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 14 of 15 FirstFirst ... 9101112131415 LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 143

Thread: My Two Cents on the Election

  1. -131
    rob19's Avatar
    Soul Rebel

    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2006
    Posts:
    7,196
    vCash:
    6697
    Loc:
    Georgia
    Thanks / No Thanks
    1972 Dolphins Logo
    By the way, I haven't read the whole thread & maybe I should, but we're all aware global warming isn't the only environmental problem we face, correct? To name just one, we have a garbage-patch twice the size of Texas floating around in the pacific ocean. I really don't understand the notion that all these people trying to set-up environmental regulations is really a conspiracy to make profit.
    Quote Quote  

  2. -132
    Locke's Avatar
    They looked like strong hands.

    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Aug 2008
    Posts:
    8,762
    vCash:
    4604
    Loc:
    Albuquerque, NM
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by TrojanFin View Post
    Since your location is "Hotel California"...


    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.
    This is irrelevant to my previous point. You claimed that this phantom agency that takes all climate change research is biased and picks and chooses which data to publish because it wants to keep funding for climate change research. I pointed out that there is no lack of funds for scientific research, and how little of it comes from the government. This makes your entire premise invalid. When we needed funding for our study a few years ago, I personally wrote a proposal to the American Psychological Association to get approval ethically, and after that ordeal, they forwarded us a list of possible grants and funding sources we could access. Not a single one was government money. Funding is not the issue.

    As to my second point, there isn't a need to expand on that. Conflicting data is a part of science, period.

    You are purposely ignoring hordes of scientific data because it doesn't fit your ideological narrative...

    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. -133
    TrojanFin's Avatar
    Make It Rain!

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2006
    Posts:
    166
    vCash:
    1118
    Loc:
    Los Angeles
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Locke View Post
    This is irrelevant to my previous point. You claimed that this phantom agency that takes all climate change research is biased and picks and chooses which data to publish because it wants to keep funding for climate change research. I pointed out that there is no lack of funds for scientific research, and how little of it comes from the government. This makes your entire premise invalid. When we needed funding for our study a few years ago, I personally wrote a proposal to the American Psychological Association to get approval ethically, and after that ordeal, they forwarded us a list of possible grants and funding sources we could access. Not a single one was government money. Funding is not the issue.

    As to my second point, there isn't a need to expand on that. Conflicting data is a part of science, period.

    You are purposely ignoring hordes of scientific data because it doesn't fit your ideological narrative...
    You are missing my point. The issue isn't so much the funding, but those who do the funding may demand certain results. I didn't say there was a single phantom agency that makes all climate research bias. I'll appeal to your ethos as a scientist and concede that you probably know more about where funding comes from. I'm not going to argue whether such funding comes from the government, universities, or private entities because it is irrelevant. The sheer fact that money is being spent on "climate change" research at all shows that there is an agenda when comes to researching the subject otherwise why bother to fund it. It's self-serving research that is done with the intention of proving that "climate change," as a politicized, term exists.

    Quote Originally Posted by Locke View Post
    In the scientific community, there is absolutely no shortage of funds.
    That may be true, but universities, agencies and government all still have budgets. So not everything gets funded. Ultimately, as you demonstrated from your real world experience, you had to submit a proposal for approval.

    Quote Originally Posted by Locke View Post
    You are purposely ignoring hordes of scientific data because it doesn't fit your ideological narrative...
    I could say the same of you. If the scientific data was so conclusive then there would be no debate. It would be like debating the earth being round or flat. You simply dismiss my examples that are contrary to your "ideological narrative" as outliers or anomalies. Since you don't give a specific definition to "climate change," how am I to debate what is a vaguely defined term. Instead I choose to decide that my concept of "climate change" as human-induced extremities (ie anthropogenic causes) in weather as a myth. Trust me there is a lot of scientific data out there to back me up as well.
    Last edited by TrojanFin; 10-11-2012 at 07:14 AM.
    Quote Quote  

  4. -134
    TrojanFin's Avatar
    Make It Rain!

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2006
    Posts:
    166
    vCash:
    1118
    Loc:
    Los Angeles
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by rob19 View Post
    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.
    The earth being tilted on its axis accounts for the reason why the northern and summer hemisphere experience winter and summer at different times. So I should have clarified to say that regions of the earth and their distance from the sun account for the weather and "climate change". This in turn accounts to why we are cold and hot depending on the seasons. I was being cute by saying experiencing summer does not equate to global warming.


    Quote Originally Posted by rob19 View Post
    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.
    reliable satellite data in the period of 1980–2007 covering two full 11-yr cosmic ray (CR) cycles, clearly showing the correlation between CRs and ozone depletion, especially the polar ozone loss (hole) over Antarctica. The results provide strong evidence of the physical mechanism that the CR-driven electron-induced reaction of halogenated molecules plays the dominant role in causing the ozone hole. Moreover, this mechanism predicts one of the severest ozone losses in 2008–2009 and probably another large hole around 2019–2020, according to the 11-yr CR cycle.
    http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v102/i11/e118501


    Quote Originally Posted by rob19 View Post
    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.

    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.

    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.
    I brought up cows for illustrative purposes. I'll concede that deforestation is likely not helping our air quality, however the crux of my argument is the role humans play (or don't) in causing "climate change". You might agree that there are tons more animals on this planet that we don't raise for eating, and that also release tons of methane and CO2.

    Regarding the rates, consider this. The present (2010) global rate of CO2 production from fossil fuel burning is approximately equal to the present global rate of CO2 production from anthropogenic animal breathing [8].

    This implies that reducing anthropogenic animal metabolic rates can have a greater effect than many industry-scale changes in energy use and leads to suggestions that we breathe less [9]. It also shows that demonizing CO2 production demonizes life itself [9].

    Among other things, the anthropogenic animal breathing calculation [8] also means that the rate of loss of carbon from the atmosphere is at least four times greater than the rate of measured post-industrial increase in atmospheric CO2.

    Where is all that atmospheric carbon going? We don’t know because the other planetary carbon pools with which the atmosphere exchanges are so large (compared to the atmosphere) that the incremental additions of carbon to these larger pools (such as the oceans) cannot be detected.

    Again regarding rates, the present (2010) historic maximum of anthropogenic (caused by humans) fossil fuel burning is only 8% or so of global primary production (GPP) (both expressed as kilograms of carbon per year, kg-C/y) [7]. GPP is the rate at which new biomass (living matter) is produced on the whole planet.

    Similarly, the rate of fossil fuel burning energy release is miniscule (0.006%) compared to the rate of the sun’s delivery of energy to the planet [7].
    If you want to get into the numbers, he lays it all out there...
    http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/...te-change.html

    There are many other scientists that have come to the same conclusions...
    http://www.iceagenow.com/Consensus_o...ge_Is_Fake.htm
    Quote Quote  

  5. -135
    TrojanFin's Avatar
    Make It Rain!

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2006
    Posts:
    166
    vCash:
    1118
    Loc:
    Los Angeles
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by rob19 View Post
    By the way, I haven't read the whole thread & maybe I should, but we're all aware global warming isn't the only environmental problem we face, correct? To name just one, we have a garbage-patch twice the size of Texas floating around in the pacific ocean. I really don't understand the notion that all these people trying to set-up environmental regulations is really a conspiracy to make profit.
    As far as pollution is concerned, I definitely see the issue with needing to recycle our resources and minimize waste. However, I have to disagree with you and say that there is a lot of profit to be made in the "green sector" since it was pointed in the 1st Prez debate by Romney that 90 billion dollars was spent by the Obama administration to help "eco-friendly" companies. Much of that money was poorly invented in companies like Solyndra, for example, that ultimately went bankrupt. However, somebody put that money in their pocket and made a profit. You can't tell me it all went back into R&D.

    Here's another example. The lightbulb.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-o...nt_light_bulbs

    first result on google shopping for a 100W incandescent light bulb - $1

    https://www.google.com/shopping/prod...ed=0CH0Q8wIwAA

    I type in 100W cfl light bulb - $42

    https://www.google.com/shopping/prod...d=0CIIBEOUNMAE

    Tell me a company like GE isn't excited with phasing out of incandescent light bulbs and government regulations demanding that they replace them with newer expensive CFL's in the name of "environmentalism".
    Quote Quote  

  6. -136
    rob19's Avatar
    Soul Rebel

    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2006
    Posts:
    7,196
    vCash:
    6697
    Loc:
    Georgia
    Thanks / No Thanks
    1972 Dolphins Logo
    Quote Originally Posted by TrojanFin
    The earth being tilted on its axis accounts for the reason why the northern and summer hemisphere experience winter and summer at different times. So I should have clarified to say that regions of the earth and their distance from the sun account for the weather and "climate change". This in turn accounts to why we are cold and hot depending on the seasons. I was being cute by saying experiencing summer does not equate to global warming.
    I know how seasons work, but if what you were trying to say was “summer doesn’t mean global warming”, that’s kind of a “duh” statement. A statement of equal importance would have been telling us the moon isn’t made out of cheese. Just giving you a hard time

    Quote Originally Posted by TrojanFin
    I checked the link, it’s a little too vague for my tastes. Fails to mention any specific data.

    Quote Originally Posted by TrojanFIn
    You might agree that there are tons more animals on this planet that we don't raise for eating, and that also release tons of methane and CO2.
    None of them come anywhere near to humanity's collective livestock, nor do they have the bodies from a numbers stand-point to make an impact. If we weren't “mass-producing” cows they wouldn't have much of an impact either.

    Quote Originally Posted by TrojanFIn
    As far as pollution is concerned, I definitely see the issue with needing to recycle our resources and minimize waste.
    We’re in agreement there.

    Quote Originally Posted by TrojanFin
    However, I have to disagree with you and say that there is a lot of profit to be made in the "green sector" since it was pointed in the 1st Prez debate by Romney that 90 billion dollars was spent by the Obama administration to help "eco-friendly" companies. Much of that money was poorly invented in companies like Solyndra, for example, that ultimately went bankrupt. However, somebody put that money in their pocket and made a profit. You can't tell me it all went back into R&D.
    If I remember correctly only 3 of the 36 or so companies that were invested in went bankrupt. Nor am I saying that money was flawlessly invested because I don't know the particulars. Furthermore, I’m not disputing there isn’t a profit to be made in green-technology, but if we can create jobs that help the environment instead of further damaging it, & can profit off it at the same time then more power to them.

    Quote Originally Posted by TrojanFin
    Tell me a company like GE isn't excited with phasing out of incandescent light bulbs and government regulations demanding that they replace them with newer expensive CFL's in the name of "environmentalism".
    “The aim is to force the use and technological development of more energy-efficient lighting alternatives, such as compact fluorescent lamp (CFLs) and LED lamps. Manufacturers in the United States, at least, will still be free to produce future versions of incandescent bulbs if they are more energy efficient.”

    You’ll save money in the long run by having more energy-effiecient lighting. Think of it like buying a nice pair of shoes that won’t wear down as easily as the cheaper alternatives. Now, I didn’t read the entire wiki article you posted so I’m not sure if those other lightbulbs also have damaging effects in terms of waste, but if they do and these new ones are less harmful, than all the better.
    ---

    Lastly, you neglected to address a few points of mine, in particular:

    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by TrojanFin
    The sheer fact that money is being spent on "climate change" research at all shows that there is an agenda when comes to researching the subject otherwise why bother to fund it. It's self-serving research that is done with the intention of proving that "climate change," as a politicized, term exists.
    Kinda blown away by this. First of all if you can’t identify the source of funding for these studies how can you even begin to make claims of an agenda. Second, funding for these studies probably comes from a myriad of different sources, so casting an overarching claim of bias is unfounded & reactional. Third, just because you don’t believe in global warming doesn’t mean it’s not something worth researching. It’s like saying “Well I don’t believe in evolution so those damn scientists funding and researching it clearly shows they have an agenda against Christianity!” I’m sorry, I think that’s asinine.
    Quote Quote  

  7. -137
    Locke's Avatar
    They looked like strong hands.

    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Aug 2008
    Posts:
    8,762
    vCash:
    4604
    Loc:
    Albuquerque, NM
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by TrojanFin View Post
    I could say the same of you. If the scientific data was so conclusive then there would be no debate. It would be like debating the earth being round or flat. You simply dismiss my examples that are contrary to your "ideological narrative" as outliers or anomalies. Since you don't give a specific definition to "climate change," how am I to debate what is a vaguely defined term. Instead I choose to decide that my concept of "climate change" as human-induced extremities (ie anthropogenic causes) in weather as a myth. Trust me there is a lot of scientific data out there to back me up as well.
    No, you couldn't. I've already acknowledged that there is conflicting data. I've already explained how the scientific community views it, and how they react. You chose not to respond to that part of the discussion...
    Quote Quote  

  8. -138
    Rookie

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Feb 2012
    Posts:
    15
    vCash:
    1045
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    That's awful rosy picture of the electorate you're painting there. Not sure what country you've been living in, but it's certainly not this one.

