Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 12/05/2006 8:28:52 PM PST by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: neverdem

Thank you very much - you just helped me write my term paper for OR 681. LOL.


2 posted on 12/05/2006 8:35:39 PM PST by patton (Sanctimony frequently reaps its own reward.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem
One is the standard of proof. Typically, scientists don’t accept a finding unless, statistically, the odds are less than 1 in 20 that it occurred by chance. This standard is higher than the typical standard of proof in civil trials (“preponderance of the evidence”) and lower than the standard for criminal trials (“beyond a reasonable doubt”).

What?
3 posted on 12/05/2006 8:37:20 PM PST by kinoxi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem
I can't even estimate the victims here.
8 posted on 12/05/2006 8:46:09 PM PST by kinoxi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem

read later


15 posted on 12/05/2006 8:59:28 PM PST by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem
The problem is that global warming in it's current "man made and progress is evil" form is everything but Scientific.
16 posted on 12/05/2006 9:05:33 PM PST by Jaysun (Let's not ruin this moment with words.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem
The problem is that global warming in it's current "man made and progress is evil" form is everything but Scientific.
17 posted on 12/05/2006 9:05:36 PM PST by Jaysun (Let's not ruin this moment with words.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem
"But while it is impossible to argue that earth has not warmed up a bit in the last century, there are still some scientists with bright credentials and impressive academic affiliations who argue that people don’t have much do to with it. As Justice Anthony M. Kennedy suggested...

Of course human activity has nothing to do with it. We are still thawing out from that last ice age. In fact, we can worry about global warming after the arctic returns to it's previous normal state- a lush tropical forest. If THAT starts dying off because of global warming, then we can worry.

Until then, the court should order "professor" Al Gore and the equally unqualified media from presenting his propaganda as truth, when in fact it is nothing but fabricated scare tactics to promote a political party's agenda.

If all the Al Gore's of the world, and the media that supports them want to make a difference in CO2 output which they claim causes global warming, perhaps they can all just shut up and quit adding millions of tons more to the atmosphere which they do just by promoting this one issue.

Al Gore told a lie on Oprah today, stating that he and his family were co2 neutral. Al Gore is in fact one of the worlds worst polluters in comparison to the average person.
His global warming campaign has added millions of tons of CO2 to the atmosphere, The additional energy and resources used to produce his CD of lies, the energy used to organize and light up Al Gore seminars, the cost of all the gas burned by all the people doing work associated with them, his jetting around the globe etc etc.

What a hypocrite. Just shut up and stay home, Gore. You can save earth much more effectively that way.

18 posted on 12/05/2006 9:06:07 PM PST by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem
Mainstream science has answers to these questions (yes and yes).

Well apparently there is a third group of idealists engaging in a "quest for truth."

Journalists

And the standard of proof seems to be pretty low for that group. At least scientists and jurors are supposed to be disqualified if they have a preconceived bias.
20 posted on 12/05/2006 9:44:36 PM PST by Tim Slagle (Tim Slagle's Europa: Right Wing Comedy on iTunes and Amazon.com visit http://www.timslagle.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem

bump


30 posted on 12/05/2006 10:46:51 PM PST by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/optimism_nov8th.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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 . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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.

36 posted on 12/07/2006 1:05:25 PM PST by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Larry Lucido

Math law.


43 posted on 12/07/2006 4:47:48 PM PST by patton (Sanctimony frequently reaps its own reward.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson