Your scenario is ridiculous because criminal trials don't turn on whether the defendant "likely" did it. The judge would dismiss the case, and report the prosecutor to the Bar association, probably.

Jim

why IS that the case, Jim? is it because the stakes are so high?

you are unworthy of further debate.

I don't mean to be dismissive, but there is no analogy between a criminal trial and global warming.

Your demand for proof of global warming beyond a reasonable doubt is a big risk. What if you're more likely than not going to be wrong?

I suppose there were people on the Titanic who demanded proof beyond a reasonable doubt the ship was sinking.

Jim

why is the required level of proof in a criminal trial so high, James?

(I'll help you out here: it's because the stakes are so high.)

just because YOU'RE willing to surrender your standard of living and the whole of the US economy on less (MUCH less) evidence than what is required to convict a man of selling drugs, doesn't mean the rest of us will.

[side note: I will NEVER AGAIN over-estimate the abstract thinking ability of a lawyer.]

[quote=

just because YOU'RE willing to surrender your standard of living and the whole of the US economy on less (MUCH less) evidence than what is required to convict a man of jselling drugs, doesn't mean the rest of us will.
[/quote]

That's a bit dramatic, don't you think?
There are things we should be doing now. Increase the use of nat gas in replacing other fossil fuels(build those pipe lines). More nuke energy. Stop the burning of coal anywhere cleaner forms of energy can be used. Trade policies that pressure other countries clean up there practices. Continue research into developing cleaner forms of energy.

Unlike what some of the liberals advocate, we cannot end the use of fossil fuels all together nor cut there use drastically any time soon. That does not mean we should not take the steps that are right in front of us. It's irresponsible to not do these things.

google "Green New Deal".

EVERY SINGLE ONE of the Democratic Presidential candidates have signed on to it.

no, I don't think I'm being "dramatic".

If you'd like, I'll post some of that document for others to judge for themselves.

I have said that I am no fan of shopping at Walmart. I do it when It's the most convenient place for me(I hate shopping and rarely do it anywhere)
I've also said in other posts that, just like we are free to boycott a business because of it's policies, they have every right to establish the policies they see fit.

Given that there have been mass killings inside a couple of their stores, I don't blame Walmart for doing something in response, even if many of us think it's a misstep on their part. As far as I know they have not tried to make other businesses change their gun policies. I would have a big problem with them if they had. Plus,their moves should actually help the mom and pop stores that we all say we wish had more support.

James. A couple things to consider.

First, when I interjected NASA into the debate. I repeatedly said to go to YouTube and watch the Senate hearings. I have never posted a video on here and don’t have time to figure it out. I also asked for someone to post it for me. I have also provided what to search for. That’s as close to citing as I can get. Please go watch it and respond.

Second, NASA and the EPA are now full of people that have had global warming crammed into their heads since first grade, so when the data shows something different it’s a shock to their systems. I completely understand why they don’t advertise it. It’s human nature to not go against the grain. That’s why they came up with the term “The Pause” they need a way to rationalize the data that goes against everything they have been taught and now believe.

A Senate hearing is a circus. Don't expect to find the truth there, where there is no shortage of deniers.

I did this search: "Does NASA say the earth is warming or cooling?"

All of the links that show up say that NASA says the earth is warming. Yes, there was a pause in the short-term trend, but the overall change for most of the world has been for higher temperatures.

So sayeth NASA.

Jim

Try..........NASA global warming pause.

I did.

https://www.iflscience.com/environment/nasa-finds-global-warming-hidden-indian-and-pacific-oceans/

Jim

I get articles like this...

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/1141/...urface-air-temperature-likely-temporary/

https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech...arming-still-on-pause-sea-ice-hit-record

Your articles are from 2014, Hippie. Since then, NASA found an explanation for the data. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/348/6242/1469.full

Jim

I didn't read it all yet, busy at the moment. What i did read didn't seem NASA based.

weatherguys can ALWAYS tell you why they blew the forecast, after the fact.

same with climate forecasters.

the problem is, they were convinced they were right, before God decided otherwise.

oh well...maybe the climate forecasters will get it right THIS time!

How could there possibly be a global warming pause with all of the CO2 consistently on the rise?
Could it be due to the true source of global warming? Fluctuation in Solar activity?

It's not fluctuation in solar activity, according to NASA.

Jim

their computer models were wrong...AGAIN!

but don't worry, they got it right THIS time....AGAIN!

Carl you just committed the cardinal sin. Never, and I mean never bring solar activity. They will not discuss it.

Every time I put DEF fluid in my tractor, inspect the date on my propane tanks, and spill gas all over the ground trying to use the new no-spill gas cans, I am glad to do my part as the lay man for the "greater good" of a society.

I'm sure thankful all those folks so much more intelligent than me know how to save our civilization.

It's funny to think in ancient civilizations they used to require offerings and even human sacrifices to win favor from the gods for good weather and to win wars, ect.

I'm sure the lay man in those ancient worlds were glad to do their part for the "greater good" also.