True cause of global warming

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

I fail to see any connection between the two.

The connection is that the process used to impose the death penalty on a person [alleged] to be guilty is practically identical to the process used to determine the [alleged] existence of GW.

What you're saying is that you have no questions about the use of the former, but do about the latter, despite the similarity of the processes. Why is the result reached by one OK, but the other dubious?

Have you ever challenged an execution on the basis of: 1) they didn't look at the right facts; 2) somebody's lying somewhere; 3) this is totally just a political stunt to get face time; 4) this is simply an industry designed to enrich lawyers; or 5) everything else?

If not, what makes it different from global warming?

But for the record, no I do not buy into the AGW nonsense. Thankfully global warming hasbreduced the ice sheet the once was a mile thick over my home to the point that we only slip and slide for a few months out of the year. Anything we can do to reduce that is a plus....but I'm not holding my breath.

As for the death penalty, those who show no regard for the life of another (which is the only time we impose the death penalty), and deprive them of their life, should automatically forfeit their life. A very simple principle and consistent with a pro life position.

This isn't an issue of whether use of the DP is, in terms of principles, appropriate. The issue is: if the death penalty is OK, then why wouldn't you be OK with the result reached by a process that is incredibly similar?

 

[mantakos]

... There wasn't one other "computer geek" I knew in the industry who agreed with the dire predictions of Y2K. Not one...

I think the problem some people have is in distinguishing between "what will happen" and "what will happen if nothing is done". A proper warning of "what will happen" motivates action that prevents us from finding out "what will happen if nothing is done".

We all knew what it was -- a power play by large corporations to open the floodgates to international labor...

I thought it was a conspiracy between the bottled water distributors and the generator manufacturers?

We really need to tune our tinfoil hats to the same frequency...
-harry

 

[Tom-D]

I think the problem some people have is in distinguishing between "what will happen" and "what will happen if nothing is done". A proper warning of "what will happen" motivates action that prevents us from finding out "what will happen if nothing is done".

We know neither of those choices are a good thing,

I thought it was a conspiracy between the bottled water distributors and the generator manufacturers?

It actually a conspiracy by those who stand to get very rich.

We really need to tune our tinfoil hats to the same frequency...
-harry

We need a solution to gain energy independence, and in so doing replace the O2 generating forests that are being cut.

and Algae will do that. North America's largest producer of O2 is now the algae in the southern swamps.

 

[LDJones]

Interesting. Who are you arguing with, me or a stereotype? Have I expressed an opinion here, or simply expressed facts? Are those facts false? Why would you react to the expression of facts with insults?
-harry

I'm sorry. I must have missed the "facts" (in quotes) to which you referred. In the most recent DP case that raised all the media attention the facts upon which the case was decided were reviewed multiple times over 20+ years and no one could find an error in the conclusion reached....that the defendant blew away the police officer in front of a slew of witnesses. But never let the facts get in the way of a good liberal cause celeb. Interestingly, another DP case the same week got almost no media attention, probably because it was a despicable white supremacist who dragged a non-white guy around behind his pickup until he was dead. I think both were equally deserving of the fate they chose for themselves. But we only hear outrage over one of them.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

I'm sorry. I must have missed the "facts" (in quotes) to which you referred. In the most recent DP case that raised all the media attention the facts upon which the case was decided were reviewed multiple times over 20+ years and no one could find an error in the conclusion reached....that the defendant blew away the police officer in front of a slew of witnesses. But never let the facts get in the way of a good liberal cause celeb. Interestingly, another DP case the same week got almost no media attention, probably because it was a despicable white supremacist who dragged a non-white guy around behind his pickup until he was dead. I think both were equally deserving of the fate they chose for themselves. But we only hear outrage over one of them.

As you don't question the results there, why do you question them with what scientific review - including determinations of fact and years of peer review - has found?

 

[LDJones]

This isn't an issue of whether use of the DP is, in terms of principles, appropriate. The issue is: if the death penalty is OK, then why wouldn't you be OK with the result reached by a process that is incredibly similar?

There is no comparison between the two. One has eyewitness accounts (at least in the most recent case) as to the proximate cause. AGW has theories that can't be proven nor falsified. If it gets warmer, it's caused by AGW. If it gets colder, it's AGW's fault. Wetter? Drier? All AGW. The science behind it is laughable.

It's based on computer models that are so incomplete it would be akin to trying to predict weekly NFL results based on what the players ate the week before. There are a host of factors that they dont even attempt to account for because they are far too complex to model, i.e. impact of cloud cover in the feedback cycle.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

There is no comparison between the two.

There isn't?

