Sentences with phrase «something about consensuses»
It tells us something about consensuses and debates.
http://www.climate-resistance.org/ Not exact matches
«The consensus is that there's something so special about Buffett that his demise will spell the company's demise.»
But something much more interesting struck me about many of my peers» choices: There seemed to be an overwhelming consensus on shorting bitcoin and, as a contrarian, this uniform cynicism obviously piqued my interest.
There appeared to be consensus on another point as well: that there is something strange about this alliance between American Evangelicals and the Russian Orthodox, that it needs explaining.
But on the other, the lack of consensus regarding the content of this «good news» we're supposed to be sharing with the world makes me wonder if we're missing something important about the original meaning and purpose of the word «gospel.»
Above all, the coercive power of our legal system, already stretched thin, must be used with caution and chiefly against evils about which there is something like universal consensus.
However, I had a meeting last week and served coffee alongside these beauties and the consensus was unanimous after that day ---- I must at least mention something about this little number.
Don't get me wrong, there is something cathartic about the venting process but the benefits are short - lived and ultimately solves little unless some sort of consensus can be achieved.
If there is something she had done, the men seemed to be in consensus that they did not want to hear about the past.
We're increasingly in a world of film criticism that often feels like it's built around consensus, in which everyone has to agree that something is fantastic or awful, but Roger never cared about that.
But despite a broad consensus that something is seriously wrong with the institution, deep fault lines remain about the remedies.
When I think about such constructs as learning targets, instructional objectives, learning goals, outcomes, education objectives, standards, and the like, I've come to the conclusion that besides having something to do with what students are expected to know and be able to do, there's no consensus as to how these terms fit together.
Whether you're working a major news outlet or your own blog site, the thing to remember is that in this «post-fact» age Shirky describes, with no consensus, a rash response to a new - flying rumor will tell us almost nothing about Amazon or another «giganten» entity — it will tell us only something about you.
The general consensus seems to be that grass eating is not something to worry about.
The general consensus when talking to professional reviewers and many other independent ones is that bite - sized, short reviews are better as people prefer them, but to me there's something great about a chunky review.
Fiskin illustrates the difficulty of forging a consensus even in something as standard as a table setting, yet the 26 - minute documentary is not only about subjectivity.
Oh my what a terrible world we would live in if we are not allowed to question consensus, do further research and possibly change our minds about something we were sure about.
oit is with indignation that we are speaking othis document is not acceptable • Bolivia owe have learned about this document through the media, not through you onow we are given 60 minutes to accept something already agreed upon by other states owe are seeing actions in a dictatorial way othis is unacceptable and anti-democratic owe say to the people of the world: they shall judge upon it othe rights of our people are not being respected owe are not going to decide about so many lives in only 60 minutes othis is s group of a small number of countries oAPPLAUS • Cuba o4 hours ago Obama announced an agreement which is non-existant owe is behaving like an emperor owe have seen version being discussed by secretive groups in the last hours and days oCuba will not accept your draft declaration oat this conference, there is no consensus on this document oI associate my voice to Tuvalu, Venezuela, Bolivia othe target of 2 degrees is unacceptable o... • Costa Rica ofor the reasons that we have heard, this document can not be considered the work of the AWG - LCA and can not be considered by the COP othis can only be an INF doc, it's just for information oadditional question: in an earlier version, a CP.15 - decision, para. 1: there was a reference to a legally binding instrument to be adopted by the COP onow: we have a new version, but the reference to legally binding instrument disappeared • USA o [wants to speak, but point of order by Nicaragua] • Nicaragua othere is already a precedent where we have not been given the right to speech onow that you have mentioned we finally want to speak • Pres. [moving on] oUS does not appear on my list any more, so next one is Sudan • Sudan othere must be something horribly wrong here oI pushed the button when I saw Nicaragua raising their sign in order to support them • Nicaragua othis is a deterioration of the democratic system oand this happens at the most important conference of the UN for many years owe have draft decisions about how to carry forward the process ostates (lists names) have written a submission: • this has not followed the basic principles of the UN • inclusion • bottom up processes • democratic participation • equality of states oduring this consequence, many states expressed their position against such approaches othe only agreement we recognize is??
If so, the about - turn from Romney, one of the minority of Republicans in the race to have something sensible to say about climate change, appears to mark the final rending of political consensus over climate change.
While «consensus messaging» refers to something like an action, «cultural cognition» only posits something about cognition.
It made me think something was very dubious about the climate change consensus gang.
I also explained I don't have any real beefs with ice core data but if you want to state something specific I'm sure I can find something to cast doubt upon it as very little in this debate is writ in granite, confirmation bias is rampant, overconfidence abounds, the race to publish by inexperienced youngsters on the tenure track is heated, and pal review let's just about anything that supports the consensus view get published while simultaneously quashing anything contrary.
> It is the Politicians that want to so something about CO2 emissions that use the consensus argument.
There is a fairly clear consensus position on climate change among those who know something about climate, and that is summarized by the IPCC, which, contrary to our host's bluster, does list and evaluate outlying positions, but you can not define a minority position.
Thus as Ding et al. (2011) concluded, if a larger percentage of people realized that there is a scientific consensus on the issue amongst the group they trust most on the subject, more people would believe that humans are causing global warming, and more people would demand that we do something about it.
They seem to have a method of reading one or two sources and concluding that they've learned everything there is to know about something, like the nature of consensus, or philosophy of science.
Remember, I don't really care about consensus, I care about something being right, or the likelihood of something being true.
Here is an example of what I'm getting at: * Climate change is a myth or conspiracy - The temperature record is phony - the consensus is just politics * Climate change is unproven - The models are wrong - One hundred years isn't enough evidence * It's not our fault - Volcano's emit way more CO2 - It could be natural variation * A warmer climate is nothing to worry about - It was warmer in the middle ages - A warmer climate is a good thing * Mitigation will destroy the economy - We don't know enough to act - Reducing fossil fuel will destroy us * It's too late or someone else's problem - Kyoto is too little too late - The US absorbs more CO2 than it emits This is very rough example, but if you think it is headed in the right direction, I'd be happy to go through your guide in more detail and come up with something concrete - just give me the word.
Senator Kaine claims that 70 % of Virginians agree with the «scientific consensus» that catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is real and that «it is urgent that we do something about it.»
Although there has been a scientific consensus on global warming, some aren't sure it's something we need to worry about.
The rather heated debates we have had about the likely economic and social damage of carbon emissions have been based on that idea that there is something like a scientific consensus about the range of warming we can expect.
According to Kert Davies, the director of research for Greenpeace in the US, the Kochs have spent more than $ 50m since 1998 on «various front groups and think tanks who... oppose the consensus view that climate change is real, urgent and we have to do something about it».
«Let me say something about this idea of scientific consensus.
If it were somehow possible to strip away the overlay of angry political rhetoric — not to mention doing something about all the scientific misinformation that is constantly being broadcast and rebroadcast by the likes of Rush Limbaugh — a bipartisan political consensus on climate change might really be possible.
JCH, I know something about the medical literature and its getting better because people acknowledge the problems and its a field where consensus enforcement barely exists.
It makes 20 years of research and consensus - building completely accessible to anyone who cares to know the truth — and to do something about it.
You can deny that the consensus climate science is about something other than death trains, existential threat, catastrophe yatta..
I am just a lay reader of science, and it is important to understand something about models to gauge whether the scientific consensus that I read about is real, or whether there is a large group of scientists that have fashioned their views and taken a stance because an important moral matter is at hand.
A consensus must be about something — an «object».
But one of the reasons we strive for a consensus is that if some member of the rating committee feels quite strongly about something, we would want to delve in and see if there's something there that other members of the committee may have missed.