Sentences with phrase «without real arguments»

I guess that is then what we disagree about, since the figure on page 109 pretty much eliminates all possible renewable sources without real arguments or thorough analysis, leaving the reader with the impression that renewables are only capable of generating 15 kWh / d of the necessary 125 kWh.

Was it easier to just claim tally was wrong without any real argument?

Not exact matches

«To place defendants» argument in a real world context,» she wrote, «they assert that for the payment of approximately $ 100 a year to the Copyright Office (the payment for a Section 111 compulsory license) and without compliance with the strictures of the Communications Act or plaintiffs» consent, that they are entitled to use and profit from the plaintiffs» copyrighted works.»

but thats not what i'm talking about... i am discussing the god you claim to worship... even if you believe jesus was god on earth it doesn't matter for if you take what he had to say as law then you should take with equal fervor words and commands given from god itself... it stands as logical to do this and i am confused since most only do what jesus said... the dude was only here for 30 years and god has been here for the whole time — he has added, taken away, and revised everything he has set previous to jesus and after his death... thru the prophets — i base my argument on the book itself, so if you have a counter argument i believe you haven't a full understanding of the book — and that would be my overall point... belief without full understanding of or consideration to real life or consequences for the hereafter is equal to a childs belief in santa which is why we atheists feel it is an equal comparision... and santa is clearly a bs story... based on real events from a real historical person but not a magical being by any means!

Folks will make the argument that we have started doing what it takes, but seriously, as long as the number continues to rise without showing any reduction in the rate of increase, then what we are doing, however impressive it might sound, is not what we have do to slow the real world rise in the only number that really matters: CO2 ppm.

I wonder when NRK will actually let a real climate scientist thoroughly and without interruptions debunk some of the specific arguments that the deniers are promoting.

In 1981, my Harvard colleague, political scientist Steven Kelman surveyed Congressional staff members, and found that support and opposition to market - based environmental policy instruments was based largely on ideological grounds: Republicans, who supported the concept of economic - incentive approaches, offered as a reason the assertion that «the free market works,» or «less government intervention» is desirable, without any real awareness or understanding of the economic arguments for market - based programs.

It was a real pleasure to witness Jay Windley and Philip Plait pick apart various myths and arguments, without ever losing their cool.

And most his other post are along the same line, with ad - hominem attacks to others, name calling, tagging ideas as wrong without any real scientific arguments.