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 12 of 15 FirstFirst ... 789101112131415 LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 143

Thread: My Two Cents on the Election

  1. -111
    SkapePhin's Avatar
    Brady Slayer

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    May 2002
    Posts:
    18,512
    vCash:
    15865
    Loc:
    Washington DC
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    Big Tobacco =/= Big $$$?
    Yes it is, and their lobbyists were able to keep up the charade for several years before the evidence was so obvious that the propaganda simply couldn't work anymore. Its a lot harder to convince people that there isn't a link between tobacco and cancer today when they see their relatives cough their lungs up and drop dead. Climate change isn't as visible in everyone's everyday life. But undoubtedly, there will come a point, just like cancer, when climate change will become apparent to the common man, and at such a time, the political clout will cease to keep up the charade on this issue, just as it did with tobacco.

    That being said, the tobacco lobby is still quite effective in snuffing out potential competitors with their anti-marijuana rhetoric and support.
    Bluebird in Hell

    Just published my first game for iOS if anyone is interested...
    It's a free time waster.
    Quote Quote  

  2. -112
    TrojanFin's Avatar
    The Chosen One Awaits

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2006
    Posts:
    163
    vCash:
    1077
    Loc:
    Los Angeles
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Spesh View Post
    Ah, so 1 word disproves his entire point. Your not focusing on "The worlds climate is changing and humans are contributing to it", your focusing on "hey, those gases may be doing it". And, of course, your taking that single word so you can completely distort what Romney actually said and what you want him to mean. Thats, you know, reasonable.

    Please show me the Romney quote of ".9-1%"? Keep in mind, Romney has trouble with percentages. Im doubtful that such a quote exists, as the rest of Romney's answer goes in a different direction, but im willing to be proven wrong.
    You are completely missing the point. I feel like the argument keeps changing as I was initially defending my opinion to now having to explain away a random quote from Romney. What is more, I keep getting the feeling that I am being told who I am and what my opinion should be. Just allow me to speak for myself. Thanks.

    The statistical I quote I gave was not something that Romney said, but was in reference to the link earlier in my argument. However, I am sure Romney was just making an off-the-cuff remark, but if policy decisions had to be made, you better believe he would defer to the expert opinions of those he trusts and are environmental experts. Again, Romney is a businessman and politician not a scientist. That's why they have cabinet members and various experts in his administration that would help him make more educated decisions.

    As for trouble with percentages. I get what you are referencing, but overall he's been pretty good with numbers and doing quite well as a businessman.

    Here' are some other fun articles for you to ponder as you cling to your belief that "climate change" will one day doom us all.

    http://rt.com/news/antarctic-melting...l-warming-407/

    This one says global warming started before the industrial age.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestay...nother-record/

    This one says that there is a build up of ice in Antarctica.

    So I ask which is it? Warming or freezing? And as humans, have we really made much of an impact? I'd say no.
    Quote Quote  

  3. -113
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    6,748
    vCash:
    18819
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by SkapePhin View Post
    Yes it is, and their lobbyists were able to keep up the charade for several years before the evidence was so obvious that the propaganda simply couldn't work anymore. Its a lot harder to convince people that there isn't a link between tobacco and cancer today when they see their relatives cough their lungs up and drop dead. Climate change isn't as visible in everyone's everyday life. But undoubtedly, there will come a point, just like cancer, when climate change will become apparent to the common man, and at such a time, the political clout will cease to keep up the charade on this issue, just as it did with tobacco.

    That being said, the tobacco lobby is still quite effective in snuffing out potential competitors with their anti-marijuana rhetoric and support.
    Well, perhaps I'm just ignorant of the history, but I've never read that smoking causing cancer became a widespread partisan issue.

    I mean, I get the lobbying angle. Which means I get why the politicians do everything they can to subvert it. But why does the average guy walking down the road give a **** about CO2 levels? I can't see a reason for it, yet everyone you meet seems to have a strong opinion about the issue one way or another (Michael Crighton can suck a post-mortem dick for writing State of Fear, by the way). I mean, are people worried some day someone's going to show up and force them to live in a teepee? Or do they just want to butt **** the environment believing it's been good and roofied and won't remember anything.

    My theory is that people have just sort of fallen in line behind their political leaders without giving any thought as to how (or whether) the issue affects them. Republican politicians (and plenty of Democrats too) are mouthpieces of Big Oil, therefore they don't think climate change is real. Democrats bash them, so rank and file Republicans close ranks and support the cause (or anti-cause, however you want to phrase it) despite having absolutely no reason to care. It's more of a sports fan mentality than a "I'm old and need medicare so don't take away my medicare" mentality.
    Last edited by TheWalrus; 10-03-2012 at 01:52 AM.
    Quote Quote  

  4. -114
    Spesh's Avatar
    Fat Kid

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2007
    Posts:
    7,172
    vCash:
    4777
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by TrojanFin View Post
    You are completely missing the point. I feel like the argument keeps changing as I was initially defending my opinion to now having to explain away a random quote from Romney. What is more, I keep getting the feeling that I am being told who I am and what my opinion should be. Just allow me to speak for myself. Thanks.

