Climate Change: It's bad and getting worse

from the Oxford English Dictionary:

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

so ... preponderance of evidence means .... it is a fact that there is more evidence (greater in number, quantity) and/or more important evidence.

 

Sorry, but the standard of science is much higher than that. Maybe if you had a clue about it, you'd know.

 

you indicated that the use of the word preponderance was the problem for you.

I enlightened you as to the meaning of the word.

that doesn't have anything to do with science, however I must say that if you had a clue about the science of climate change you would be well aware that there is a preponderance of evidence which supports the theory of AGW.

 

Evidence has already been provided; put down the Denier Kool-Aid, and grow up already.

 

The "preponderance of the evidence" is a standard of proof used in civil suits. Science holds itself to a much higher standard.

 

Take a law class child. The "preponderance of the evidence" is a standard of proof that applies in civil suits; it is a lesser standard of proof than "beyond a reasonable doubt" which is a standard that applies in criminal cases; in science the bar is set much higher than in a civil suit; if you knew the first thing about science or law, you'd be aware of this.

 

We're not talking about civil suits, but verified climate change; you're dissembling.

 

You're the one who made an appeal to the "preponderance of the evidence". I just thought that I would inform you how low of a standard of proof that is; much lower than scientific standards.

 

Which have been met when it comes to AGW.

 

but not verified causes

 

Who has denied that climate is changing?

 

No, they have not. Piling up a mountain of post hoc fallacies, ignoratio elenchi fallacies, cherry-picking exercises, data massage, etc. does not alter the preponderance of evidence. It just shows you don't have any evidence.

 

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.

 

If there is a "lot", then please, just show me a little that describes a cause and effect relationship between mans activities and global climate.

 

your preponderance would lose, considering Co2 is just a minor player in a sea of other factors that have an effect on Earths climate

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.....

 

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

 

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

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

 

Good article.
From the article

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

 

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