Welcome to FinHeaven Fans Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.



VIP Members don't see these ads. Join VIP Now
Page 13 of 15 FirstFirst ... 89101112131415 LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 143

Thread: My Two Cents on the Election

  1. -121
    CedarPhin's Avatar
    Finheaven Hall of Shame

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2008
    Posts:
    22,100
    vCash:
    1000
    Loc:
    Hotel California
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Romney won the debate, but Kerry beat Bush's face in during 2004, too. Which is all we're seeing a repeat of, with the names switched.
    Quote Quote  

  2. -122
    Locke's Avatar
    They looked like strong hands.

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Aug 2008
    Posts:
    8,860
    vCash:
    5306
    Loc:
    Albuquerque, NM
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    It's pretty much in a holding pattern until we see the effect the debate had on the race in the polling results early next week. Nate Silver expects a 2.2 point bounce for Romney.
    Agreed. But I'm talking specifically about Trojan's dismissal of all evidence supporting climate change. I think he may have forgot we were having this debate. Well, I hope he forgot at least...

    If I could take your pain and frame it, and hang it on my wall,
    maybe you would never have to hurt again...

    Quote Quote  

  3. -123
    irish fin fan's Avatar
    Pro Bowler

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2010
    Posts:
    1,159
    vCash:
    1227
    Thanks / No Thanks

    My Two Cents on the Election

    Quote Originally Posted by TrojanFin View Post
    What's really funny is how the term "climate change" used to be characterized as "global warming," but due to a series of bitter winter storms on the east coast, it was hard to convince people greenhouse gases were warming our planet. Well "global warming" just won't due in explaining this crisis right? "Climate change" is just such a vague term that it is almost laughable. Guess what, it is called the change in seasons. Beyond that our planet does go through extreme weather changes over time. I am sure many of you have heard of the "Ice Age". So pollution may obviously have harmful effects on our environment, but the weather is the last thing I am worried about.
    The amount of ignorant posts on this forum is astounding.
    Quote Quote  

  4. -124
    phins_4_ever's Avatar
    FinHeaven VIP

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Oct 2008
    Posts:
    4,683
    vCash:
    36510
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by TrojanFin View Post
    What's really funny is how the term "climate change" used to be characterized as "global warming," but due to a series of bitter winter storms on the east coast, it was hard to convince people greenhouse gases were warming our planet. Well "global warming" just won't due in explaining this crisis right? "Climate change" is just such a vague term that it is almost laughable. Guess what, it is called the change in seasons. Beyond that our planet does go through extreme weather changes over time. I am sure many of you have heard of the "Ice Age". So pollution may obviously have harmful effects on our environment, but the weather is the last thing I am worried about.
    My goodness. You can not be serious.
    Quote Quote  

  5. -125
    TrojanFin's Avatar
    Make It Rain!

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2006
    Posts:
    168
    vCash:
    1183
    Loc:
    Los Angeles
    Thanks / No Thanks
    I didn't forget. I prefer to repond in detail when at my computer and not when I am traveling. We'll pick this up next week when I get back. Until then, everyone can gasp in horror at the fact I believe the "inconvenient truth" to be mere propaganda.

    @ irish - thanks for your contribution (your ignorance is duly noted)
    @ phins - hypocrisy at it's finest - unless of course you are still here out. of bewilderment of why such issues have become partisan? - somehow I don't think so.

    Later
    Quote Quote  

  6. -126
    irish fin fan's Avatar
    Pro Bowler

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2010
    Posts:
    1,159
    vCash:
    1227
    Thanks / No Thanks

    My Two Cents on the Election

    Quote Originally Posted by TrojanFin View Post
    I didn't forget. I prefer to repond in detail when at my computer and not when I am traveling. We'll pick this up next week when I get back. Until then, everyone can gasp in horror at the fact I believe the "inconvenient truth" to be mere propaganda.

    @ irish - thanks for your contribution (your ignorance is duly noted)
    @ phins - hypocrisy at it's finest - unless of course you are still here out. of bewilderment of why such issues have become partisan? - somehow I don't think so.

    Later
    I posted on this issue in the past and I'm not going to keep reposting the same facts to an endless horde of ultra right wing posts. The fact that we are still debating this today is astounding.

    The IQ of this country must be declining seeing how ultra right wing nut case posts are becoming more common.
    Last edited by irish fin fan; 10-06-2012 at 07:35 PM.
    Quote Quote  

  7. -127
    CedarPhin's Avatar
    Finheaven Hall of Shame

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2008
    Posts:
    22,100
    vCash:
    1000
    Loc:
    Hotel California
    Thanks / No Thanks
    It was 100 degrees here in October. Something's definitely different, and it's not simply a "change in seasons".
    Quote Quote  

  8. -128
    TrojanFin's Avatar
    Make It Rain!

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2006
    Posts:
    168
    vCash:
    1183
    Loc:
    Los Angeles
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by CedarPhin View Post
    It was 100 degrees here in October. Something's definitely different, and it's not simply a "change in seasons".
    Since your location is "Hotel California"...