    The statistical I quote I gave was not something that Romney said, but was in reference to the link earlier in my argument. However, I am sure Romney was just making an off-the-cuff remark, but if policy decisions had to be made, you better believe he would defer to the expert opinions of those he trusts and are environmental experts. Again, Romney is a businessman and politician not a scientist. That's why they have cabinet members and various experts in his administration that would help him make more educated decisions.

    As for trouble with percentages. I get what you are referencing, but overall he's been pretty good with numbers and doing quite well as a businessman.

    Here' are some other fun articles for you to ponder as you cling to your belief that "climate change" will one day doom us all.

    http://rt.com/news/antarctic-melting...l-warming-407/

    This one says global warming started before the industrial age.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestay...nother-record/

    This one says that there is a build up of ice in Antarctica.

    So I ask which is it? Warming or freezing? And as humans, have we really made much of an impact? I'd say no.
    Actually, all i stated was Republicans had politicized the issue of global climate change while bemoaning Democrats for politicizing issues. I found it alarming that science is used as partisan tools and that people are picking and choosing which "facts" to believe. So, i suppose you completely missed the point. We werent discussing the "facts" of global climate change, we were discussing partisan politics positions on scientific information.

    As well, while i did amusingly show that Romney believes in global climate change, your the one that stated you would be "willing to give Romney the benefit of the doubt" on what he actually meant because of a single word. Romney's exact quote indicated that he wanted to reduce emissions because it could be contributing to global climate change, while you stated that he was suggested "it couldnt hurt". His exact words are:

    "It's important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may be significant contributors."
    If you have a quote of Romney saying that impact is minimal and it just couldnt hurt to cut back, feel free to throw it up. At the moment, im taking him for what he said(admittedly not the best indicator for truthful statements, but anyways): he believes in global climate change, believes humans are contributing it, and believes its important to reduce emissions. Regardless, again, this is all besides the point.

    Locke began discussing how people get mislead, i posted about how alarming it is that people pick and choose their "facts" and used my personal experience with the climate change discussion as an example, TheWalrus mentioned how odd it is politicians were fighting over it, and you brilliantly proved my point by jumping in and talking about how wrong all the facts were while dismissively laughing at the words used to describe the event. To be honest, i doubt you could have made a better example of what i was talking about. Again, much appreciated.
    Quote Originally Posted by finfan54 View Post
    its all right, Im a rice dick apparently.
    Quote Quote  

  5. -115
    Spesh's Avatar
    Fat Kid

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2007
    Posts:
    7,172
    vCash:
    4777
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    Well, perhaps I'm just ignorant of the history, but I've never read that smoking causing cancer became a widespread partisan issue.

    I mean, I get the lobbying angle. Which means I get why the politicians do everything they can to subvert it. But why does the average guy walking down the road give a **** about CO2 levels? I can't see a reason for it, yet everyone you meet seems to have a strong opinion about the issue one way or another (Michael Crighton can suck a post-mortem dick for writing State of Fear). I mean, are people worried some day someone's going to show up and force them to live in a teepee? Or do they just want to butt **** the environment believing it's been good and roofied and won't remember anything.

    Basically what I really think is going on is that people have sort of fallen in line behind their political leaders. Republican politicians (and plenty of Democrats too) are mouth pieces of Big Oil, therefore they don't think climate change is real. Democrats bash them, so rank and file Republicans close ranks and support the cause (anti-cause?) despite having absolutely no reason to care. It's more of a sports fan mentality than a "I'm old and need medicare so don't take away my medicare" mentality.
    There was a partisan issue involved: whether the federal government has the right to stop people from doing something harmful to their own bodies. I doubt smoking is what caused that debate, and compared to today it was probably a relatively minor outrage, but politics were involved. If not for that discussion point(and boat loads of bribes), smoking would probably be banned.

    I mostly agree with you. People see that its something their side objects to, so they fall in. That said, some people truly believe nothing is wrong for various reasons. Dont forget this is an issue for many social conservatives who believe in the scriptural literalism of the bible. I believe those numbers are microscopic compared to those who are defensive or have an interest in Big Oil, but they still have their influence.
    Quote Quote  

  6. -116
    Locke's Avatar
    They looked like strong hands.

