Sentences with phrase «very weak argument»

[Sea levels] are [rising] since we got out of the last ice age 20.000 years ago when the sea is 130 m below the current level This is a very weak argument.

Excellent post with several significant points, but still a focus on tropospheric temperatures as «validation» for the models is a very weak argument.

Extrapolating from individual behavior to group (or government) decisions (or policy) is a very weak argument for lots of reasons.

Further, whether it is «right» or «wrong» to «do the ethical thing» (and I would submit that in reality, that's a very weak argument in terms of its potential to effect change), my point was that if Obama really wants to «do the right thing», he needs the rest of the world to do the same.

this is very weak argument..

It is a very weak argument... and if anyone has to use that..

Ms. Morthole is trying to justify her continued sinning with very weak arguments on how sinning makes her feel good about herself.

Even today, eye witness accounts of crime are very weak arguments in a court of law.

Not exact matches

Seriously... your arguments are some of the weakest I have encountered since I left the VERY BLIND fundamentalist church.

but only of the plates... Christianity has MORE then ONE witness seeing the events... thus your argument is very weak and grsping at straws

The republican's arguments are very weak.

It is very interesting that when St. Thomas Aquinas asks if God could have united the nature of an angel to himself, although in the end and on — I think — pretty weak grounds he rejects this argument, he speculates: «There are some who say an angelic nature could not have been assumed because angels not being generated or corrupted are from the moment of their creation perfect in their personality,» (ST III, q. 4, a. 2).

His dismissive insinuations that I am arguing according to the Scofield Bible and that my argument — weak as it is — belongs in an intellectually deficient Christian Zionist journal exhibit the very kind of thoughtless disdain of which he accuses me.

so thus your argument is very weak and poorly constructed...

You argument is very weak, YO!

If the people who wrote the bible had any idea how our solar system worked when they wrote it, then you might have an argument (a very weak one), but as they clearly didn't have a clue, all of your baseless assertions hold no weight.

His arguments for this, however, seem very weak, as C. D. Broad has powerfully argued (LI 48).

Moreover, Leclerc's own argument that certain intimate actions binding minimal substances together are themselves substantial principles, is very weak, and seems to rest on the assertion that such relations must be substantial because 1) there are composite material substances, and 2) such composites are composed of other, smaller substances.

I do believe that Gazidis was weak and done very little to convince Silent Stan that the issues was the managers fault, Wenger has been able to turn around and point to poor transfer activity from the board to result in a poor team for him to manage, for someone who isn't deeply understanding about football then Wengers arguments could sound equally valid.

The argument that international law today allows for unilateral right of humanitarian intervention is very weak.

My instinct would be that the best (and pretty weak) case for good faith, reasonable proportionality, etc would relate not at all to the group of protestors who were contained, but either to some argument relating to the resource pressures of policing adjacent events, fears of the risks of issues involved in one becoming mixed up in the other, etc, etc which (at its very best) would be a highly pre-emptive and precautionary approach to a situation where there was no existing problem to be contained.

«This isn't a statesmanlike speech, this is one of somebody grubbing around in the weeds for weak arguments and it's a very poor speech in that regard.»

Political history suggests that this argument is a very weak one.

Show a little objectivity instead of pandering to a very obvious agenda, with a weak argument.

But the argument that the hiatus will last for another decade or two is very weak and I would not put much faith in that.

FWIW it is my prejudice that the AR4 claim «very likely» «most of the warming» etc. is sufficiently weak to be safe against arguments that do not rely on very high sensitivities e.g. a random walk, with the possible exceptions of some unappreciated dominant forcing or that old standby that «the climate is chaotic to a degree that permits all possible outcomes».

Leg 2, however, is very problematic and is by far the weakest part of the global warming argument.

I really think the reasoning that the data belongs to someone else and it is their responsibility to perform the quality checks is a very weak and indefensible argument.

All that having been said, let's take another look at the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) argument, first noting the following: The proponents of AGW argue that, right from the beginning of the Industrial Revolution when there were no automobiles, very few steam engines, and only 1.2 billion people (versus today's 7 billion), the introduction of initially tiny quantities of a weak greenhouse gas produced, without time - delay, an in - phase and measurable rise in global temperatures that continues to this day.

I must say that what I find somewhat unfortunate in the interesting account provided here (other than the already - noted focus on the weakest arguments, such as name - calling, rather than trying to address the strongest ones — surely this is the very definition of the straw - man fallacy?)

And that means that my arguments can be very powerful and economically expressed and that I can get right to the point in taking on an adversary's position because I know what's weak in what (s) he has advanced.