Skip to comments.
When Questions of Science Come to a Courtroom, Truth Has Many Faces
NY Times ^
| December 5, 2006
| CORNELIA DEAN
Posted on 12/05/2006 8:28:46 PM PST by neverdem
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-44 next last
To: patton
the legal definition of "beyond reasonable doubt" is that an ordinary person would act on such a conclusion in the most important areas of their life.
Some people will attempt Everest, secure in the knowledge that it's ten to one that they'll live. Others won't risk getting hit by lightning even under clear skies.
The real issue is this: how bad is it if we guess wrong on global warming and take steps to head off what later turns out to have been not much of a danger? (It costs us some money. Maybe a lot of money.) And, how bad is it if we guess wrong and don't take steps and the climate change gets away from us? (It costs us, for sure, billions of lives and thousands of trillions of dollars.)
So, better safe than sorry.
21
posted on
12/05/2006 9:50:02 PM PST
by
lostlakehiker
(Not So Fast There)
To: Nathan Zachary
Al Gore actually gives money to Native Americans so they can build windmills, and that's how he stays "carbon neutral."
Well they're supposed to be building windmills (they''re probably investing it in ethanol).
There's a great article about it
here:
22
posted on
12/05/2006 9:52:54 PM PST
by
Tim Slagle
(Tim Slagle's Europa: Right Wing Comedy on iTunes and Amazon.com visit http://www.timslagle.com)
To: lostlakehiker
the legal definition of "beyond reasonable doubt" is that an ordinary person would act on such a conclusion in the most important areas of their life. Well, not really - everybody in my class grasped at the "community standard" argument when asked this question, and the Prof spent more than a little time shooting it down.
For instance, you are using the utility function of money to make an argument for action against global warming - BUT, it is not your money, and not your utility.
Also, you are presupposing that global warming has a human cause, or at least that it can be ameliorated by human action - two facts very much not in evidence. Atmospheric CO2 is a lagging indicator of global temps, not a leading one - so causation is not even in question. Interestingly, sun spots are a leading indicator of global warming - let us test a utility question.
"Give me all the money you have, have ever had, or ever will have, and I will eliminate 1 sunspot."
Do you think I can do that, by a preponderance of the evidence? Beyond a reasonable doubt?
Do you think that I can do that at all?
23
posted on
12/05/2006 10:00:43 PM PST
by
patton
(Sanctimony frequently reaps its own reward.)
To: lostlakehiker
you write: And, how bad is it if we guess wrong and don't take steps and the climate change gets away from us? (It costs us, for sure, billions of lives and thousands of trillions of dollars.)
I hope you're being satirical, but I suspect you might be serious. Warm weather is relatively harmless, poverty kills every time.
If we stopped using all carbon based fuel tomorrow, there would be widespread poverty, and the earth might cool off by a degree or two over the next hundred years
If we do nothing, prosperity will continue, and our great grandchildren might have to move North and Inland.
I think the safer option is to wait and see
24
posted on
12/05/2006 10:06:08 PM PST
by
Tim Slagle
(Tim Slagle's Europa: Right Wing Comedy on iTunes and Amazon.com visit http://www.timslagle.com)
To: lostlakehiker
Ok, having said all that, let us assume (wrongly) that I could DELAY global warming for X nanoseconds, and that you can pay for it, with your own assets.
If your entire net worth bought you a one-degree delay for 10 nanoseconds, would you pay it?
Note I am using analytical heirerarchal structure, here. If we get enought folks to agree to give up everything, we might buy a one-second delay in a one-degree increase.
But I really doubt it.
25
posted on
12/05/2006 10:09:42 PM PST
by
patton
(Sanctimony frequently reaps its own reward.)
To: Tim Slagle
How do you propose to give up using carbon-based fuel? Eat sand?
26
posted on
12/05/2006 10:14:04 PM PST
by
patton
(Sanctimony frequently reaps its own reward.)
To: patton
No. I was being satirical.
If everybody (including truck drivers) started driving Priuses (Prium? Pri-i? ) tomorrow, the reduction of CO2 emissions into the atmosphere would be negligible. The only way to stop the emissions is to stop burning Carbon.
