Thread: Climate Change: It's bad and getting worse

Originally Posted by cassandrabandra

as I already stated, from the OED:

preponderance: the quality or fact of being greater in number, quantity, or importance.

it doesn't imply anything to do with science, or law.

it just means there is a lot more evidence.

trying to use a word in a different context from what it was intended doesn't mean you win an argument.

Preponderance means greater than 50%.

It doesn't mean a lot more, 50.00000000000000001% is considered to be preponderance.

If 49.99999999% points against climate change and 50.00000001% points in favor of it, it is considered to have a preponderance of the evidence.

Originally Posted by hiimjered

Preponderance means greater than 50%.

It doesn't mean a lot more, 50.00000000000000001% is considered to be preponderance.

If 49.99999999% points against climate change and 50.00000001% points in favor of it, it is considered to have a preponderance of the evidence.

that isn't what the dictionary says.

do you have a source that states clearly and unequivocally that this is what preponderance means?

Originally Posted by cassandrabandra

that isn't what the dictionary says.

do you have a source that states clearly and unequivocally that this is what preponderance means?

Even using the definition you posted, what I wrote is true:

preponderance: the quality or fact of being greater in number, quantity, or importance

50.00001 is greater than 49.99999, therefore 50.00001 is a preponderance according to the definition you posted.

There is no description of how much greater a factor has to be to be a preponderance, it just has to be greater.

Since preponderance is most often used as a legal term, perhaps the legal definition would help more:

A preponderance of evidence has been described as just enough evidence to make it more likely than not that the fact the claimant seeks to prove is true.

Once again, anything greater than a 50/50 chance is considered to be a preponderance.

Originally Posted by jackdog

there are billions spent yearly on both sides, otherwise the whole nonsense of AGW would have died a slow death years ago instead of wasting money on nonsense science

my opinion is the AGW movement has wasted time and money which could have been better spent on real alternative energy, food resource development, and ecological problems. Why do you champion a movement designed solely to empower petty bureaucrats and make hypocrites like Al Gore richer while real environmental problems are being ignored

It is not just the $$$$ and time, there has been an intellectual degradation. The propagandists have so twisted the energy situation via the left wing media to push the AGW agenda that the bulk of the people haven't a clue what the real issues are and what can and cannot be done. There are a GREAT many people in America and Europe that actually believe things like:

1) we can replace fossil fuel generation totally with wind power
2) electric cars are pollution-free
3) you are exposed to radiation if you live near a nuke plant
4) it is better for the planet to use plastic bags rather than paper
5) carbon offset credits actually make a difference
6) there is a special mineral called "clean coal"
7) that white vapor that you see belching out of power plants is CO2

and I could go on.....

Originally Posted by hiimjered

Even using the definition you posted, what I wrote is true:



50.00001 is greater than 49.99999, therefore 50.00001 is a preponderance according to the definition you posted.

There is no description of how much greater a factor has to be to be a preponderance, it just has to be greater.

Since preponderance is most often used as a legal term, perhaps the legal definition would help more:



Once again, anything greater than a 50/50 chance is considered to be a preponderance.

the evidence is overwhelming.

that denialists choose to ignore it won't make it go away.

Originally Posted by cassandrabandra

the evidence is overwhelming.

that denialists choose to ignore it won't make it go away.

good then it should be easy for you to present the data that demonstrates causation.

MM had a good take-down of the industry-fueled Heartland Institute's Denier work:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201107070016

Originally Posted by squidward

good then it should be easy for you to present the data that demonstrates causation.

its already been done on this forum, over and over.

learn to use google, and you can find the information yourself.

Originally Posted by Wyzaard

MM had a good take-down of the industry-fueled Heartland Institute's Denier work:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201107070016

Good article.
From the article

In his closing remarks, Bast said: "I am absolutely convinced that if you open the hood and look at the science on climate change, you're going to come away convinced that the science is very sketchy, very uncertain, and as a result it doesn't justify the kind of public policies that are being advanced."

my bold
And yet another organization/person taking the advice of the Luntz Research

Originally Posted by cassandrabandra

its already been done on this forum, over and over.

learn to use google, and you can find the information yourself.

that was especially weak. I expected better out of you, ...........OK I lied. I really didn't expect better