2007 Oscars

[gbeenie]

To put it another way, if the weatherman gives an 80% chance of rain, and it doesn't rain, the weatherman was right. There was still an 80% chance of rain. :^)

In other words, if someone simply states that the probability of an event happening has increased, and an increased incidence of the predicted event doesn't occur, the predictor can claim that his/her statement of probability still holds.

I believe this is called "moving the target in such a way that you're never proven wrong." In the instance of an ordinary debate, I would simply dismiss this a sloppy ill-use of a rhetorical tool. Unfortunately, this is not an ordinary debate; the above "logic" is believed as irrefutable truth by many people. These are people who want, among other things, to force the United States into a treaty agreement which would cripple our industrial output and have a calamitous effect on our economy (which is pretty much what it was authored to do).

[AmandaGal]

Not to argue with you, but I think in order to prove Al Gore's hypothesis wrong, we'd have to have more than one year or two years of date.  We'd have to look at it over a much longer period to see patterns.  I was under the impression the movie relied on date from decades.  You can't say, "Well, last year was good so that proves the pattern of weather hasn't change."  Law of probability says that even if the pattern has changed, there still will be some "good" years.

Now, whether or not global warming is in fact a problem with weather patterns or not, I cannot say.  I did some research on it in undergrad and we came up with "not enough information at this time." more or less.  Back then, we didn't have data far reaching enough to really make a comfortable conclusion.  I haven't seen Gore's data (like he collected it) but I don't think you can prove or disprove his theory based on one year's events.  Weather patterns are far more reaching and in order to see "probabilities" you need much more data than a few years.

So, it's not to say we're moving the target, we're firing 100 shots and we've only gotten up to firing 5.  Those missed...what are the chances the rest of them will?  We'll have to see.

[Pak-Man]

The odds haven't changed. The question is how long we wanna keep rolling those same dice, or whether we'd like to improve our odds a bit. You could theoretically flip a coin 300 times and it could potentially turn up heads 300 times in a row. That doesn't mean your odds have decreased at getting tails. It just means you've been REAL lucky. The odds are still 50/50 with every flip. That's how Vegas takes your money. :^)

[Variety of Cells]

The odds haven't changed. The question is how long we wanna keep rolling those same dice, or whether we'd like to improve our odds a bit. You could theoretically flip a coin 300 times and it could potentially turn up heads 300 times in a row. That doesn't mean your odds have decreased at getting tails. It just means you've been REAL lucky. The odds are still 50/50 with every flip. That's how Vegas takes your money. :^)

Or it means you're performing in a production of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead.

[gbeenie]

Not to argue with you, but I think in order to prove Al Gore's hypothesis wrong, we'd have to have more than one year or two years of date.  We'd have to look at it over a much longer period to see patterns.  I was under the impression the movie relied on date from decades.  You can't say, "Well, last year was good so that proves the pattern of weather hasn't change."  Law of probability says that even if the pattern has changed, there still will be some "good" years.

Now, whether global warming is in fact a problem with weather patterns or not, I cannot say.  I did some research on it in undergrad and we came up with "not enough information at this time." more or less.  Back then, we didn't have data far reaching enough to really make a comfortable conclusion.  I haven't seen Gore's data (like he collected it) but I don't think you can prove or disprove his theory based on one year's events.  Weather patterns are far more reaching and in order to see "probabilities" you need much more data than a few years.

I agree completely. In fact, that's my point: the lack of any large-scale hurricane activity in 2006 doesn't prove the global warming alarmists wrong; just as the severity of 2005's hurricane season doesn't prove them right. The problem is, the doomsayers in this argument have decided to accept a ridiculously low standard for "evidence" to bolster their point (I have a friend who posts in her LiveJournal about "global warming" EVERY SINGLE TIME it gets above 55 degrees in winter); a point they say necessitates the wholesale change of virtually every aspect of yours and my daily lives (and by "say," I mean "indignantly demand").

[gbeenie]

The odds haven't changed. The question is how long we wanna keep rolling those same dice, or whether we'd like to improve our odds a bit. You could theoretically flip a coin 300 times and it could potentially turn up heads 300 times in a row. That doesn't mean your odds have decreased at getting tails. It just means you've been REAL lucky. The odds are still 50/50 with every flip. That's how Vegas takes your money. :^)

The problem is, we're being told, based principally on HIGHLY theoretical computer models, that the odds
HAVE changed, and that we should alter our lives drastically to change them back.

[AmandaGal]

I guess I agree then.  I'm a big conservationist myself and I don't mind making a few changes just in case.  I think most of his ideas are good ideas rather there's global warming or not.  However, even watching Gore's film didn't convince me that global warming is as big a problem as they say it is.  It just made me think maybe it could be.  Again, I haven't sat down and tried to look at any scientific evidence in a good 8 years so I'm sure there's more out there now but I don't really care enough to do an entire research project on it. 

Humans suck. That's all I know.

[sarcasm_made_Easy]

Humans suck. That's all I know

I agree, thats why i do my part.   I unleash a case or two of aresol hair spray into the air everynight before bed in the hopes that not only will i have warm winters until i die, that the generation after me has no chance of surviving.  Its just my way of saying screw you humans how dare you damage the enviroment.

[J-Proof]

Or it means you're performing in a production of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead.

Congratulations - you just created my favorite fan post of all time to date =)

[sarcasm_made_Easy]

so uh back on topic, why wasn't pick of destiny nominated in every category?

[Bob]

so uh back on topic, why wasn't pick of destiny nominated in every category?

I'd give it an award as long as it meant that Jack Black would never make another movie.   I know most people love him, but I find him horribly unfunny and if he could not curse, he would have zero material.

But hey, everyone has an opinion.   I am sure Hitler's dog liked him.

There, I just compared Jack Black to Hitler..... I need a beer to celebrate that!   

[sarcasm_made_Easy]

who do like in humor?  I dont think EVERYTHING he does is funny, and in fact USUALLY stuff like the pick of destiny really annoys the shit out of me, i cant say why i liked it for some reason.  I still love school of rock

[Pak-Man]

Jack Black is a mystery to me. My instincts say to hate him, but my experiences say I enjoy his work. Same deal with Mike Myers. :^)

[sarcasm_made_Easy]

he is just likeable. 

[Blueguy]

Jack Black way overdoes everything which I find annoying and far from funny.  Same goes for Will Ferrel, but at least he's shown some restraint in some of his movies.