Any idea how the judicial process works? How the scientific one works? As explained previously (I think a few pages back), they're on the verge of identical. The only real difference is that science can change its mind; a court can't.

One has eyewitness accounts (at least in the most recent case) as to the proximate cause.

Global warming has all kinds of very hard data. Most of which is actually far better than "eyewitness accounts" (which are wrong on a regular basis).

AGW has theories that can't be proven nor falsified.

Kind of like a guilty or not guilty verdict, wouldn't you say?

The jury never *really* knows. Courts are doing nothing more than convicting people on the most probable theories. Sounding familiar?

If it gets warmer, it's caused by AGW. If it gets colder, it's AGW's fault. Wetter? Drier? All AGW.

If a guy's convicted, it's clearly because he's guilty. If he's not convicted, it's clearly because he's innocent. Except for all the other times.

The science behind it is laughable.

Pretty sure there are some threads floating around accusing the courts of worse.

It's based on computer models that are so incomplete it would be akin to trying to predict weekly NFL results based on what the players ate the week before. There are a host of factors that they dont even attempt to account for because they are far too complex to model, i.e. impact of cloud cover in the feedback cycle.

This sounds...just like a courtroom.

But, don't worry. The judicial system totally gets it right, but science totally gets it wrong. It's...science.

 

[LDJones]

As you don't question the results there, why do you question them with what scientific review - including determinations of fact and years of peer review - has found?

Have you looked into the actual per review process? The one by which they selectively choose only those who support their "consensus" and ignore anything that might questions it? Dr. Timothy Ball from the Univ. of Winnipeg could share some thoughts on that hopelessly corrupt process.

As usual, all you have to do is follow the money. The AGW crowd is funded by endless grants but those who poke holes in it get cut off.

"But the earth is round!"

"No it's not...no more funding for you!"

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Have you looked into the actual per review process? The one by which they selectively choose only those who support their "consensus" and ignore anything that might questions it? Dr. Timothy Ball from the Univ. of Winnipeg could share some thoughts on that hopelessly corrupt process.

As usual, all you have to do is follow the money. The AGW crowd is funded by endless grants but those who poke holes in it get cut off.

"But the earth is round!"

"No it's not...no more funding for you!"

Sounds like accusations leveled against the appellate process, no?

So why is one flawed, while the other is given license to impose death?

 

[LDJones]

There isn't?

Any idea how the judicial process works? How the scientific one works? As explained previously (I think a few pages back), they're on the verge of identical. The only real difference is that science can change its mind; a court can't.



Global warming has all kinds of very hard data. Most of which is actually far better than "eyewitness accounts" (which are wrong on a regular basis).



Kind of like a guilty or not guilty verdict, wouldn't you say?

The jury never *really* knows. Courts are doing nothing more than convicting people on the most probable theories. Sounding familiar?



If a guy's convicted, it's clearly because he's guilty. If he's not convicted, it's clearly because he's innocent. Except for all the other times.



Pretty sure there are some threads floating around accusing the courts of worse.



This sounds...just like a courtroom.

But, don't worry. The judicial system totally gets it right, but science totally gets it wrong. It's...science.

Sorry...on an iPad so a bit hard to be selective in quoting.

Actually, I am somewhat familiar with our judicial system. I was a prosecutor for four years and criminal defense for several years after that. We work off a system of "beyond a reasonable doubt" in criminal cases, as opposed to "a preponderance of the evidence" (think 51%) in civil cases. The standard within in AGW science doesn't begin to reach the preponderance criteria with a host of scientists disputing the consensus.

 

[mantakos]

... As usual, all you have to do is follow the money. ...

-harry

 

[LDJones]

Sounds like accusations leveled against the appellate process, no?

So why is one flawed, while the other is given license to impose death?

Huh? There are judges receiving funding from one side of a case making decisions on what evidence is presented on appeal? I am not aware of such allegations, but I suspect judicial misconduct charges would follow quite quickly. Unfortunately, we don't have similar levels of oversight in the scientific community.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Sorry...on an iPad so a bit hard to be selective in quoting.

Ha, no problem.

Actually, I am somewhat familiar with our judicial system. I was a prosecutor for four years and criminal defense for several years after that. We work off a system of "beyond a reasonable doubt" in criminal cases, as opposed to "a preponderance of the evidence" (think 51%) in civil cases. The standard within in AGW science doesn't begin to reach the preponderance criteria with a host of scientists disputing the consensus.

Kind of like jurors in a disturbing number of death penalty cases, along with numerous dissenting appellate judges. Yet we continue to execute people like it's going out of style.

Please don't take this as me attacking you or anything of the sort. It's just a thought that I had recently (inspired by some article I read that touched upon it), that I thought might make for an interesting debate.

