Sentences with phrase «very simple observation»

One very simple observation that anyone can see tells it all: there is no sign of the super El Nino of 1998.

Here is a very simple observation: nobody has ever pretended to act in bad faith.

Those ought to be very simple observations.

Not exact matches

The relatively simple big bang model fits these observations well, whereas they require very complex explanations in other cosmological models.

Mendel (1822 - 1884) did this through his discoveries about heredity in plants, describing some of the most important principles in genetics through very simple numerical observations.

Dr. Mike Israetel talks about this in our latest ebook «Understanding Healthy Eating», «The Food Palatability Reward Hypothesis (FPRH) is another very fancy concept that boils down to a simple observation: people eat more tasty foods than more bland foods.

Author Karin Chenoweth reports on her «observations of educators who understand how to confront the ways in which schools have been traditionally organized and change them in ways that sometimes seem very simple and yet have profound implications for teaching and learning.»

It varies from a simple observation in the streets, a phrase in the speech, a detail — pretty much anything that triggers that very first brushstroke on canvas.

A simple comparison of observations with projections based on real world climate forcings shows a very close match, especially if we take natural unforced variability into account as well (mainly ENSO).

I have to admit that this is exactly the kind of physics I enjoy, good simple theory joined at the hip with real world observation, and I find it very convincing.

«The message here is very simple — the theory does not match the observations as measured independently by both satellites and balloons.»

But if you mean by «global warming» all the crap about renewable energy and sealevel rise and «acidification» and the end of civilsation as we know it and 50 million climate refugees and the end of glaciers by 2035 and hockey sticks and «unprecedented» and drowning polies and the whole tranche of wacko ideas that have got attached to the simple climatical observation that its a bit warmer than it was in 1912, then I'm very very sceptical and there are is very little reliable evidence for any of it.

The reasons for that are many: the timid language of scientific probabilities, which the climatologist James Hansen once called «scientific reticence» in a paper chastising scientists for editing their own observations so conscientiously that they failed to communicate how dire the threat really was; the fact that the country is dominated by a group of technocrats who believe any problem can be solved and an opposing culture that doesn't even see warming as a problem worth addressing; the way that climate denialism has made scientists even more cautious in offering speculative warnings; the simple speed of change and, also, its slowness, such that we are only seeing effects now of warming from decades past; our uncertainty about uncertainty, which the climate writer Naomi Oreskes in particular has suggested stops us from preparing as though anything worse than a median outcome were even possible; the way we assume climate change will hit hardest elsewhere, not everywhere; the smallness (two degrees) and largeness (1.8 trillion tons) and abstractness (400 parts per million) of the numbers; the discomfort of considering a problem that is very difficult, if not impossible, to solve; the altogether incomprehensible scale of that problem, which amounts to the prospect of our own annihilation; simple fear.

Or there's the simple observation that the very poor have very little to lose and and a very short pathway to sustainable lives.