Judge the attorneys in the DA's office are 90% certain that the defendant is guilty?

Question

Why are you shocked that this isn't taken as a proxy for proof?

"Cannot be helping" is not a standard.

Auntie, in a free society you have to be presumed innocent whether the so-called victim is another person or 'the planet.'

Anders, no, you've given up proving your view. I don't have to prove mine. I'm not saying it's not us - it might be us, it might not - I'm saying it's your burden of proof - - it's not my burden to prove that what I want to do doesn't change the weather or do anything else - in a free society the burden has to be on those who want to limit otherwise free activity, ESPECIALLY productive activity, to show that it causes the harm alleged before they can shut it down - - otherwise you could just go around making things up and getting them shut down, and only those with the economic resources to prove false a constant barrage of assertions would be able to do what they want to do.

That's not a free society.

I've asked you for your proof and all you've done is try to get out of having to show it.

You have none.

It's been 2 days now - if it's so simple why have you failed?

Bob no, in the scientific world, that is NOT proof.

In no world does "everybody else says so" constitute proof.

Answer 1

We use an evidence based system of proof. The DA's should be able to present the vidence that allowed them to make that conclusion.

I wonder though, is 90% sure beyond a reasonable doubt?

Answer 2

Because in an adversarial system of justice, with an assumption of innocence, means that the beliefs of the District Attorneys is irrelevant to the decision. It may motivate the DAs, it may make their presentation and arguements passionate - but still they rely on a judge and jury to make the decision based on the facts, the law, and whether the prosecution has met the burden of proof. This protects the DAs, as well as the defendents; it frees them to perform to the best of their ability in presenting ONE side. Except for some rules designed to ensure fairness, they don't have to do the work of the Defense.

The fundamental hope of this adversarial, innocence assumed system is that while Right may not always prevail, at least Wrong will not.

Answer 3

But, in the scientific world, that _is_ proof.

The presence of a few skeptics has no weight in the scientific world. There are always skeptics.

You can find scientists who think the Earth is 6000 years old. But that it is 4 billion years old is settled scientific fact, as is global warming.

If the skeptics don't have data, and the vast majority proponents do, the issue is settled. And on global warming, it's not 90%, it's 99+%.

"Regardless of these spats, the fact that the community overwhelmingly supports the consensus is evidenced by picking up any copy of Journal of Climate or similar, any scientific program at the AGU or EGU meetings, or simply going to talk to scientists (not the famous ones, the ones at your local university or federal lab). I challenge you, if you think there is some un-reported division, show me the hundreds of abstracts at the Fall meeting (the biggest confernce in the US on this topic) that support your view - you won't be able to. You can argue whether the consensus is correct, or what it really implies, but you can't credibly argue it doesn't exist."

Dr. James Baker - NOAA

"There's a better scientific consensus on this [climate change] than on any issue I know - except maybe Newton's second law of dynamics. Global warming is almost a no-brainer at this point,You really can't find intelligent, quantitative arguments to make it go away."

Dr. Jerry Mahlman, NOAA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Answer 4

I would be shocked if it was. At one point in time, 100% of the world believed the earth was flat. At another time, they believed the sun revolved around the earth.
If you're implying that just b/c a large percentage of scientists believe climate change is happening, that doesn't mean it is, I'd say our testing methods are much more reliable and common sense shows that the Ice Age occured w/o any help but now a natural warming is happening and adding C2O can not be helping.

Answer 5

Lol, I see you have given up your attempts to prove your view with facts and have to resort to doubts. And the IPCC's report said: "more than 90 percent certainty" that humans had caused most of the rise in those temperatures.

Answer 6

Be careful. You don't want to mess with their reality. Like your comparison, though. Keep on keeping on.