Sentences with phrase «unequivocal proof»

There's not even 100 % unequivocal proof that gravitation works the way we think it does, or that General Relativity is correct.

If your standard is 100 % unequivocal proof, then a) you're not a skeptic, and b) you're looking for answers in science that it can't provide — try religion instead.»

If unequivocal proof were presented today that man does not significanly affect climate, what would happen?

Well, my friends, check the (almost) unequivocal proof that I am indeed in Australia (albeit a so - called «Pom»)

Because this is not unequivocal proof of a KOTOR MMO, Joystiq contacted the writer of the piece, who clarified that he asked Riccitiello specifically if this game was in fact «KOTOR Online ``, and Riccitiello replied «Yes».

In addition, since routine animal control dog - killing continued where Larghi worked, his results are not unequivocal proof of the efficacy of mass vaccination in lieu of killing.

All too often, in the never - ending quest for unequivocal proof of cause and effect, the environmental regulation process loses sight of a basic public health purpose: disease prevention.

Not exact matches

But, unless you have access to some «absolute / unequivocal * proof * that I'm not aware of, respectfully, your postings are coming across «as if» you * know * * absolute truth.

It's OK, Tomas and Dudu will be fine I have unequivocal, irrefutable proof they will not miss a match this season.

Noah says: Given that global raining is «unequivocal», and the ark is sailing around the world, the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence.

Given that global warming is «unequivocal», and is «very likely» due to human activities to quote the 2007 IPCC report, the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence.

In the main text of the paper he says «Given that global warming is «unequivocal», and is «very likely» due to human activities to quote the 2007 IPCC report, the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence.»

If the as - stated formulation is correct, namely Given that global warming is «unequivocal», to quote the 2007 IPCC report, the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence.

Given that global cooling is «unequivocal», to quote any magic report, the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence.

- Finally I'd address the duplicity (if I may call it that) in Trenberths statement: «Given that global warming is «unequivocal», to quote the 2007 IPCC report, the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence.

Further, he makes the classic logical error of «begging the question» or assuming the proposition as part of the «proof» when he says Given that global warming is «unequivocal», and is «very likely» due to human activities to quote the 2007 IPCC report, in addition to the obvious argument from authority.

Comments like this from Keith Trenberth: «Given that global warming is «unequivocal», to quote the 2007 IPCC report, the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence [on the climate].»

«Given that global warming is «unequivocal», to quote the 2007 IPCC report, the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence.»

Plaintiff takes issue with Justice J. FOLEY»S claim that the Plaintiff is a fellow «citizen» subject to civil law, as he is, when the Plaintiff has substantiated, unequivocal and undisputed proof, clearly showing otherwise.