Supreme Court Logic and The Gun Control Debate

[TOKenBoiler]

Yesterday, the Supreme Court issued an opinion striking down Texas health regulations applicable to abortion clinics. The dissent brought up the Kermit Gosnell case, suggesting that the Texas regulations might prevent another situation like that from occurring. To which, Justice Breyer responded:

Gosnell’s behavior was terribly wrong. But there is no reason to believe that an extra layer of regulation would have affected that behavior. Determined wrongdoers, already ignoring existing statutes and safety measures, are unlikely to be convinced to adopt safe practices by a new overlay of regulations.

I argued along the same lines about additional gun control legislation in the Religious leader: "The tragedy is that more of them didn't die." thread below. I'm sure those who objected to my post will have no problem with Justice Breyer's reasoning though.

 

[qazplm]

Breyer is just as short-sighted in making that argument as you were. We make laws and regulations that "determined wrongdoers" are "unlikely to be convinced by" all of the time.

Most murderers aren't pondering statutory criminal law and neither are most rapists.

We still have them though, and for good reason.

 

[CWS]

Breyer is just as short-sighted in making that argument as you were. We make laws and regulations that "determined wrongdoers" are "unlikely to be convinced by" all of the time.

Most murderers aren't pondering statutory criminal law and neither are most rapists.

We still have them though, and for good reason.

Murder and rape are innately wrong (to anyone sane and not completely post-modern). Of course there are laws for those. There are juries to decide if something is unjustified (murder) or justified (self-protection, etc.).

Owning a gun is NOT innately wrong. In fact, it is a right. If it were innately wrong, armies, secret service and museums would need to turn in their firearms.

Abortion can be viewed as innately wrong (my view), in which case it should be treated as murder/rape/etc.
Or,
Abortion can be viewed as NOT innately wrong (not my view) in which case it should be treated like other medical procedures, governed by the state.

There is obviously some moral dilemma that occurs with abortion. Most would agree that partial birth abortion, or at least post birth "abortion", are not all roses and rainbows. The question becomes when is it acceptable? Who decides that? A person, the doctor, the state, Congress, the federal government, the Supreme Court, or God? The Constitution says that this should be determined by the state. I don't know that answer.

 

[qazplm]

Murder and rape are innately wrong (to anyone sane and not completely post-modern). Of course there are laws for those. There are juries to decide if something is unjustified (murder) or justified (self-protection, etc.).

Owning a gun is NOT innately wrong. In fact, it is a right. If it were innately wrong, armies, secret service and museums would need to turn in their firearms.

Abortion can be viewed as innately wrong (my view), in which case it should be treated as murder/rape/etc.
Or,
Abortion can be viewed as NOT innately wrong (not my view) in which case it should be treated like other medical procedures, governed by the state.

There is obviously some moral dilemma that occurs with abortion. Most would agree that partial birth abortion, or at least post birth "abortion", are not all roses and rainbows. The question becomes when is it acceptable? Who decides that? A person, the doctor, the state, Congress, the federal government, the Supreme Court, or God? The Constitution says that this should be determined by the state. I don't know that answer.

Going faster than an arbitrary limit isn't innately wrong.
drinking under a somewhat arbitrary age limit isn't innately wrong.

We have a ton of malum prohibitum laws on the books, things that are illegal but not innately wrong.

Should we get rid of all those laws? A determined drinker is going to drink, and a determined speeder is going to speed afterall.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

oh it's way worse than that little logic failure.

