|
|
Post by donmartin on Aug 30, 2009 22:39:15 GMT
"...like lawyers know anything about science..."
As a matter of fact they do. Historically, the great scientists, and artists for that matter, have been lawyers. Hubble, for pete's sake, was a lawyer.
A law degree is something many professionals obtain concurrently with or in addition to other professional qualifications. An Appeal Court panel is frequently comprised of Phd's in separate fields - often including science, medicine, and engineering. And, of course, they were once practicing lawyers. Lawyers are not one trick ponies, believe me.
|
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Aug 30, 2009 23:24:25 GMT
Yeah, let's let a judge decide if AGW exists or not. Like lawyers know anything about science. Ah, but according to most in the environmental movement its such a clear cut case of CO2 causing the warming that you don't even need a degree (or granola addiction) to see it. Many skeptics on the other hand (but by no means all) have actually switched sides from the ranks of those believing in global warming because they spotted a horrible lack of evidence and an utter failure of an entire "science" to follow some of the most fundamental principles of science (falsifiability, correlation is not causation, etc). The lawyers will probably catch some of the logical fallacies and bad science that goes along with the current AGW hypothesis. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 1, 2009 12:01:25 GMT
Yeah, let's let a judge decide if AGW exists or not. Like lawyers know anything about science.  Great! That's even more ridiculous than suing Mc Donalds because somebody fell due to ice on the street in front of it. Those guys have way too much power and produce their own work, creating an endless amount of laws, regulations and bureaucracy, which destroys the whole system. Still rooting for the rule of Kings than the rule of law eh eurie! |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 1, 2009 12:40:39 GMT
The lawyers will probably catch some of the logical fallacies and bad science that goes along with the current AGW hypothesis. Actually I tend to think the issue is more fundamental than that. This will be a political show and its going to happen anyway. The only questions are whether Obama chooses to make the decision to regulate before it goes to court or if he decides to be more thorough in exercising his responsibility as Chief Executive before affecting the lives of all of us, or decides not to do anything. So Obama has to weigh whether he even wants a courtroom drama and leave the responsibility to Congress and if he decides to take the responsibility he has to look at how this will play out in everybody's livingrooms. Ultimately those are going to be the folks who decide and they are a whole lot less knowledgeable than the teams of lawyers that will be working on it. And for those who think lawyers are incapable of deciding simply don't understand how it works. The law firms representing the various sides will have huge support from the science community. It will be scientists testifying on TV in everybody's livingrooms. There has been a lot of false bravado coming from the AGW community about debating folks and it seems they hardly ever accept any invitations. It will be a lot of fun getting some scientists up on the witness stand who said that natural variation had been overridden by CO2 forcing. That will be a hoot! Discovery will be fun! I noticed somebody posted a newsarticle with a 14 month old prediction that the arctic would be ice free in 2008. It came complete with a link to a study at the University of Manitoba. Funny how now when you click that link it takes you to a "can't find that paper" webpage. LOL! |
|
|
|
Post by donmartin on Sept 1, 2009 16:22:06 GMT
Icefisher: well said
|
|