    In Long Beach, the highest recorded temperature was 111 °F (44 °C) on October 16, 1958, and October 15, 1961...

    So not unprecedented. You may live in NorCal... but I am sure you can find exceptions there as well.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate..._Angeles_Basin

    @ irish - feel free to copy paste past responses - ctrl c/ctrl v usually does the trick - I couldn't find anything pertinent in any of your previous posts from the past year and a half though

    @ locke- I think the best way to continue with this discussion is to first define what you mean by "climate change"?

    I am not going to argue that the weather doesn't change, nor am I going to argue the earth doesn't go through extreme periods of weather such as epochs of severe cold or massive dry-spells brought on by heatwaves. I am not going to even challenge the fact that human actions affect the environment.

    What I am arguing is that humans have had such a minimal impact on weather (i.e. global warming/climate change etc.), as to be insignificant compared to other "natural" factors.

    In other words, nature has been a lot more destructive towards the ozone and having an impact on your so called "global warming" than we could ever hope, and the term "climate change" has been politicized, and is often associated with destruction that humans have wreaked upon the earth and its effect on the weather. That's why I feel a lot "climate change" research has an ulterior motive with work done by groups (universities or agencies) trying to look busy and altruistic (finding reasons to remain employed), while "eco-friendly" companies are using the research to get government grants to help fund their pet projects or subsidize their latest "green" toys in hopes of turning a profit. A "progressive" government, meanwhile, can justify tax hikes on anything they deem harmful to the environment, while allocating energy resources as to where they see fit.

    I'd venture to say that cow flatulence along with other natural causes of methane etc. has done far more damage than teenage girls using hairspray or commuters driving to work. The ozone has been more ravaged by radiation from outer space than by the disposal of fast food containers. Lastly, weather is far more influenced by distance from the sun than mere people. Even with all these "natural" It's conceited to think to think of ourselves as the both destroyers and saviors of the planet.
    Quote Quote  

  9. -129
    rob19's Avatar
    Soul Rebel

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2006
    Posts:
    7,477
    vCash:
    9211
    Loc:
    Georgia
    Thanks / No Thanks
    1972 Dolphins Logo
    Quote Originally Posted by TrojanFin
    Lastly, weather is far more influenced by distance from the sun than mere people.
    I'm not sure what you mean, are you implying the distance from the Earth to the Sun changes? The distance from the Sun to the Earth has been a constant for a long, long time.

    Quote Originally Posted by TrojanFin
    The ozone has been more ravaged by radiation from outer space
    I'd be open to seeing some research to back this claim, to my understanding the whole point of the ozone layer is to reduce the amount of UV radiation from space.

    Quote Originally Posted by TrojanFin View Post
    I'd venture to say that cow flatulence along with other natural causes of methane etc. has done far more damage than teenage girls using hairspray or commuters driving to work. Even with all these "natural" It's conceited to think to think of ourselves as the both destroyers and saviors of the planet.
    A car emits a little over 2 times as much greenhouse gases as a cow. So what does this mean on a global scale? With the increase in the number of cars and light trucks over the past few years, especially in developing nations such as India, the 1.3 billion cows produce about 80% as much greenhouse gases as cars. However, that is not the whole picture…

    A senior UN official and co-author of a UN report detailing this problem, Henning Steinfeld, said “Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today’s most serious environmental problems”. Livestock production occupies 70% of all land used for agriculture, or 30% of the land surface of the planet. It is one of the largest sources of greenhouse gases, responsible for 18% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalents. By comparison, all transportation emits 13.5% of the CO2. It produces 65% of human-related nitrous oxide (which has 296 times the global warming potential of CO2,) and 37% of all human-induced methane. It also generates 64% of the ammonia, which contributes to acid rain and acidification of ecosystems. Livestock expansion is cited as a key factor driving deforestation, in the Amazon basin 70% of previously forested area is now occupied by pastures and the remainder used for feedcrops. Through deforestation and land degradation, livestock is also driving reductions in biodiversity.
    What you seem to not understand is that the mass accumulation of livestock in order to feed a growing population is a human cause as well. So whether it be motorized vehicle emissions or a vast accumulation of livestock, both present a legitimate threat to the environmental, & both are human oriented.

    Quote Originally Posted by TrojanFIn
    What I am arguing is that humans have had such a minimal impact on weather (i.e. global warming/climate change etc.),as to be insignificant compared to other "natural" factors.


    Ultimately I think this is a false claim. I mean, just by looking at the ozone depletion levels from before the industrial revolution compared to post industrial revolution I think it'd be self-evident that your claim doesn't have much teeth to it. Furthermore, according to the 1995 winners of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for their work on the ozone-layer depletion in the stratosphere, they outline ways to reverse such damage based on human action.