From yesterdays ruling, dissent:
Today the majority expands §922(g)(9)’s sweep into patently unconstitutional territory. Under the majority’s reading, a single conviction under a state assault statute for recklessly causing an injury to a family member—such as by texting while driving—can now trigger a lifetime ban on gun ownership. And while it may be true that such incidents are rarely prosecuted, this decision leaves the right to keep and bear arms up to the discretion of federal, state, and local prosecutors. We treat no other constitutional right so cavalierly. At oral argument the Government could not identify any other fundamental constitutional right that a person could lose forever by a single conviction for an infraction punishable only by a fine. Tr. of Oral Arg. 36–40. Compare the First Amendment. Plenty of States still criminalize libel. See,e.g.,Ala. Code. §13A–11–160 (2015); Fla. Stat. §836.01 (2015); La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §14:47 (West 2016); Mass. Gen. Laws, ch. 94, §98C (2014); Minn. Stat.§609.765 (2014); N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §644:11 (2007); Va.Code Ann. §18.2–209 (2014); Wis. Stat. §942.01 (2005). I have little doubt that the majority would strike down an absolute ban on publishing by a person previously convicted of misdemeanor libel. In construing the statute before us expansively so that causing a single minor reckless injury or offensive touching can lead someone to lose his right to bear arms forever, the Court continues to “relegate the Second Amendment to a second-class right.”

 

[qazplm]

I think it's funny...multiple states where getting a conviction results in a lifetime ban on voting, don't see the same concerns about that.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

I think it's funny...multiple states where getting a conviction results in a lifetime ban on voting, don't see the same concerns about that.

While I agree with your point, your comment needs some context.
In 48 states (all but Maine and Vermont) and in the District of Columbia, citizens lose the right to vote upon conviction of a felony; in at least a handful of states, the right is also lost upon conviction of a misdemeanor. All 48 states (and the District of Columbia) also provide mechanisms by which these citizens may seek to regain their voting rights, though some processes are much more viable than others. These mechanisms range from automatic restoration (upon completion of incarceration or sentence) to restoration only after satisfaction of an extensive, onerous and sometimes costly individual application process.

 

[CWS]

Going faster than an arbitrary limit isn't innately wrong.
drinking under a somewhat arbitrary age limit isn't innately wrong.

We have a ton of malum prohibitum laws on the books, things that are illegal but not innately wrong.

Should we get rid of all those laws? A determined drinker is going to drink, and a determined speeder is going to speed afterall.

Possibly. When those actions affect another person or property (cause a wreck or hit a pedestrian), that is when it is punishable. Murder and rape always effect another person. Abortion always affects another person. Guns don't affect another person unless used. If used inappropriately, then the user should be punished.

 

[qazplm]

Possibly. When those actions affect another person or property (cause a wreck or hit a pedestrian), that is when it is punishable. Murder and rape always effect another person. Abortion always affects another person. Guns don't affect another person unless used. If used inappropriately, then the user should be punished.

cars don't affect another person unless a drunk driver is behind them, should we not take away licenses for driving for multiple DUIs?

 

[CWS]

Was their BAC 0.08 or 0.4? Did they wreck? Were they impaired? Did they harm someone? Were they just driving around their farm? How many is multiple? Too many hypotheticals to answer. If they killed someone, sure, take away their license, amongst other punishments. I wouldn't ban cars for everyone else. I would punish the offender. They've infringed upon someone else's life.

 

[qazplm]

Was their BAC 0.08 or 0.4? Did they wreck? Were they impaired? Did they harm someone? Were they just driving around their farm? How many is multiple? Too many hypotheticals to answer. If they killed someone, sure, take away their license, amongst other punishments. I wouldn't ban cars for everyone else. I would punish the offender. They've infringed upon someone else's life.

so take away their license to drive if they use a car against someone else in a criminal act, but don't take away their guns if they do the same?

 

[CWS]

so take away their license to drive if they use a car against someone else in a criminal act, but don't take away their guns if they do the same?

I never said that. Convicted felons lose some of their rights. I'm okay with that. Obviously in a jail cell they have difficulty with liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness (maybe not a great example since this is not in the bill of rights, but the Constitution - I think). In a jail they also have difficulty with bearing arms, alcohol and free association. I think that punishing criminals is good. I don't like punishing non-criminals. In summary - hurt someone else intentionally (or negligently in case of DUI death) = punishable crime. I can't think of many exceptions to this rule.

 

[qazplm]

I never said that. Convicted felons lose some of their rights. I'm okay with that. Obviously in a jail cell they have difficulty with liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness (maybe not a great example since this is not in the bill of rights, but the Constitution - I think). In a jail they also have difficulty with bearing arms, alcohol and free association. I think that punishing criminals is good. I don't like punishing non-criminals. In summary - hurt someone else intentionally (or negligently in case of DUI death) = punishable crime. I can't think of many exceptions to this rule.

But they aren't criminals anymore. They did their time, their time is done but we usually keep them from having a license for awhile because of their history of being, well, a committed wrongdoer.

We have all sorts of laws that committed wrongdoers will ignore. Pretty much all of them. We still have them. There's pretty good reasons why.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Laws and locks keep honest people honest.

 

[CWS]

But they aren't criminals anymore. They did their time, their time is done but we usually keep them from having a license for awhile because of their history of being, well, a committed wrongdoer.

We have all sorts of laws that committed wrongdoers will ignore. Pretty much all of them. We still have them. There's pretty good reasons why.

Therein lies the difference. They are still criminals. A murderer is still a murderer even after they served their time. Part of their sentence may be jail time. Part of their sentence may be to never be allowed to vote or loss of other rights of non-felons. Society never completely forgives wrongdoings. If someone is a convicted pedophile, it is reasonable for society to have some worries about their future behavior. History repeats itself, or so we're told. If I was a felon, I wouldn't be offended that people were suspicious of me.

 

[qazplm]

Therein lies the difference. They are still criminals. A murderer is still a murderer even after they served their time. Part of their sentence may be jail time. Part of their sentence may be to never be allowed to vote or loss of other rights of non-felons. Society never completely forgives wrongdoings. If someone is a convicted pedophile, it is reasonable for society to have some worries about their future behavior. History repeats itself, or so we're told. If I was a felon, I wouldn't be offended that people were suspicious of me.

except our system, other than for sex assault perps, works the exact opposite of what you say at least in theory. You serve your time, you get a clean slate.

The point is, laws don't just keep honest people honest, they have a deterrent effect. When a crook goes around, they prefer unlocked doors, they prefer places without a guard dog, they prefer places without a security system, they prefer being near a main thoroughfare with multiple exit routes. That's basic criminology 101. Laws do the same thing. Does that mean people don't break them? No, of course not.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

except our system, other than for sex assault perps, works the exact opposite of what you say at least in theory. You serve your time, you get a clean slate.

The point is, laws don't just keep honest people honest, they have a deterrent effect...

The term "convicted felon" may not have legal ramifications, but it definitely causes other problems with background checks and such. So I will wholeheartedly disagree that it's a "clean slate". From the perspective of the legal system, you'll know better than me for sure, but to imply that it doesn't take into account past offenses when a present one comes up seems... not correct, at least as it pertains to sentencing.

Otherwise, I disagree that laws don't "just" keep honest people honest. The deterrent effect you mentioned works only on people who have some basic honesty or desire to play within the system (i.e. they're honest!). Certainly there are cases every day where people break laws out of desperation, ignorance, etc., but in general there are a select few out there who are just going to do whatever the F they want regardless.

 

[qazplm]

The term "convicted felon" may not have legal ramifications, but it definitely causes other problems with background checks and such. So I will wholeheartedly disagree that it's a "clean slate". From the perspective of the legal system, you'll know better than me for sure, but to imply that it doesn't take into account past offenses when a present one comes up seems... not correct, at least as it pertains to sentencing.

Otherwise, I disagree that laws don't "just" keep honest people honest. The deterrent effect you mentioned works only on people who have some basic honesty or desire to play within the system (i.e. they're honest!). Certainly there are cases every day where people break laws out of desperation, ignorance, etc., but in general there are a select few out there who are just going to do whatever the F they want regardless.

well we are talking about laws, and we are talking in theory, not what one individual might do or even what might be prudent to do. (If a guy has been convicted of embezzlement, I'm probably not putting him in charge of my finances no matter whether he's served all his time).

No, deterrence works on more than that. It's what criminology is about. Patterns and trends. Criminals aren't always criminals, aren't born that way so to speak, and they don't act indiscriminately. There are limits to deterrence for sure. There's a sweet spot. Too light isn't good, but neither is too heavy. But deterrence exists. We see it in the patterns of cul-de-sacs having lower burglary/robbery rates because thieves are "deterred" by only having one way in or out or being noticed. They like open over locked, and they like no police presence over police presence, and certainly consequences cause some who would do it, not to do it.

If there were a "Purge" mentality where certain crimes or all crimes were legal for some period of time, there absolutely people who would commit them who wouldn't if there were laws against it.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Sure, at that point it is deterrence and being a hard target. I just don't think that has much to do with the laws themselves for those folks. Otherwise, the purge paragraph is what I'm talking about with "honest people".

In other words, criminals will always pick easier targets, but I think the deterrent effect of things like the death penalty are overstated.

 

[qazplm]

Sure, at that point it is deterrence and being a hard target. I just don't think that has much to do with the laws themselves for those folks. Otherwise, the purge paragraph is what I'm talking about with "honest people".

In other words, criminals will always pick easier targets, but I think the deterrent effect of things like the death penalty are overstated.

Well, we can discuss whether it is overstated or not (DP), in fact, evidence suggests there is zero deterrence effect, in fact, the brutality effect is something folks can google which suggests it actually has a negative deterrence effect...but that just goes back to the sweet spot I was talking about.

But there is A deterrence effect of laws even on "honest" people is my position.

 

[CWS]

We effectively don't have a death penalty. It almost never happens. It would be hard to isolate cause and effect.

 

[LCBrasefield]

Laws and locks keep honest people honest.

Try pronouncing your sentence in a Charlie Channish accent.
[URL=http://media.photobucket.com/user/GIFsforhire/media/Funny-Laughing/chuckle.gif.html][/URL]

 

[qazplm]

We effectively don't have a death penalty. It almost never happens. It would be hard to isolate cause and effect.

Huh? 28 people were executed last year. That's not appreciably far off the average. It's not the lowest yearly total. Since the DP was re-instituted, it's not even in the bottom 15.
14 so far this year, so about halfway to 28 again. Not a high point no, but not "it almost never happens" either.

 

[CWS]

Huh? 28 people were executed last year. That's not appreciably far off the average. It's not the lowest yearly total. Since the DP was re-instituted, it's not even in the bottom 15.
14 so far this year, so about halfway to 28 again. Not a high point no, but not "it almost never happens" either.

16,121 homicides per year per CDC. I couldn't find how many convictions easily - I've read 60% are "solved", but not sure what that means for sure. 28 executions per 16,121 homicides is essentially zero. I couldn't find a stat easily for first degree murder convictions per year, which is truly the stat I'm looking for. So we're probably looking at 0.17% chance of being put to death if you murder someone and about 1% chance if you are caught. Not a great scare tactic.

 

[qazplm]

16,121 homicides per year per CDC. I couldn't find how many convictions easily - I've read 60% are "solved", but not sure what that means for sure. 28 executions per 16,121 homicides is essentially zero. I couldn't find a stat easily for first degree murder convictions per year, which is truly the stat I'm looking for. So we're probably looking at 0.17% chance of being put to death if you murder someone and about 1% chance if you are caught. Not a great scare tactic.

You are doing statistics pretty blatantly wrong.

You can't get the death penalty if you aren't caught. So that takes out 40% right there if we assume your "60%" solved number is correct (and I have no idea if it is or is not).

So first you should have used a number at least 40% lower or 9672.

Second, just because something is ruled a homicide doesn't mean it's a crime. All a homicide means is killed by someone. Self-defense is a homicide. A police shooting is a homicide. An accidental killing is a homicide. So you'd have to lower it for all the cases that weren't taken to trial, or where the accused was acquitted. I have no idea what that number is.

Third, not every murder is worthy of the death penalty. That's why we have graduations of murder...like manslaughter, murder 2 or the various ways non-capital murder is described.

Fourth, we have more than 28 people on death row...that's just how many worked their way through the process to reach execution last year.

 

[CWS]

Could you please find the stat I was looking for? How many 1st degree murders (or capital murder, or whatever the term is) convictions per year? You probably know where to find that stat easier than me. I couldn't find it and I gave up after 5 minutes. I know I did the stats incorrectly and admitted as much. In general, though, my statements are true on the very low rate of death penalty.

 

[qazplm]

Could you please find the stat I was looking for? How many 1st degree murders (or capital murder, or whatever the term is) convictions per year? You probably know where to find that stat easier than me. I couldn't find it and I gave up after 5 minutes. I know I did the stats incorrectly and admitted as much. In general, though, my statements are true on the very low rate of death penalty.

I seriously doubt those stats are kept because it's an individual state thing plus you also have federal murder and DP sometimes (albeit much rarer). Then each DP jurisdiction has their own standards on what is or is not a death eligible offense. So finding out what those are, and applying them to find those numbers, effectively it's a graduate level thesis kind of a task.

Of course, we've had other nations that have given the DP much much more frequently, and we can look at murder rates to see if there is a deterrent effect.

There isn't. There's actually the opposite. It's called the Brutalization Effect.
http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0LE...on+2.pdf/RK=0/RS=OvloFYou3YOedOfcTBXIC4cWE3o-

 

[CWS]

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/30/concealed-carrier-takes-down-shooter-at-south-caro/

"Mass shootings" wee discussed in another thread, I couldn't remember where. Would this one count as a mass shooting in the FBI database? 4 people were shot, but the 4 was the original shooter taken down by a concealed weapons person before anyone was killed. I'm shocked this isn't all over the news. We've found a way to mitigate losses caused by lunatics.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/30/concealed-carrier-takes-down-shooter-at-south-caro/

"Mass shootings" wee discussed in another thread, I couldn't remember where. Would this one count as a mass shooting in the FBI database? 4 people were shot, but the 4 was the original shooter taken down by a concealed weapons person before anyone was killed. I'm shocked this isn't all over the news. We've found a way to mitigate losses caused by lunatics.

no, unless the 3 shot were killed. I didn't read the article, sorry. used to be 4 shot dead, not including the instigator as the fbi definition. although i think recently (2014/2015) they started reducing that number to 3 shot dead in the definition.

 

[qazplm]

by the way, CWS you know why the numbers on gun violence are hard to pin down? Because federal law prohibits federal research into gun violence.

 

[ecouch]

by the way, CWS you know why the numbers on gun violence are hard to pin down? Because federal law prohibits federal research into gun violence.

No, it doesn't.

You are lying again, Qaz. First 350, now this.

Anyone interested can go read the law. This is the new regressive left talking point.

Why do you lie so much?

 

[CWS]

Interesting. I wouldn't trust it anyway. So much "science" these days is worthless, biased, garbage. Science is only science when you come to it with an open mind for conclusions. You can throw any topic in there - guns, violence, abortion, climate, medical. The scientific method is rarely used (often because we can't run a randomized, double blind study), so we're left with "expert analysis". When that expert already excludes certain outcomes prior to analyzing the data, it stops being science and starts being biased opinion. I'm not picking on you or your linked study, but that would be a good example. I could also probably find a biased opinion article supporting the opposite. Most of this "research" is heavily influenced by passion or money or both. As someone who has done quite a bit of published research, I can tell you how much garbage there is and how political research is. A person heavily entrenched in climate science is a good example. Many have already excluded "no man-made climate change" as an option prior to looking at data. They will sort through data until they find data that suits their opinion or suits their federal grant. A climate change "denier" might also do the same. I have selection bias. Qaz has bias.

