator, God Almighty Himself.

Millennials are leaving the church because they have sat at the feet of skeptics, liberals, Bible deniers, liberal educators and Hollywood elites via Glee, Will & Grace, Ellen, Seinfeld, and so many shows with entertaining gay characters who surely must be «born that way.»

The problem for the skeptic is that there is no evidence for anything in the web and so nothing in the web of theories can be tested objectively.

You will get exactly what you wanted to prove, because as we all know, skeptics can deny anything, so if they want denial to stick, it does, to them.

I was surprised to see such a dismissive statement from Keller, who has devoted so much of his life to carefully addressing the questions of skeptics with nuance and respect, and who has a generally open attitude toward doubt.

Tektonics is a site devoted primarily to answering atheists and skeptics, so as a result the site answers just about every «difficult» passage (from a skeptical perspective, not necessarily difficult «in house» passages).

But if that be so, the resurrection can not be a miraculous proof capable of demonstration and sufficient to convince the skeptic that the cross really has the cosmic and eschatological significance ascribed to it.

Crazy people claim lots of things but something tells me that if a random person on the street told you that he could fly, you would be a skeptic but make him a more upstanding member of society and all of a sudden it's not so insane?

Semantically it suggests an apology, and skeptics would hasten to point out that apologetics was necessary only because there was so much to apologize for!

I'm a skeptic, so I don't trust anything that relies upon «gut feelings» like a belief in God does.

Mary was not only still alive at the crucifixion, it's clear in Acts that she herself was a follower and adherent — which says A LOT, considering women had no leadership powers (so no special treatment) and normally family members are the first to expose charlatans (note: even his brothers came to believe in Acts 1, after being skeptics earlier).

And «I'm a neurotic skeptic who thinks she's a Christian most of the time, but hates so much of what Christianity stands for, yet loves the teachings of Jesus, but struggles to actually follow them» tends to frighten people a bit.

So you see there were skeptics in the first century as there are now?

So, just because «skeptics» if they existed were satisfied, doesn't mean we should be.

Obama's mother was an atheist and his grandparents were religious skeptics»... So what?

(Besides, I've heard this repeated so many times by other skeptics and atheists, I am wondering if any of them have ever had an original thought of their own).

Both skeptics and believers have wondered why an omnipotent Creator would allow the universe to unfold so ponderously and in such a long, drawn - out evolutionary manner.

If an agreement is announced, and such sentiments were to rise again, from a «reconciled» group, it would cause severe embarrassment for the Holy See, and provoke countless «I told you so's» from skeptics and critics.

The reason it is so significant is that, as Haaretz notes, skeptics point to the fact that «no fortifications, public works or signs of statehood» in the region dating back to the time have ever been discovered.

What I meant was, I see nothing in the text that points to your (or Sailhamer's) conclusion, so I am a skeptic (thus, the «I'm not buying it»).

«While I wished to think thus, that everything was false, it necessarily had to be true that I, who was thinking this, was something; and, observing that this truth — I think, therefore I am — was so firm and so sure that all the most extravagant suppositions of the skeptics were incapable of shaking it, I judged that I could accept with a scruple as the first principle of the philosophy I was seeking.»