 

[mantakos]

I'm sorry. I must have missed the "facts" (in quotes) to which you referred....

Has an innocent person ever been a wrongful victim of the death penalty?
-harry

 

[LDJones]

-harry

Thank the current administration for a chunk of that and global markets for the rest. Rate of returns in oil and gas exploration are at or below most major industries. It's a risky business. Nice to know our retirement accounts are getting a little boost from the uptick.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Huh? There are judges receiving funding from one side of a case making decisions on what evidence is presented on appeal? I am not aware of such allegations, but I suspect judicial misconduct charges would follow quite quickly. Unfortunately, we don't have similar levels of oversight in the scientific community.

This is an accusation that, perhaps not entirely unjustifiably, is often made against the judiciary. Not *necessarily* for lining their own pockets, but for lining the pockets of the profession in general, which judges often retire to (kids need to go to college, etc.). It's usually along the lines of "why on earth is this made so stinking complex, oh, it's so I have to go pay a lawyer because I just don't get it."

That's not to mention that, in state courts, most judges are elected/retained. There can be a lot of pressure - including financial, in that you might find yourself out of a job at retention time - to reach particular results, and that doesn't necessarily correlate with "right results."

 

[LDJones]

Kind of like jurors in a disturbing number of death penalty cases, along with numerous dissenting appellate judges. Yet we continue to execute people like it's going out of style.

I guess I've missed the disturbing number of cases. I haven't seen anything close to disturbing. We have 15,000-20,000 murders every year. Last year we put 46 murderers to death. That's executing people like it's "going out of style"?? Gee, how many would it be if it were in style?? Seems like somewhere north of 14,954 murderers are either getting off or getting setup with free room and board for some period of time.

 

[LDJones]

This is an accusation that, perhaps not entirely unjustifiably, is often made against the judiciary. Not *necessarily* for lining their own pockets, but for lining the pockets of the profession in general, which judges often retire to (kids need to go to college, etc.). It's usually along the lines of "why on earth is this made so stinking complex, oh, it's so I have to go pay a lawyer because I just don't get it."

That's not to mention that, in state courts, most judges are elected/retained. There can be a lot of pressure - including financial, in that you might find yourself out of a job at retention time - to reach particular results, and that doesn't necessarily correlate with "right results."

How many judges do you know personally? I know quite a few. I've never known one who didn't take their job and responsibility very, very seriously. Is there a bad apple here or there? Sure, but usually at a pretty low level, far below the level where capital cases are heard. At that level they are financially insulated from the profession. Federal judges are appointed for life and few leave the bench other than to die.

 

[LDJones]

Has an innocent person ever been a wrongful victim of the death penalty?
-harry

Can you point to one? I've read studies that have attempted to show that, but haven't seen evidence of it yet.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

I guess I've missed the disturbing number of cases. I haven't seen anything close to disturbing. We have 15,000-20,000 murders every year. Last year we put 46 murderers to death. That's executing people like it's "going out of style"?? Gee, how many would it be if it were in style?? Seems like somewhere north of 14,954 murderers are either getting off or getting setup with free room and board for some period of time.

Jurors impeaching their own verdicts is a common thing, especially in death penalty cases. The Troy Davis case, which you mentioned above, is one of them.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

How many judges do you know personally?

A ton.

All I'm saying is that the potential is there - exactly as it is for scientists. Like you, I literally have never met a member of the judiciary that did not take his/her duties seriously.

Why would we think that scientists are any different? Whether it's a chemist developing a new type of pharmaceutical or a climatologist (I think that's the term) studying the effect of water in the atmosphere - those are important things that have the potential to affect a whole lot of us in good ways, or in bad ways if mistakes are made. In my more limited personal knowledge of the scientific community, I haven't met anyone who I feel has not understood the importance of getting/doing it right, and who hasn't had a sincere desire to get it right.

I know quite a few. I've never known one who didn't take their job and responsibility very, very seriously. Is there a bad apple here or there? Sure, but usually at a pretty low level, far below the level where capital cases are heard. At that level they are financially insulated from the profession. Federal judges are appointed for life and few leave the bench other than to die.

Just to emphasize: what makes you think that scientists are any different?

 

[mantakos]

Can you point to one? I've read studies that have attempted to show that, but haven't seen evidence of it yet.

What kind of evidence would you accept?
-harry

 

[LDJones]

Jurors impeaching their own verdicts is a common thing, especially in death penalty cases. The Troy Davis case, which you mentioned above, is one of them.