Thanks for the civil discussion. I'll quit now before it devolves.

 

[ecouch]

Interesting. I wouldn't trust it anyway. So much "science" these days is worthless, biased, garbage. Science is only science when you come to it with an open mind for conclusions. You can throw any topic in there - guns, violence, abortion, climate, medical. The scientific method is rarely used (often because we can't run a randomized, double blind study), so we're left with "expert analysis". When that expert already excludes certain outcomes prior to analyzing the data, it stops being science and starts being biased opinion. I'm not picking on you or your linked study, but that would be a good example. I could also probably find a biased opinion article supporting the opposite. Most of this "research" is heavily influenced by passion or money or both. As someone who has done quite a bit of published research, I can tell you how much garbage there is and how political research is. A person heavily entrenched in climate science is a good example. Many have already excluded "no man-made climate change" as an option prior to looking at data. They will sort through data until they find data that suits their opinion or suits their federal grant. A climate change "denier" might also do the same. I have selection bias. Qaz has bias.

Thanks for the civil discussion. I'll quit now before it devolves.

Good. Your description of science is laughable.

I think you aren't telling the truth.

Can you link your publications? I have access to a lot of journals. As does Beebub. We can check you out. You know, since you've done quite a bit.

 

[qazplm]

No, it doesn't.

You are lying again, Qaz. First 350, now this.

Anyone interested can go read the law. This is the new regressive left talking point.

Why do you lie so much?

Right, there isn't an amendment in Congress right ****ing now to remove the law against gun violence research. I just made it up.

The guy who is responsible for the current state of affairs didn't say:

“If we had somehow gotten the research going, we could have somehow found a solution to the gun violence without there being any restrictions on the Second Amendment.”

The Dickey Amendment does not allow any research that could advocate for or support gun control.
Congress won't appropriate any money for the CDC to fund even "neutral" gun research, whatever that is.

If Congress isn't banning this and it's all a "regressive left lie" then should be easy enough for Congress to appropriate money for it, shouldn't it? I'm sure you will write your Congressmen right now and tell them to do it to show how much "the regressive left lies"

 

[qazplm]

Good. Your description of science is laughable.

I think you aren't telling the truth.

Can you link your publications? I have access to a lot of journals. As does Beebub. We can check you out. You know, since you've done quite a bit.

you know enough with calling everyone a liar. Let's assume we are all wrong, and you are right, about everything. That can happen without people lying.

 

[qazplm]

Interesting. I wouldn't trust it anyway. So much "science" these days is worthless, biased, garbage. Science is only science when you come to it with an open mind for conclusions. You can throw any topic in there - guns, violence, abortion, climate, medical. The scientific method is rarely used (often because we can't run a randomized, double blind study), so we're left with "expert analysis". When that expert already excludes certain outcomes prior to analyzing the data, it stops being science and starts being biased opinion. I'm not picking on you or your linked study, but that would be a good example. I could also probably find a biased opinion article supporting the opposite. Most of this "research" is heavily influenced by passion or money or both. As someone who has done quite a bit of published research, I can tell you how much garbage there is and how political research is. A person heavily entrenched in climate science is a good example. Many have already excluded "no man-made climate change" as an option prior to looking at data. They will sort through data until they find data that suits their opinion or suits their federal grant. A climate change "denier" might also do the same. I have selection bias. Qaz has bias.

Thanks for the civil discussion. I'll quit now before it devolves.

every living human has "bias" that doesn't render all scientific research invalid.

 

[CWS]

Good. Your description of science is laughable.

I think you aren't telling the truth.

Can you link your publications? I have access to a lot of journals. As does Beebub. We can check you out. You know, since you've done quite a bit.

Wow. Was going to walk away before the personal attack. The best science is randomized, controlled, double-blind. Some things, like climate, can't be done that way since we're not God nor do we have a 2nd Earth to compare to. Even randomized, controlled, double-blind has bias. Other research that is not randomized, controlled, double-blind -- it is much harder to determine cause and effect, therefore easier to throw bias into the explanation.

I don't feel like linking my research as I enjoy the anonymity. While proud of my work, it was a means to an end and I am much happier in my current occupation that that research allowed me to reach. As for "quite a bit": I've written or co-authored 3 book chapters, 7 peer-reviewed journal articles, 13 published abstracts, 8 oral research presentations (including in France and pre-Chavez Venezuela), 4 poster presentations and 7 invited lectures. NONE of those were on guns or abortion, so that is why I am on KHC discussing them with other non-experts. As someone who believes that all abortion of viable babies is murder, you can imagine I value ethics and truth and you can choose to believe me or not on the above list.

 

[ecouch]

Wow. Was going to walk away before the personal attack. The best science is randomized, controlled, double-blind. Some things, like climate, can't be done that way since we're not God nor do we have a 2nd Earth to compare to. Even randomized, controlled, double-blind has bias. Other research that is not randomized, controlled, double-blind -- it is much harder to determine cause and effect, therefore easier to throw bias into the explanation.

I don't feel like linking my research as I enjoy the anonymity. While proud of my work, it was a means to an end and I am much happier in my current occupation that that research allowed me to reach. As for "quite a bit": I've written or co-authored 3 book chapters, 7 peer-reviewed journal articles, 13 published abstracts, 8 oral research presentations (including in France and pre-Chavez Venezuela), 4 poster presentations and 7 invited lectures. NONE of those were on guns or abortion, so that is why I am on KHC discussing them with other non-experts. As someone who believes that all abortion of viable babies is murder, you can imagine I value ethics and truth and you can choose to believe me or not on the above list.

The best science is randomized, controlled, double-blind. Some things, like climate, can't be done that way since we're not God nor do we have a 2nd Earth to compare to.

You aren't a scientist.

 

[CWS]

The best science is randomized, controlled, double-blind. Some things, like climate, can't be done that way since we're not God nor do we have a 2nd Earth to compare to.

You aren't a scientist.

Explain please. As a scientist I am open-minded and want to learn.

 

[qazplm]

Wow. Was going to walk away before the personal attack. The best science is randomized, controlled, double-blind. Some things, like climate, can't be done that way since we're not God nor do we have a 2nd Earth to compare to. Even randomized, controlled, double-blind has bias. Other research that is not randomized, controlled, double-blind -- it is much harder to determine cause and effect, therefore easier to throw bias into the explanation.

I don't feel like linking my research as I enjoy the anonymity. While proud of my work, it was a means to an end and I am much happier in my current occupation that that research allowed me to reach. As for "quite a bit": I've written or co-authored 3 book chapters, 7 peer-reviewed journal articles, 13 published abstracts, 8 oral research presentations (including in France and pre-Chavez Venezuela), 4 poster presentations and 7 invited lectures. NONE of those were on guns or abortion, so that is why I am on KHC discussing them with other non-experts. As someone who believes that all abortion of viable babies is murder, you can imagine I value ethics and truth and you can choose to believe me or not on the above list.

yes the best science is the most rigorous. It isn't an all or nothing thing. And actually, no a randomized, controlled, double blind study is about as far from biased as one can get.

Climate science does not require a second Earth. However, we actually have one. It's called Venus. Our twin. Same size, same composition, probably had water at the very least in it's early days before the Sun got warmer. And the fact that it's the warmest non-solar body in the solar system is because of global warming run seriously amuck. We also have Mars.

You have a very narrow view of what science is and what good (or even good enough) science is.