Sentences with phrase «theory which»

The specialisation theory which was devised by Adam Smith, the father of economics stated, in essence: the more specialised we are in a certain field, the more value we bring to society.

Go ahead and enjoy the read; it is in my view a sophisticated, yet accessible exercise of legal theory which features some well - known case law from a perspective you perhaps have not looked at it yet, a bit of Kant, the connection between law, morals and coercion in international law and eventually an interesting novel perspective on the sources of international law.

And even more unknown is how human released anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for» unprecedented» and» possibly catastrophic» temperature increase, a theory which is being promoted by this crowd and which has not been proven by empirical evidence.

In my experience, when scientists have a theory which they believe to have a lot of predictive power and only a few obvious numbers of practical importance to test it against, they look intensely for less obvious practically unimportant observations to test it against.

In my nearly forty years of professional environmental activism, I have frequently had to rebut people on the left, for one or more reasons: their indifference to environmental problems, their antipathy to anything that smacked of representing or strengthening the scientific establishment (which post-modernists still vilify as being inherently tainted), and their hostility to any movement or theory which was antithetical to economic growth, which they still consider imperative to solving global poverty.

This paper is setting out a controversial theory which suggest that what in the concensus view are (apparently) ancient martian volcanic cones are, according to Page, more recently - formed and a martian version of the explosive methane release from arctic permafrost.

Note 3: Bayes» Theorem is a fundamental result in probability theory which explains how multiple sources of information can be combined to generate an improved estimate.

Ma, Q., R.H. Tipping, and C. Boulet, 1998: A far - wing line shape theory which satisfies the detailed balance principle.

As I've argued before, «memes» — a theory which often comes up in the climate debate — are a double - edged sword.

-- The temperature at the surface and at height can be explained without recourse to radiative theory which to me means that the temperature is determined by the fact that we have an atmosphere not necessarily because we have an atmosphere with GHGs.

Orthodox climate modelers have failed miserably because they attempted to model a theory which had not been well thought out.

Not basic theory which gives modest rises in mean temperature for doublings of CO2.

So, any theory which projects more than 0.4 C in the next 70 years requires an explanation why the system will change its behavior and where the energy is stored for the more expanded temperature gains and why this energy will suddenly be released now and wasn't released earlier.

A scientific theory which can explain all outcomes except a surprise new Ice Age a few years after publication is not much of a scientific theory.)

Thus «global climate disruption» becomes «The Theory Which Explains Everything» — and is therefore utterly worthless (at least scientifically), because it is unfalsifiable, and therefore unscientific.

The same conclusion is accessible from information theory which forms the basis of our modern communication infrastructure.

You still have no knowledge on the topic of angular momentum theory which is one aspect of planetary theory.

But a theory which needs huge errors - bars to agree with the data is not very useful, in my opinion.

You have built a theory which claims to prove that winds are induced by condensation.

karly @ 341, regardless of his qualifications, Steel derived a massively flawed theory which he has not tested in any appreciable way against empirical evidence.

Note also David Stockwell's new accumulative solar forcing theory which explains global temperatures AND it explains the leading phase of solar variations relative to Sea Surface Temperatures.

It fails to distinguish between the political abuse of «science» by authority which deliberately ignores, covers up or otherwise (perhaps using «peer - review») renders effectively secret vital facts («hide the decline») and a theory which considers all of the evidence.

It is the combination of all lines of evidence and tested theory which is the basis for the educated folks (that is, folks educated in climate science in particular) giving useful information on that technical subject, concerning what we do actually know about climate and what it's doing.

Hence the need for a fallback position — an environmental theory which would justify the massively expensive and disruptive ongoing decarbonisation programme so assiduously championed by politicians, scientists, green campaigners and anyone making money out of the renewables business.

Whatever the observation, the explainers shamelessly adapt their theory to provide an explanation, based on their «scientific» theory which can not be falsified by any conceivable observations, event an abrupt plunge into a new ice age.

It turns out that there are fundamental predictions and assumptions of the theory which can be tested.

From the article: «Global warming is an infinitely flexible, unscientific, unfalsifiable theory which can be stretched to accommodate any observation.»

All this was in his theory which has been out for five years now and was simply disbelieved.

A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is nonscientific.

Over time Einstein's general theory has met all of these tests as a coherent theory which describes our observations of the universe and which is accepted by a strong consensus of experts.

Just like in climate science, we should be trying to explain what really happens rather than what should happen based on some theory which is, obviously, incomplete according to way the real universe operates.

So many billions of dollars changing hands over a theory, really just a theory which looks more like a religion since you can't oppose it without retribution.

Wikipedia: Fideism is an epistemological theory which maintains that faith is independent of reason, or that reason and faith are hostile to each other and faith is superior at arriving at particular truths (see natural theology).

Now, getting to point: «I'm saying that a theory which attempts to refute net radiative heat loss can not explain thermoses and atmospheres.»

I'm saying that a theory which attempts to refute net radiative heat loss can not explain thermoses and atmospheres.

Unless the alarmists can prove otherwise (since it is their theory which needs to be proven).

Greenhouse theory is a theory which all about retaining heat.

Such a system must be described by a spatio - temporal chaos theory which would be completely different from the well developped only time dependent chaos theory.

A theory which has certain meteorological principles behind it such as the Classius - Clayperon water vapor relation and certain basic physics principles behind it such as the strong absorption band of CO2 in the IR.

Perhaps this vindicates Svensmark's theory which says that cosmis rays (radiation) increase cloud formation which block sunlight.

The best known example was the Lysenko theory which was approved because it better matched Darwin's natural selection theory than Mendel — Weismann — Morgan genetics.

That is, it is endorsement or rejection of a specific theory which states, in part, that anthropogenic factors are responsible for greater than 50 % of warming since 1950.

Even my theory which supports the 1.87 value is irrelevant.

The UK Met Office produce forecasts based on this theory which consistently predict a high probability of temperature rises year on year which fail to materialise.

It is theory which decides what we can observe.»

To challenge a theory with a new theory, you require a new theory which explains the available data more fully.

I don't believe in projections of an incomplete theory which is nothing more than a normal skepticism.

But I believe the difference is mostly because I've been working with genuine facts from weather which has actually happened, and been recorded, rather than some theory which remains to be proven / disproven.

Likewise, if the results of one's test result in confirmation, it may very well be the case that the prediction itself was derived from premises in the theory which are in fact false, but that premises in one of the background theories were also false, and that one logically derived a true prediction from two false premises.

I am looking forward to a chapter entitled «mistakes in approximation - theory which make no difference».