    What can we expect in the future?
    Thanks to our good scientific understanding of the ozone problem (and very largely to Crutzen, Molina and Rowland) it has been possible to make far-reaching decisions on prohibiting the release of gases that destroy ozone. A protocol on the protection of the ozone layer was negotiated under the auspices of the United Nations and signed in Montreal, Canada, in 1987. Under the latest tightening-up of the Montreal Protocol, the most dangerous gases will be totally banned from 1996 (developing countries have a few years' grace to introduce substitutes that do not harm the ozone layer). Since it takes some time for the ozone-destroying gases to reach the ozone layer we must expect the depletion, not only over Antarctica but also over parts of the Northern Hemisphere, to worsen for some years to come. Given compliance with the prohibitions, the ozone layer should gradually begin to heal after the turn of the century (Fig. 3). Yet it will take at least 100 years before it has fully recovered.



    Fig. 3. Change in the chlorine content in the stratosphere up to the present and three different future scenarios:
    a) Without restrictions on release,
    b) Limitations according to the original Montreal Protocol of 1987
    c) The release limitations now internationally agreed. (Chlorine content is a measure of the magnitude of ozone depletion.)
    In conclusion, while we can debate the causes of the depeltion of the ozone-layer, it is a real problem that shouldn’t be down-played by either political party, & we should take steps to correct the problem, rather than pass the buck to future generations.
    Quote Quote  

  10. -130
    rob19's Avatar
    Soul Rebel

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2006
    Posts:
    7,477
    vCash:
    9211
    Loc:
    Georgia
    Thanks / No Thanks
    1972 Dolphins Logo
    Quote Originally Posted by TrojanFin
    http://rt.com/news/antarctic-melting...l-warming-407/

    This one says global warming started before the industrial age.


    Actually I think that's a misrepresentation of the article. It states that eleven-thousand years ago the global temp. was 1 degree C warmer than today's average coming off an ice-age. & That the planet reached a cool point at about 600 years ago, & that "Another warm period followed, which intensified over the last 50–100 years", coinciding with the rise of the industrial revolution.

    Quote Originally Posted by TrojanFin
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestay...nother-record/

    This one says that there is a build up of ice in Antarctica.
    My problem with that article is they use one area that has accumulated ice & try to use that as evidence that the Earth as a whole isn't affected.

    Quote Originally Posted by TrojanFin
    And as humans, have we really made much of an impact? I'd say no.


    Again, I'd say that's a pretty ludicrous claim.

    Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, human activities have caused an increase in several greenhouse gases, most notably carbon dioxide, a trend most scientists believe is causing anthropogenic greenhouse warming. Over the past two and one-half centuries the concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere has increased about 40 percent, from a pre-industrial level of about 280 parts per million by volume to a current level of 392 parts per million by volume. Carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere are already higher today than at any time in the past 150,000 years. And if the consumption of fossil fuels such as coal and oil continues into the next century at projected rates with no mitigation, the carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere would reach over 900 ppmv by 2100.

    Other greenhouse gas emissions have been rising as well. Methane concentrations in the atmosphere have doubled since pre-industrial times. Other greenhouse chemicals, such as chlorofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and hydrofluorocarbons, are synthetic and have only appeared in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution.

    Greenhouse gases are not the only chemical agent contributing to the warming of Earth’s surface. In recent years increasing attention has focused on the role of black carbon aerosol particles in contributing to Earth’s warming. Black carbon aerosols are “soot”, a byproduct of incomplete combustion of fuels. Black carbon particles strongly absorb solar radiation and then re-emit radiation, so like the greenhouse gases they too can have a warming effect on the surface. Black carbon can also warm the Earth by reducing the albedo of snow and ice when soot is deposited on those otherwise reflective surfaces. Unlike many greenhouse gases, however, black carbon aerosol particles have a very short lifetime in Earth’s atmosphere, typically only residing in the atmosphere for a few days to a few weeks.
    -
    There are complex interrelationships involving air pollution, stratospheric ozone depletion and climate change. Human industrial and agricultural activity has been a driving factor in contributing to each of these problems. In a number of instances actions to limit emissions to address one problem will have effects on others as well.

    Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) that are the leading cause of stratospheric ozone depletion are also powerful greenhouse gases so actions to curtail their use will help in climate protection as well as in preserving the stratospheric ozone layer. Similarly actions to substitute renewable energy for fossil fuels or to increase energy efficiency in order to protect the climate are likely also to result in an improvement in air quality. Efforts to reduce black-carbon emissions are particularly fruitful environmentally since black carbon aerosol particles contribute to both the global greenhouse effect and local air pollution.
    http://www.climate.org/topics/climate-change/index.html
    Quote Quote  

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 129
    Last Post: 07-22-2010, 08:37 PM
  2. Vic's 2 cents
    By Mike13 in forum Miami Dolphins Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-20-2005, 06:33 PM
  3. Now my 2 cents
    By mutiny85 in forum Miami Dolphins Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-04-2004, 10:36 PM
  4. My Two Cents
    By mls737 in forum Miami Dolphins Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-13-2004, 08:26 PM
  5. My 2 Cents
    By JPhinfan86 in forum Miami Dolphins Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-03-2003, 04:47 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •