Siteadmin, Check users, Administrators
12,071
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 106:
Line 106: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Debate:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it? (view source)
Revision as of 00:26, March 17, 2007
, 00:26, March 17, 2007no edit summary
Why don't you accept any obligation to disprove global warming? A theory has been put forward and the only way to defeat a theory is to show, logically, where it is in error. Your statement that global warming is not a fact is just that, a statement. If you cannot offer a viable reason for your statement, why should I or anyone else accept your assertion? Certainly not because of your conspiracy paranoia. [[jwcddd]]
Why don't you accept any obligation to disprove global warming? A theory has been put forward and the only way to defeat a theory is to show, logically, where it is in error. Your statement that global warming is not a fact is just that, a statement. If you cannot offer a viable reason for your statement, why should I or anyone else accept your assertion? Certainly not because of your conspiracy paranoia. [[jwcddd]]
:For one simple reason: the [[global warming]] debate is at heart an adversarial proceeding. It might as well be titled ''People of the Temple of Gaia versus All Those Who Consume More than the Allowed Amount of Energy Per Person Per Day.'' [[Albert Gore, Jr]], of course, appears as the lead counsel for the plaintiff--and a most unworthy counsel he is, because he consumes twenty times as much energy as any of the rest of us.
:In any event, Gore and his co-counsels, including people like you, are trying to argue that ''res ipsa loquitur''--the thing speaks for itself.
:''If that be shown'', then and only then does the burden-of-proof shift to the defendant--and here on Conservapedia, I seem to be the chief advocate for the defense in this particular forum.
:Now as any lawyer knows, in order to win a judgment based on ''res ipsa loquitur'', the plaintiff must establish that the thing causing the alleged damage ''lies under the exclusive control of the defendant''.
:So all I really have to show is that mankind ''does not'' have exclusive control. But more than that, the ''plaintiff'' must show that mankind ''does'' have that exclusive control.
:You can't show that. You can't even show significant damage--but even if you could, ''you cannot establish an exclusivity of control'' by man. Not when the planet [[Mars]] is warming up in just as great a proportion as, if not a greater proportion than, is the earth.
:I have heard of a lot of "climatological models." I have not heard of one yet that has been shown to be accurate.
:Consider what a judgment for the plaintiff means. It means that the government ought to forbid people to drive an automobile without first getting the equivalent of a Certificate of Need for building a hospital. It means that the government ought to forbid people to live in single-family residences without a similar CON, and require everyone to live in dormitory-style "apartments." It means that all transportation will be public transportation--except for Al Gore's limousine. It means that everyone's electricity budget gets cut back ninety percent. It means no more individual computers, TV sets, or any other kind of "gadget."
:I can see it now: Al Gore living large in the master's house and riding around in his limousine, and [[Ed Begley, Jr.]] as the dedicated forman, living as simply as everyone else, enforcing the Gore rules as ruthlessly as is required, and never questioning their necessity, or the logical holes in them.
:Given such stakes as that, the defense has the right to insist on a very high burden of proof. Indeed the defense "moves" that the burden be set to the highest of standards: ''beyond a reasonable doubt.''
:Of course, I maintain that the plaintiff cannot even satisfy a burden of proof by preponderance of the evidence. It certainly cannot satisfy the exclusive-control test required for a ''res ipsa loquitur'' verdict.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:26, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
== Yes ==
== Yes ==