Since there is no viable substitute for Carbon based energy (other than a whole lot of Nuclear), such a drastic measure would force everybody back into the caves
If Anthropogenic Global Warming is a reality and cataclysmic (no and no), it makes more sense to invest human resources into ways of dealing with the impending Armageddon, rather than trying to stall it.
Most of the victims of Katrina were people who relied on Public Transit. If we can expect more violent Hurricane Seasons in the future (snicker) we need to make sure that everybody in the coastal plains has access to a big rugged SUV.
27
posted on
12/05/2006 10:31:02 PM PST
by
Tim Slagle
(Tim Slagle's Europa: Right Wing Comedy on iTunes and Amazon.com visit http://www.timslagle.com)
To: Tim Slagle
Pri-i do nothing to reduce cow farts, which seem to be the latest fad cause of the problem.
You eat carbon-based food, you fart. Something on the order of a few litres a day, in methane outgasses.
Pull my finger. ;)
28
posted on
12/05/2006 10:36:12 PM PST
by
patton
(Sanctimony frequently reaps its own reward.)
To: patton
Got it.
And which humans do you think produce the most methane?
Why it's those bean-loaf eating Vegans!
I'll bet there's fewer emissions coming out of the backside of the largest American SUV;
than out of the tailpipe of a Hippie!
29
posted on
12/05/2006 10:41:43 PM PST
by
Tim Slagle
(Tim Slagle's Europa: Right Wing Comedy on iTunes and Amazon.com visit http://www.timslagle.com)
To: neverdem
30
posted on
12/05/2006 10:46:51 PM PST
by
traviskicks
(http://www.neoperspectives.com/optimism_nov8th.htm)
To: neverdem
She misses the most important point about courts and science, which is that from a legal perspective, cross-examination is the way one determines the truth, and the rules have now devolved to the point where one is not allowed to cross-examine the scientists in nearly all cases involving government science.
31
posted on
12/06/2006 6:24:27 PM PST
by
Iconoclast2
(Two wings of the same bird of prey . . .)
To: neverdem
You are of course correct that statistical analysis is used in medical protocols and studies. Mea culpa ...
32
posted on
12/06/2006 7:49:51 PM PST
by
MHGinTN
(If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
To: Eric Blair 2084; Gabz
33
posted on
12/07/2006 12:34:18 PM PST
by
xowboy
(My Parents were Right.......Love It or Leave It.)
To: patton
In other words, is is one crazy class, emphasizing the differences between scientists and lawyers. The prof uses case law to illustrate really bad science. OMG - YOu're taking a class given by John Banzhaf???????
34
posted on
12/07/2006 12:54:52 PM PST
by
Gabz
(If we weren't crazy, we'd just all go insane.)
To: Gabz
No, it is taught by a guy named "Bob", who works for a three-letter agency. LOL.
35
posted on
12/07/2006 1:00:48 PM PST
by
patton
(Sanctimony frequently reaps its own reward.)
To: neverdem
Mainstream science has answers to these questions (yes and yes). The correct answers are yes and unknown.
But people weren't around to start the current ice age 40 million years ago.
To: patton
Oh, OK........you scared me there for a minute....
Banzhaf would be teaching you how to legally abort real science by using junk science.
37
posted on
12/07/2006 1:07:30 PM PST
by
Gabz
(If we weren't crazy, we'd just all go insane.)
To: LiteKeeper
38
posted on
12/07/2006 1:10:39 PM PST
by
hgro
To: Gabz
john banzhaf teaches at my alma mater, the George Washington University law school. his speciality has always been litigiousness. i never took him bc i thought he was a wackjob even then.
39
posted on
12/07/2006 3:19:49 PM PST
by
xsmommy
To: xsmommy
He is a whack job as far as I'm concerned. He's the mastermind behind suing the fast food industry based upon the formula he "perfected" (his word, not mine) against the tobacco industry.
His latest brainchild is threatening doctors with malpractice suits if they don't nag patients into smoking cessation programs.............I would find such an attitude just as repulsive if he were talking about coffee or wine or donuts. Like doctors don't have enough to worry about.....
40
posted on
12/07/2006 3:28:26 PM PST
by
Gabz
(If we weren't crazy, we'd just all go insane.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-44 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson