Sentences with phrase «with skeptical arguments»

It's like a shoot - em - up with the skeptical arguments.

Not exact matches

If two millennia of argument have not finished off Gnosticism, that most protean of heresies, it seems unlikely that contemporary arguments, no matter how persuasive orthodox believers may find them, will do the job with the unconverted, the skeptical, or the hostile.

Though these arguments sound simple, Plantinga worked them out with great intricacy and depth, and his book moved many skeptical minds toward belief.

The purely rhetorical argument that the «party of Lincoln» hasn't wavered in character isn't new; in 2013, continuing a newish post-federal election tradition, Rand Paul became the latest Republican to speak at Howard University to make that case to a crowd rightly skeptical of the idea that the GOP post-Nixon can claim legitimate continuity with its own past.

Essays, speeches and interviews... come from students, parents and government officials, providing a comprehensive guide to the pitfalls of standardized testing, with arguments to win over even the most skeptical school reformer.

Skeptical Science's list, with points assigned to individual AGW - denialist arguments, could be a place to start.

Even people who don't agree with me on everything and are somewhat of a skeptical bent should see some advantage in making common cause to get rid of the junk science arguments being made by a lot of the skeptics.

This document was recently released to the public and features the human fingerprints of global warming along with rebuttals of some of the more common skeptical arguments.

Apparently you are not familiar with the skeptical counter arguments and I am not about to try to teach you now.

If I believed his arguments with you and other skeptical scientists were purely scientific, I to would take your position.

If someone is skeptical of the «science» then simply state your case and answer the arguments against the claims you are making with facts and allow them to make up their own mind.

Unless any of the many, many people who have argued against the conclusion that Jelbring's work is completely wrong and should have never been accepted in the first place wish to keep arguing, perhaps the more polite ones can concede in one last post and we can wrap this up and move on to N&Z, the «existence» of a real, live GHE, and maybe, just maybe, get to where the skeptical arguments on the list are much better informed and less likely to play fast and loose with the laws of nature or thermodynamics.

Participants broke up into pairs with one playing the contrarian, given a skeptic argument, and the other rebutting the skeptic argument with the Skeptical Science paragraphs as source material (I have to confess it would've been fun getting to be the contrarian).

In the report (PDF), which recants many of the popular skeptical arguments regarding climate change, Schwartz claims that [Al] «Gore's brand of over-the-top climate hysteria has nothing to do with reality,» and that «Most of the greenhouse effect is natural and is due to water vapor naturally in the atmosphere, as well as natural levels of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, and a few other greenhouse gases.»

I try to argue science with skeptical science and Hufpost and they block my polite posts because they can't refute my arguments.

Jim D writes «I keep drumming on this issue, because 3.7 W / m2 is a number that even skeptical scientists agree with, and the arguments get muddied by feedback discussions instead of the importance and unprecedentedness of this forcing in our climate.»

I keep drumming on this issue, because 3.7 W / m2 is a number that even skeptical scientists agree with, and the arguments get muddied by feedback discussions instead of the importance and unprecedentedness of this forcing in our climate.

Delingpole was on first and gave a typical performance stuffed to the gills with strawman arguments and many «usual suspect» talking points that we have debunked beyond death here at Skeptical Science - «no warming since 1997», of course, plus a few throwaway comments about yoghourt - weavers and eco-loons, accompanied by much spirited heckling.

The most often heard «skeptical» arguments are mentioned here, with an easily understandable rebuttal.

I only sat through the first two speakers, but I was impressed with how nearly (and perhaps) all of the scientific arguments were fallacies straight out of Skeptical Science.

Given some of the arguments against AGW, and its close relationship with oil & gas and mining, some people might have expected that GSA may have adopted either a neutral or skeptical position on AGW.

There are several posts on Skeptical Science (also check the «argument» page and recent archives), with links to published papers, as well.

Re RC's review of Koutsiyanis, I think they took issue with them relying very strongly on long discredited arguments from deep inside the «skeptical» corner.

Please review the use of experts with your MacLean Law family lawyer and learn more about how some judges and legal counsel have become somewhat skeptical of the use of experts, who now are often giving argument under the guise of «expert opinion evidence.»

A lot of our arguments have to do with me being skeptical about him cheating on me, even though he doesn't really give me reasons to think so.