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Aug 2008
    Posts:
    8,608
    vCash:
    2867
    Loc:
    Albuquerque, NM
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by TrojanFin View Post
    That's a classic straw man. Who am I to disagree with all the scientists and universities from all over the world?


    As an aside... would it be fair for me to assume that you get all your facts from Rachel Maddow and John Stewart? Typical association fallacy, and no I don't listen to Rush or Beck.


    Getting back to the point. I disagree with "organizations" that keep reiterating that "climate change" is a threat.

    You make the false assumption that the findings of scientists and universities are not filtered in any way by those who have a higher agenda. See "Climategate."


    What kind of agenda could such "organizations" have? Well it usually boils down to money and power. Money in the form of ongoing grants, and power in the form of political influence.

    The second false assumption that you have made is that all scientists have come to the same conclusion. That's not the case as indicated in this article.


    http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhend...f-the-century/








    @Spesh





    In essence, Romney is correct that humans have impacted "climate change," but the impact is so minimal as to be insignificant such as ".9 of 1 percent."


    In your last quote, I would be willing to give Romney the benefit of the doubt because of the use of the of the word "may." He is conceding that he is no scientist, but agrees generally speaking that less pollutants cannot possibly be a bad thing.







    The agency that would be largely responsible for wielding this control would be the EPA. Take a listen to this clip.


    Mark Levin Show 10/1/12

    cue to 77:35-80:00


    http://rope.zmle.fimc.net/player/pla...10012012%2Emp3

    So that's why I don't give "climate change" much credence.
    So, you are then saying there is an agency that takes all the research from around the world, and filters it to tell a particular story about climate change? Is that why you don't believe the work of thousands of scientists...?

    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  

  7. -117
    TrojanFin's Avatar
    The Chosen One Awaits

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2006
    Posts:
    163
    vCash:
    1077
    Loc:
    Los Angeles
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Locke View Post
    So, you are then saying there is an agency that takes all the research from around the world, and filters it to tell a particular story about climate change? Is that why you don't believe the work of thousands of scientists...?
    Let me answer your question with another question. Do you think that these agencies (plural) that hire these scientists take the time to look into these issues do so without a purpose or agenda? If you have agencies whose sole purpose is to research "climate change" and there is no "climate change," the funding is going to dry up pretty fast isn't it? These agencies are results driven and operate like any other business. If the backers (i.e. Gore-types) like the message, they will go out of their way to ensure they get more funding. Lastly, it is odd when scientific data conflicts as I have shown in a prior thread. So not all scientists believe in "climate change" as you may want to believe.
    Quote Quote  

  8. -118
    Locke's Avatar
    They looked like strong hands.

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Aug 2008
    Posts:
    8,608
    vCash:
    2867
    Loc:
    Albuquerque, NM
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by TrojanFin View Post
    Let me answer your question with another question. Do you think that these agencies (plural) that hire these scientists take the time to look into these issues do so without a purpose or agenda? If you have agencies whose sole purpose is to research "climate change" and there is no "climate change," the funding is going to dry up pretty fast isn't it? These agencies are results driven and operate like any other business. If the backers (i.e. Gore-types) like the message, they will go out of their way to ensure they get more funding. Lastly, it is odd when scientific data conflicts as I have shown in a prior thread. So not all scientists believe in "climate change" as you may want to believe.
    Let me start by telling you I'm a scientist myself, so I'm not talking out of my ass on this. Funding on these matters will never dry up. So little money for research comes from the government in these areas, it's mind-boggling. You get a fair amount of grants, some of it government, most of it private. However, you get most of it from the universities themselves, who have no shortage of funds thanks to ballooning tuition. So your entire thought-process here is based on an incorrect notion. In the scientific community, there is absolutely no shortage of funds.

    As to your second point, there will ALWAYS be conflicting data. Always. It's the nature of science. There are aberrations in data all the time. Even things that are well-known and accepted, like how the human body works, can have random things pop up that seem to make no sense. We look at trends in the data. If you run a test 100 times, and you get a particular result 85 times, and something else the other attempts, the trend tells you that the 85 times is the result. We scientists then work on finding out why we got different results on the other attempts. What is happening is you are looking at incomplete work, and then trying to form an opinion on it. Climate change scientists have found the trend. They are now trying to figure out the variables and where the odd findings that sometimes pop up are coming from. What you're doing would be the same thing as walking up to a guy halfway done building a house, and then telling him his work sucks because no one could live in it right now...
    Quote Quote  

  9. -119
    Locke's Avatar
    They looked like strong hands.

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Aug 2008
    Posts:
    8,608
    vCash:
    2867
    Loc:
    Albuquerque, NM
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Bump. I'm interested in continuing this debate...
    Quote Quote  

  10. -120
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    6,748
    vCash:
    18819
    Thanks / No Thanks
    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.
    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
  •