Sentences with phrase «sort for the skeptics»

That's good news for bullish traders, and a comeuppance of sorts for skeptics that warned against a market reckoning in the event of tech weakness.

Not exact matches

There are eager adopters (a gaggle from an office down the hall showed up within minutes of my desk arriving, eyeing it with the sort of uninhibited desire that's usually reserved for Nanaimo bars at the United Way bake sale) and there are skeptics.

For Christian climate skeptics, a sort of Pascal's Wager is the very least that could be considered on the issue of climate change: If your skepticism is right — and despite evidence from countless sources — and climate change is not caused by man in any way, than a lack of action will maintain the status quo.

Maybe; their paper cites studies that indicate «unrealistic expectations» and «inadequate preparation» for marriage are keeping many couples from having an «our» marriage (and these are just the sorts of things Susan Pease Gadoua and I are discussing in The New I Do: Reshaping Marriage for Skeptics, Realists and Rebels.

This is sort of how «regular» science works (assuming no hidden agenda, only truth - seeking); there will always be outlier skeptics considering alternative explanations, and when they find some prima facie basis for one, will investigate.

Ross Gelbspan, as a self - described reporter who was angered by the discovery of skeptic climate scientists being «paid sort of under the table by the coal industry» to spread «false information,» has had entire second career promoting the idea that we could be making better headway in stopping man - caused global warming it it weren't for the industry funded coordinated misinformation campaign.

Peter you seem to be arguing for the creation of some sort of skeptic consensus.

A brief set of questions and answers illustrates how any sort of examination of the «skeptic climate scientists are industry - corrupted» accusation doesn't reveal a nice, tidy, open - and - shut case against such skeptics, all that's seen is something begging for a deeper investigation of why the accusation exists at all.

I do very little for them now, but they sort of, uh, formed because they were reading the stuff I was doing about the skeptics, all the skeptics I was exposing, so they umm, asked me to sort of found it for»em, and I did...

So I would recommend — modestly — that skeptics try very hard not to buy into this and redirect all such discussions to questions such as why the models are in such terrible disagreement with each other, even when applied to identical toy problems that are far simpler than the actual Earth, and why we aren't using empirical evidence (as it accumulates) to reject failing models and concentrate on the ones that come closest to working, while also not using the models that are obviously not working in any sort of «average» claim for future warming.

(3) It is clearly evidence of tribalism among «skeptics» who have made all sorts of absurd analogies to justify the need for victimization.

assuming what you say about skeptics changing topic as you describe is accurate, and at this point I do we are talking about data that is less than 200 years old, out of which extraordinary claims are made as to how that data relates to distant past and future trends tough sell assuming that all adjustments to the data are scientifically sound, It is very difficult for me to believe that measurements that have gone through so many iterations can be trusted to.0 and.00 in most other sciences, I doubt they would tough sell (the photo of the thermometer is downright funny) in terms of goal post moving I observe predicted heat being re-branded as «missing» a prediction of no snow re-branded as more snow a warming world re-branded to a «warm, cold, we don't know what to expect» world topped off with suggestions that one who thinks the above has some sort of psychological disorder extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence especially when you are teaching children that their world is endangered