Article: Climate change- What the experts say

[grayston]

Let me put it another way, do you think it is ok to send someone to jail for a crime you are 90% sure they are committed?

Yes. It's called 'beyond reasonable doubt' and it's the basis for virtually every legal judgment handed down.

The evidence for global warming and climate change is there and solid beyond reasonable doubt. I'm sorry you feel victimised by the fact that legislation has to be passed in order to ensure these problems can be effectively tackled, but that is unfortunately neither here nor there.

 

[Pitbull]

Yes. It's called 'beyond reasonable doubt' and it's the basis for virtually every legal judgment handed down.

The evidence for global warming and climate change is there and solid beyond reasonable doubt. I'm sorry you feel victimised by the fact that legislation has to be passed in order to ensure these problems can be effectively tackled, but that is unfortunately neither here nor there.

:erm:

90% is beyond reasonable doubt?

 

[grayston]

90% is beyond reasonable doubt?

'Beyond reasonable doubt' is beyond reasonable doubt. I don't think it's something you can measure using a percentage. And it's only relevant if you believe that legislations enacted to assist new forms of energy and production are some sort of punitive sanction. Booyah.

 

[Cloudster]

'Beyond reasonable doubt' is beyond reasonable doubt. I don't think it's something you can measure using a percentage. And it's only relevant if you believe that legislations enacted to assist new forms of energy and production are some sort of punitive sanction. Booyah.

Actually no, beyond reasonable doubt means exactly that; beyond any reasonable doubt.

Just my 2c on this topic, I don't know whether I believe the global warming theory or not. I'd say I'm probs 70% leaning towards it being a hoax and 30% believes that it could be. I just don't think we have gathered enough observable data on Earth's weather patterns. I mean the planet has been around for around 4 billion years if I'm not mistaken and we've been observing weather patterns etc. over a joke of the portion of that 4 billion years.

I just feel that the data we've gathered over our very short civilization (compared to 4bn years) is just not enough to draw the conclusion that the change in weather right now is something "abnormal".

 

[grayston]

I just feel that the data we've gathered over our very short civilization (compared to 4bn years) is just not enough to draw the conclusion that the change in weather right now is something "abnormal".

That's fine. I just wonder why someone's 'feeling' on the issue should be given as much credence as verified scientific data. Or any credence at all, come to that!

 

[Cloudster]

That's fine. I just wonder why someone's 'feeling' on the issue should be given as much credence as verified scientific data. Or any credence at all, come to that!

Yes but you miss my point. Verified against what exactly? You know that in order to draw a conclusion based on gathered data, the said data should be taken over an appropriate timeline. How do you match the tiny amount of data which we've gathered now to Earth's history?

 

[grayston]

Yes but you miss my point. Verified against what exactly? You know that in order to draw a conclusion based on gathered data, the said data should be taken over an appropriate timeline. How do you match the tiny amount of data which we've gathered now to Earth's history?

Actually, we can get a good idea of temperature changes which go back about five million years.

 

[WilD_CaT]

Yes. It's called 'beyond reasonable doubt' and it's the basis for virtually every legal judgment handed down.

"Beyond reasonable judgement", never heard of the term.

I have heard of reasonable doubt though, which means there is the slightest doubt of innocence, thus not guilty.

In essence you are saying it is ethical to send an innocent person to jail as long as you are ssome arbitrary percentage sure he is guilty...like 90%...what about 85%. or 95%?

 

[WilD_CaT]

That's fine. I just wonder why someone's 'feeling' on the issue should be given as much credence as verified scientific data. Or any credence at all, come to that!

Because of the effects of the proposed legislation on human life and existance.

And my feelings don't have much to do with it actually...the points are made are logical and valid, particularly recording the supposed solutions.

 

[LazyLion]

Yes. It's called 'beyond reasonable doubt' and it's the basis for virtually every legal judgment handed down.

um, actually... beyond reasonable doubt would mean 100% certainty. If there was 1% of doubt, then it would not be beyond reasaonable doubt.

In your case 90% would mean that there was substantial doubt.... hence not guilty.

 

[Pitbull]

Actually no, beyond reasonable doubt means exactly that; beyond any reasonable doubt.

Just my 2c on this topic, I don't know whether I believe the global warming theory or not. I'd say I'm probs 70% leaning towards it being a hoax and 30% believes that it could be. I just don't think we have gathered enough observable data on Earth's weather patterns. I mean the planet has been around for around 4 billion years if I'm not mistaken and we've been observing weather patterns etc. over a joke of the portion of that 4 billion years.

I just feel that the data we've gathered over our very short civilization (compared to 4bn years) is just not enough to draw the conclusion that the change in weather right now is something "abnormal".

There is core data obtained from Ice cores in Greenland for the last 65 million years. But, since it shows earth is actually cooling overall instead of warming this is always left out in any discussions by said scientists

 

[Pitbull]

Actually, we can get a good idea of temperature changes which go back about five million years.

So these guys neglect to mention the 60 million before that 5 million?

I can't belief how dishonest some people are

 

[grayston]

So these guys neglect to mention the 60 million before that 5 million?

I can't belief how dishonest some people are

Well chap, if you can show that recent temperature changes would have occurred anyway, without human influence, I'll take it all back.

 

[alpha777]

i think global warming / climate change is just a new tax initiative.