Global warming
 

Larry wrote:
jeff wrote in :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Re...Level_Rise.png

Those not on floating docks need to go check the lines!


Omigod! 8 inches in only 119 years! The sky is falling, er, the
tsunami is gonna get us!
Gordon

Global warming
 

Dave wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 14:21:51 -0500, Martin Baxter said:

That's greats, polls also show that the majority of people on this
planet worship an extraterrestrial, so what?

Have you considered the possibility that you could be out of step?

There is a definite probability, greater than 0.5 that I am indeed "out
of step", IMHO of course. Given that, I still fail to see the bearing
on an opinion poll vis-a-vis the probability of a hypothesis regarding
global warming being correct.

Cheers
Martin

Global warming
 

"Marty" wrote in message
...
Dave wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 14:21:51 -0500, Martin Baxter said:

That's greats, polls also show that the majority of people on this
planet worship an extraterrestrial, so what?

Have you considered the possibility that you could be out of step?

There is a definite probability, greater than 0.5 that I am indeed "out
of step", IMHO of course. Given that, I still fail to see the bearing on
an opinion poll vis-a-vis the probability of a hypothesis regarding global
warming being correct.

Cheers
Martin

Democratic science. The majority opinion must be the truth.

Global warming
 

KLC Lewis wrote:
"Marty" wrote in message
...
Dave wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 14:21:51 -0500, Martin Baxter said:

That's greats, polls also show that the majority of people on this
planet worship an extraterrestrial, so what?
Have you considered the possibility that you could be out of step?
There is a definite probability, greater than 0.5 that I am indeed "out
of step", IMHO of course. Given that, I still fail to see the bearing on
an opinion poll vis-a-vis the probability of a hypothesis regarding global
warming being correct.

Cheers
Martin

Democratic science. The majority opinion must be the truth.


The cows in WI win a lot then, huh?

Global warming
 

"katy" wrote in message
om...
KLC Lewis wrote:

Democratic science. The majority opinion must be the truth.
The cows in WI win a lot then, huh?

We're smart enough to not let them vote, anymore.

Global warming
 

--
?
"Marty" wrote in message
...
I still fail to see the bearing on an opinion poll vis-a-vis the
probability of a hypothesis regarding global warming being correct.

Cheers
Martin

Popular notions are always wrong. Yes, "always!"

Global warming
 

--
?
"Dave" wrote in message
...

Might there be a more than remote possibility that those not out of step
are
correct?

No, popular notions are ALWAYS wrong.

Global warming
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 17:15:21 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
said:

Democratic science. The majority opinion must be the truth.
The cows in WI win a lot then, huh?

We're smart enough to not let them vote, anymore.

You sure of that? Doesn't seem to be the case in neighboring Minnesota,
where there are more ballots counted in some counties than there were
people
voting.

Sounds like Ohio. There's a solution to this, but it won't happen as long as
people insist on the "secret ballot" nonsense. Voting fraud will only end
when people are willing to take responsibility for making sure their votes
were accurately recorded, regardless of the consequences.

Issue a Voting ID Number to everyone at their 18th birthday. This number is
then used in all elections, local, state and national. After each election,
the numbers are posted next to each candidate, allowing voters to go online
and verify that their vote was actually cast as it was intended.

Not foolproof, but it would be a step in the right direction.

Global warming
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 18:17:59 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
said:

There's a solution to this, but it won't happen as long as
people insist on the "secret ballot" nonsense. Voting fraud will only end
when people are willing to take responsibility for making sure their votes
were accurately recorded, regardless of the consequences.

We could even send a policeman into the booth with each voter, just to be
sure there's no funny business, and to be sure each person votes right.

Which is the mindset which will forever resist change. The "secret ballot"
system has always been, and will always be, rife with fraud -- precisely
because it is "secret." No one can challenge the outcome because no one can
prove their vote was tampered with; either by changing it, or by casting
phantom votes to cancel it out.

Significant levels of privacy can still exist in the system I propose. But
in the end, if people aren't willing to take responsibility for their vote,
they deserve whatever system they get.

Global warming
 

Dave wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 17:15:21 -0600, "KLC Lewis" said:

Democratic science. The majority opinion must be the truth.
The cows in WI win a lot then, huh?
We're smart enough to not let them vote, anymore.

You sure of that? Doesn't seem to be the case in neighboring Minnesota,
where there are more ballots counted in some counties than there were people
voting.

That's cuz of all the ,ultiple personalities..they each get a vote, ya
know...