Bunk. In the Troy Davis case some anti-DP advocates went to a few of the 34 witnesses that testified to the murder and after 20 years got them to say, "Shucks, I don't really remember." The most credible of eye witness accounts remained steadfast in their testimony to this day.

All the supposed recanting was aired by several courts and no compelling evidence contrary to the original verdict was ever found.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Bunk. In the Troy Davis case some anti-DP advocates went to a few of the 34 witnesses that testified to the murder and after 20 years got them to say, "Shucks, I don't really remember." The most credible of eye witness accounts remained steadfast in their testimony to this day.

All the supposed recanting was aired by several courts and no compelling evidence contrary to the original verdict was ever found.

Maybe, maybe not. Credibility is for the jury to decide, and you had several jurors unequivocally say that they would have found differently.

Why can we safely dismiss them, but not ignore all of the scientists who disagree with the premises behind global warming?

 

[LDJones]

A ton.

All I'm saying is that the potential is there - exactly as it is for scientists. Like you, I literally have never met a member of the judiciary that did not take his/her duties seriously.

Why would we think that scientists are any different? Whether it's a chemist developing a new type of pharmaceutical or a climatologist (I think that's the term) studying the effect of water in the atmosphere - those are important things that have the potential to affect a whole lot of us in good ways, or in bad ways if mistakes are made. In my more limited personal knowledge of the scientific community, I haven't met anyone who I feel has not understood the importance of getting/doing it right, and who hasn't had a sincere desire to get it right.


Just to emphasize: what makes you think that scientists are any different?

Climategate. I rest my case!

Seriously, from Mann's hockey stick (made famous by Al Gore) we've seen what can only be described as outright fraud to try and fit the science to their theory and spike anything contradictory.

The bottom line is every year that passes confirms the inadequacies of the climate models upon which the scaremongering of the 90s was based. The predictions have not come close to being correct and an increasing percentage of the public is recognizing it, hence the decline in support for Kyoto and it's successors.

 

[LDJones]

What kind of evidence would you accept?
-harry

Something beyond hearsay or his mom saying he didn't do it.

 

[LDJones]

Maybe, maybe not. Credibility is for the jury to decide, and you had several jurors unequivocally say that they would have found differently.

Why can we safely dismiss them, but not ignore all of the scientists who disagree with the premises behind global warming?

You're still arguing apples and oranges here, David.

You're comparing scientific hypotheses extrapolated from observations about which scientists disagree strongly, to multiple people observing a very real, tangible event and describing in detail the specifics of that event. There is no comparison between the two.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Climategate. I rest my case!

Seriously, from Mann's hockey stick (made famous by Al Gore) we've seen what can only be described as outright fraud to try and fit the science to their theory and spike anything contradictory.

The bottom line is every year that passes confirms the inadequacies of the climate models upon which the scaremongering of the 90s was based. The predictions have not come close to being correct and an increasing percentage of the public is recognizing it, hence the decline in support for Kyoto and it's successors.

Is there outright fraud? I'm not really knowledgeable enough to say; the most I've seen is some emails that people have tried to claim as fraudulent but really ended up being not all that big of a thing.

But, even assuming that there is fraud, you can point to exactly the same kind of conduct in the judicial system: withholding evidence, bribing judges, cash-for-kids (that thing in PA with the juvenile court).

Does that mean that all results are suspect?

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

You're still arguing apples and oranges here, David.

You're comparing scientific hypotheses extrapolated from observations about which scientists disagree strongly, to multiple people observing a very real, tangible event and describing in detail the specifics of that event. There is no comparison between the two.

Are the observations disagreed upon strongly (e.g., ice core samples), or are the *conclusions* reached from those observations disagreed upon?

The best a jury can do is take its best guess based on the facts it believes to be true. Ultimately, the same holds true for scientists.

 

[LDJones]

Is there outright fraud? I'm not really knowledgeable enough to say; the most I've seen is some emails that people have tried to claim as fraudulent but really ended up being not all that big of a thing.

But, even assuming that there is fraud, you can point to exactly the same kind of conduct in the judicial system: withholding evidence, bribing judges, cash-for-kids (that thing in PA with the juvenile court).

Does that mean that all results are suspect?

Yes, there's been outright fraud and Mann in particular has been called on it numerous times, as have others.

Because of the nature of capital cases the scrutiny at all levels is extraordinarily high....which is why these guys get up to 20 years of room and board before facing their ultimate fate. Wild assertions about rampant fraud with respect to DP cases has little basis in fact.

We DO have such direct evidence in the AGW debate...not to mention observable, measurable refutation of their outlandish claims of the '90s.

 

[LDJones]

Are the observations disagreed upon strongly (e.g., ice core samples), or are the *conclusions* reached from those observations disagreed upon?

The best a jury can do is take its best guess based on the facts it believes to be true. Ultimately, the same holds true for scientists.

Both observations, methodologies and conclusions are debated by highly regarded scientists on both sides. Every time the two square off to debate their hypothises and findings, those observing the debate usually find the realist arguments more compelling than the alarmists. Which is why it's so hard to get them to debate the science these days.

 

[LDJones]

Some final thoughts on both debate topics....

The AGW debate is pretty much over other than in the radical green segments of society. The proponents of Kyoto are having a hard time getting consensus on meetings, much less terms of an emissions treaty, so belaboring it much further here is pointless. It's dying a slow, torturous death, but dying nonetheless.

As for the death penalty, support for it continues to be pretty strong across much of society, despite vigorous efforts by small, but vocal groups who want to do away with it. Being the reasonable guy I am, I would actually be willing to compromise with my fellow citizens on the left of this issue. I'd be willing to spare the lives of ALL capital offense convicts (avoiding the minuscule possibility of taking an innocent life) in exchange for you agreeing to spare the truly 100% innocent lives put to death each day via abortion.

Thanks for the friendly discussion!

 

[olasek]

Is there outright fraud?

Fraud could be too big a word but this 'global warming' have many advantages to scientists - the more alarmist their theories the more grants for their research plus it is cool to predict doomsday. The problem with this atmospheric science that it is a bit different than say Physics. In physics we can reduce number of factors and get 'pure' results, for example I can make simple observations on my pool table and get pretty good numerical confirmation of the Newtonian laws. Such a thing is next to impossible in atmospheric science which by it's very definition deals with thousands of factors. You can't go to a lab and replicate Earth's atmosphere. The best you can do is to build models and run some fancy calculations. The problem is that all these models have serious flaws, those that predict human impact on climate predict also extra stuff that no one is observing (R.Lindzen writes about it extensively). ALSo cause and effect is often difficult to determine. Therefore there will always be plenty of room for serious doubts.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

...
Thanks for the friendly discussion!

Was about to send a PM saying the same.

 

[Bob Noel]

snip]

As for the death penalty, support for it continues to be pretty strong across much of society, despite vigorous efforts by small, but vocal groups who want to do away with it. Being the reasonable guy I am, I would actually be willing to compromise with my fellow citizens on the left of this issue. I'd be willing to spare the lives of ALL capital offense convicts (avoiding the minuscule possibility of taking an innocent life) in exchange for you agreeing to spare the truly 100% innocent lives put to death each day via abortion.

Thanks for the friendly discussion!

It is kind of interesting that there is a correlation with supporting the death penalty and opposing abortion. Likewise, those who support abortion/oppose the death penalty.

 

[Geico266]

Can you point to one? I've read studies that have attempted to show that, but haven't seen evidence of it yet.

Since 1900 there have been something like 21 people put to death that were later proven to be not guilty. For this reason alone I am against the death penalty. One is too many for me. We live in a blood thursty society inwhich the masses love to feel good about themselves by killing others. I'm out.

 

[dmccormack]

Since 1900 there have been something like 21 people put to death that were later proven to be not guilty. For this reason alone I am against the death penalty. One is too many for me. We live in a blood thursty society inwhich the masses love to feel good about themselves by killing others. I'm out.

What about cases with no reasonable doubt?

 

[Geico266]

What about cases with no reasonable doubt?

So it is okay to put an innocent person to death? You, your brother, father, neighbor sentenced to death for a crime they did not commit? And put to death by an enlightened society?

You passed over that little tidbit pretty quick. IMHO any system that puts one innocent person to death should be abolished and replaced with life without parole.

 

[LDJones]

Since 1900 there have been something like 21 people put to death that were later proven to be not guilty. For this reason alone I am against the death penalty. One is too many for me. We live in a blood thursty society inwhich the masses love to feel good about themselves by killing others. I'm out.

That's a canard floated by opponents thar no one has come close to proving.

But I could use the same argument on the other societal debate....if there's the smallest chance that abortion is taking a life I have to oppose it.

 

[LDJones]

It is kind of interesting that there is a correlation with supporting the death penalty and opposing abortion. Likewise, those who support abortion/oppose the death penalty.

There is....and I submit it's a completely consistent position. The true pro-life position is that we value life SO highly that we've established a hard rule that if you willfully (not accidentally) choose to take a life know up front that you will be deprived of yours as we will not allow those with so little regard for it to continue to live their life within our society. So understanding that up front, don't even think about killing another.

The irrationally inconsistent position is "spare the murderer, but don't prohibit the killing of innocents who might inconvenience me."