    Anyway, should be fun to revisit this thread in November. I'm sure you didn't think Obama would be elected four years ago, either.
    A country with over 23 million known unemployed Americans. Many more not statistically showing up because of skewing by the idea if they quit looking and do not collect unemployment after exhausting their allotment they no longer count in overall tracking. 47 million Americans on food stamps. $4 gasoline. Lying and covering up Libya debacle (character does count and people do take notice eventually). Yeah I can't wait to in visit November too. Like I said it is not going to be close. America deserves better and the Dems had the wrong plans to fix the economy. Ineffective leadership plain and simple. Life is to short to wait on failed policies. Nothing personal just common sense after living and experiencing these 4 years. Tired of the class envy crap too.
    Quote Quote  

  9. -139
    phins_4_ever's Avatar
    FinHeaven VIP

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Oct 2008
    Posts:
    3,710
    vCash:
    549
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by TruthBeTold View Post
    A country with over 23 million known unemployed Americans. Many more not statistically showing up because of skewing by the idea if they quit looking and do not collect unemployment after exhausting their allotment they no longer count in overall tracking. 47 million Americans on food stamps. $4 gasoline. Lying and covering up Libya debacle (character does count and people do take notice eventually). Yeah I can't wait to in visit November too. Like I said it is not going to be close. America deserves better and the Dems had the wrong plans to fix the economy. Ineffective leadership plain and simple. Life is to short to wait on failed policies. Nothing personal just common sense after living and experiencing these 4 years. Tired of the class envy crap too.
    Debunct:

    23 Million unemployed?

    Romney overstated the number of unemployed Americans when he said that there were “23 million people out of work.” There were 12.5 million unemployed Americans in August, the most recent figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
    Romney meant to refer to the unemployed, plus those working part-time who want full-time work (8 million) and those who are considered “marginally attached” to the labor force because they have not looked for work in the past four weeks (2.6 million). All of that adds up to 23.1 million. Romney got his talking point closer to the truth when he said, “We’ve got 23 million people out of work or stopped looking for work in this country.” But he still left out the 8 million who are working part-time for economic reasons.
    http://factcheck.org/2012/10/dubious...-declarations/

    And the dark numbers (those not seeking unemployment benefits) were always there or is that something new since Obama took office? No, they just became an issue since he took office.
    People on food stamps is partially due to our recession in 2008/2009. The requirements have hardly changed and just because Obama became President people didn't say "oh yeah, let's go on food stamps".

    Obama can hardly be held responsible for gas prices. As we all know gas prices are compromised of your gas guzzling SUV neighbors, speculators and greedy oil corporations. Or is Obama at fault to for high gas prices in Europe which is almost double our price? It's the free market boys. Sometimes it just sucks. Now if Obama would have added tax to inflate gas prices I would have understood your uproar. But oil corporations still get there tax breaks in the billions and still control your gas prices (together with speculators).
    Gas prices are as much of an economic indicator as Wall Street: Nada.

    Nobody covered up Libya.

    You should change your name to "wishful thinking".

    PS This is a very good gas price chart which is adjusted for inflation to give you an indicator what the gas prices today mean in comparison to previous years:
    Quote Quote  

  10. -140
    TrojanFin's Avatar
    Make It Rain!

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2006
    Posts:
    166
    vCash:
    1118
    Loc:
    Los Angeles
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Locke View Post
    No, you couldn't. I've already acknowledged that there is conflicting data. I've already explained how the scientific community views it, and how they react. You chose not to respond to that part of the discussion...
    How would you like me to respond Locke? You say there is all this evidence that I am ignoring, and yet you concede that there is evidence that contradicts your very views on climate change. Of course you dismiss that because there is supposedly all this overwhelming evidence that favors your viewpoint. I can then argue that all that evidence is built on false premise funded by people with an agenda whether it is universities or private funding.

    It would be like paying you to research why the Patriots are the best team in football. Even if you want to believe otherwise (I hope you would), you would still argue that the Patriots are the best because you are being paid to string together evidence that comes to that conclusion. Maybe you see my point, maybe you don't. If you want to draw the conclusion that the evidence of "climate change" is inconclusive, I could possibly agree to that, but currently the issue is at a standstill with no "conclusive" evidence that "climate change" poses a threat us.

    How does this article fit into your "climate change" paradigm?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...=feeds-newsxml
    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
  •