Third:
"The vast majority of climate scientists agree that it is happening, that it is largely driven by man made release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The evidence is agrees with this view. It's how they came to this view. These men and woman work for a variaty of governmental, intergovernmental and educational institutions all over the world, with opposing levels of ideological stand point, political and economic view points, often publishing results which are inconvenient for their host nation."
What zn fails to mention is that these nations to which an overwhelming number of these scientists belong stand to benefit greatly from the US tightening its controls on itself. That is why when Al Gore spoke (in Indonesia or the Philippines, I believe) and stated to the crowd (that had been giving him support) how all countries need to cut back and just not the US the audience was so quiet one could hear a pin drop.
Point being, that for every or nearly every group one can say has monetary interests to make them deny manmade climate change, there are ten groups (on a national scale, arbitrary number 10...) with monetary interests in supporting it completely separate from whether or not it exists. All the developing nations plus India and China are huge players in that way. They demand to not be held to the same restrictions as the US. Money interests in a major way.
But zn can only see money as being a factor for those opposing zn's viewpoint. It gives zn a reason to dismiss others without analyzing their position. That is zn's mudus operendi (sp?). Namecalling to dismiss.
Paranoid fantasy of the worst kind.
At the very least, it is in accurate as the united kingdom and the USA are two of the largest contributors to research on climate change.
That said...
It is possible that other nations might be putting pressure on their academic institutions for some sort of master plan involving making developed world stop producing so much carbon....
Not paranoid fantasy of the worst kind.
It is as supported as yout idea.
Placing restrictions on the US will benefit the. It isn't rocket science.
...Third:
"The vast majority of climate scientists agree that it is happening, that it is largely driven by man made release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The evidence is agrees with this view. It's how they came to this view. These men and woman work for a variaty of governmental, intergovernmental and educational institutions all over the world, with opposing levels of ideological stand point, political and economic view points, often publishing results which are inconvenient for their host nation."
What zn fails to mention is that these nations to which an overwhelming number of these scientists belong stand to benefit greatly from the US tightening its controls on itself. That is why when Al Gore spoke (in Indonesia or the Philippines, I believe) and stated to the crowd (that had been giving him support) how all countries need to cut back and just not the US the audience was so quiet one could hear a pin drop.
Point being, that for every or nearly every group one can say has monetary interests to make them deny manmade climate change, there are ten groups (on a national scale, arbitrary number 10...) with monetary interests in supporting it completely separate from whether or not it exists. All the developing nations plus India and China are huge players in that way. They demand to not be held to the same restrictions as the US. Money interests in a major way.
But zn can only see money as being a factor for those opposing zn's viewpoint. It gives zn a reason to dismiss others without analyzing their position. That is zn's mudus operendi (sp?). Namecalling to dismiss.
Paranoid fantasy of the worst kind.
At the very least, it is in accurate as the united kingdom and the USA are two of the largest contributors to research on climate change.
That said...
It is possible that other nations might be putting pressure on their academic institutions for some sort of master plan involving making developed world
Who is them?
China? A country that is building coal fired power plants to fuel it's growth, for whom america is their largest trading partner? Get a grip. Movement towards a global low carbon economy would cripple china.
No one is arguing that only america has to change. We all have to move to low carbon, or we are in big trouble, even china admit this and have changed their building regulations substantially to lessen the impact of the carbonisation of their economy.
Ofcause that ignores the fact that the US and UK are the two countries producing most climate science papers.
First, this:
"The vast majority of the tiny subset of climate scientists who hold views opposed to the consensus work for a small number of right wing american think tanks, who are demonstrably on the payroll of major oil companies(especially exxon)."
Made up horse hockey. The bias in the above quote is so obvious as to be laughable. Facts and figures need to be presented? Studies have been done that determine how many support which idea (specifically climate change is mostly manmade) and that valid scientific studies have also determined that a majority of those who fit a particular category are part of right wing think tank supported groups.Yes, studies have been done which show general levels of support, for the various sides of the argument in climate science circles. Such as Naomi Oreskes' a leading historian of science, and Professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California San Diego, who has made the study of the 'climate science debate' her speciality in the last decade. Meta data analysis of climate science abstracts carried out by Prof. Oreskes, finds little to no support for climate change denial in the literature.
Oreskes also finds that all major american scientific bodies support anthropogenic climate change.
While Anderegg,Prall Harold, and Schneider found in 2010 that of the top 200 climate scientists in the world(by expertise) about 2.5% disagreed with Anthropogenic climate change.There are of cause some scientists who oppose the concept of Anthropogenic global climate change. Many of the most published, are not even climate scientists. The reason for this is of cause that their are very few climate scientists who actually disagree with the hypothesis.
It would be a nightmane to demonstrate a majority connection, not impossibly, but also not something I have any interested in doing with my free time without pay. However, I can with...
You claimed the majority are from right wing think tanks.
Give anecdotal evidence that some aren't.
Looks like you made that up to me.
...Third:
"The vast majority of climate scientists agree that it is happening, that it is largely driven by man made release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The evidence is agrees with this view. It's how they came to this view. These men and woman work for a variaty of governmental, intergovernmental and educational institutions all over the world, with opposing levels of ideological stand point, political and economic view points, often publishing results which are inconvenient for their host nation."
What zn fails to mention is that these nations to which an overwhelming number of these scientists belong stand to benefit greatly from the US tightening its controls on itself. That is why when Al Gore spoke (in Indonesia or the Philippines, I believe) and stated to the crowd (that had been giving him support) how all countries need to cut back and just not the US the audience was so quiet one could hear a pin drop.
Point being, that for every or nearly every group one can say has monetary interests to make them deny manmade climate change, there are ten groups (on a national scale, arbitrary number 10...) with monetary interests in supporting it completely separate from whether or not it exists. All the developing nations plus India and China are huge players in that way. They demand to not be held to the same restrictions as the US. Money interests in a major way.
But zn can only see money as being a factor for those opposing zn's viewpoint. It gives zn a reason to dismiss others without analyzing their position. That is zn's mudus operendi (sp?). Namecalling to dismiss.
Paranoid fantasy of the worst kind.
At the very least, it is in accurate as the united kingdom and the USA are two of the largest contributors to research on climate change.
That said...
It is possible that other nations might be putting pressure on their academic institutions for some sort of master
Start actually paying attention to what is being stated.
China wishes greater restrictions on the US than itself.
China will benefit greatly from that.
There is as much reason to challenge their and India's choice to pursue tightening on the US than them and other deverloping countries as there is to challenge those supported by others who would benefit.
Arguing it is in their best interest and therefore reasonable does not relieve them from receiving the same scrutiny as someone else who benefits.
Either dismiss those giving reasons who benefit or do not. You are picking and choosing to meet your needs.
That is bull s~@*.
You know it and I know it so quit lying and saying otherwise.
This predated the hockey stick email fiasco. That was more nonsense which was just a verification of what occurred in the report I am referencing.The only thing the emails demonstrated was a willingness to substitute scandal for science. The non out of context release made it very clear that the scientists weren't doing anything remotely wrong.
The much touted "trick" in the reports was a method for making the climate data MORE accurate, something scientists are SUPPOSED to do.
Complaining that they were dismissive of opponents is irrelevant. In science your argument stands on your data. Being blatantly wrong gets you justly ridiculed in science. Its nothing new.
Thing that always amused me most about the non event that was climate gate is this. When a group of scriptkiddiez like Lulzsec crack the pentagon and it's all "Augh , this is a traversty!!!"
But apparently when CRU gets cracked, its a victory for truth.
What zn fails to mention is that these nations to which an overwhelming number of these scientists belong stand to benefit greatly from the US tightening its controls on itself. That is why when Al Gore spoke (in Indonesia or the Philippines, I believe) and stated to the crowd (that had been giving him support) how all countries need to cut back and just not the US the audience was so quiet one could hear a pin drop.You lost me here. This plan looks like gnome underwear economics.
Tighten CO2 Emissions----->?????--------? Profit
Or that most of the research is done by exactly the countries who stand to loose most in his world view.
“we have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data
available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”.That pretty much flies in the face of what scientific work is supposed to be. It
...
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:
“we have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data
available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”.
That pretty much flies in the face of what scientific work is supposed to be. It is on page four.I would imagine they're worried about the heartland institute doing to the raw data what defense attorneys try to do to DNA evidence.
zombieneighbors wrote:
It isn't as though their is no president for the Big Three (Cato, Heartland and G.C.M.) doing exactly that...[Cough]CRU[/cough]Thing wrote:
Again, stop playing stupid.The point of science is for the methods to be open for review. Deliberately withholding the methods from those who wish to scrutinize them is NOT SCIENCE!
In the name of showing how "real" science supports cliate change being manmade you are quite willing to accept methodology that cracks what is supposed to be the scientific method.
YOUR methodology is laughable.
That is widespread within the community from what I has been demonstrated.
Edit: The quote tags are not working quite right with this post. Had to make some adjustments...
|
Climate Change links as refuting the same boring PRATTs on Climate Change is about as fun as refuting them on Evolution.
18 questions and answers from New Scientist
New Scientist Introduction to Climate change
Both are from 2006 and so will not have been updated with the latest research but should cover most of the alleged problems.
You claimed the majority are from right wing think tanks.
Give anecdotal evidence that some aren't.
Looks like you made that up to me.
Work for in this case is colloquial. It includes, directly employed by, membership of, free lancing for, or working on projects for which funded by the organisation.
I then provided twenty eight individuals, from the first list I found going, of notable climate sketpics. Of the twenty eight, six where not directly employed or members of a right wing think tank. Of those, all but one(of the top of my head), I found had serious conflicts of interest.
I am more than prepared to work my way slowly through the rest of said list. Maybe even a few more from other lists, if I don't get bored first.
It isn't anacdotal, though the sample size is small.
You can think it is made up, that is your porogative, but just because you want to believe it so, doesn't make it so. If your really interested in the subject, a good place to start is Naomi Oreskes' book "merchants of Doubt."
Climate Change links as refuting the same boring PRATTs on Climate Change is about as fun as refuting them on Evolution.
18 questions and answers from New Scientist
New Scientist Introduction to Climate change
Both are from 2006 and so will not have been updated with the latest research but should cover most of the alleged problems.
The argument being made is regarding manmade versus nonmanmade.
I don't see the first link actually addressing that and the 2nd is appears based off the IPCC which from the critique I linked earlier is shown to use bunk methodology.
So, I'm trying to see what this "refutes"
Asking for clarification.
You claimed the majority are from right wing think tanks.
Give anecdotal evidence that some aren't.
Looks like you made that up to me.
Work for in this case is colloquial. It includes, directly employed by, membership of, free lancing for, or working on projects for which funded by the organisation.
I then provided twenty eight individuals, from the first list I found going, of notable climate sketpics. Of the twenty eight, six where not directly employed or members of a right wing think tank. Of those, all but one(of the top of my head), I found had serious conflicts of interest.
I am more than prepared to work my way slowly through the rest of said list. Maybe even a few more from other lists, if I don't get bored first.
It isn't anacdotal, though the sample size is small.
You can think it is made up, that is your porogative, but just because you want to believe it so, doesn't make it so. If your really interested in the subject, a good place to start is Naomi Oreskes' book "merchants of Doubt."
If you don't have the entire sample or something that is DEMONSTRABLY a significant sample of those who hold a pov, reaching conclusions about the whole sample is making stuff up.
Do you just not understand anecdotal and what it means?
You are continuing to argue it means something it doesn't.
Climate Change links as refuting the same boring PRATTs on Climate Change is about as fun as refuting them on Evolution.
18 questions and answers from New Scientist
New Scientist Introduction to Climate change
Both are from 2006 and so will not have been updated with the latest research but should cover most of the alleged problems.
Do yo think? I mean, creationists are usually kind of funny. Their so out their that there is inherant fun, even if the repetition of the same list or reufations gets trotted out time and time again.
I find Climate change deniers just plain dull by comparison. And you have to still trott out the same refutations a hundred time.
Climate Change links as refuting the same boring PRATTs on Climate Change is about as fun as refuting them on Evolution.
18 questions and answers from New Scientist
New Scientist Introduction to Climate change
Both are from 2006 and so will not have been updated with the latest research but should cover most of the alleged problems.
Do yo think? I mean, creationists are usually kind of funny. Their so out their that there is inherant fun, even if the repetition of the same list or reufations gets trotted out time and time again.
I find Climate change deniers just plain dull by comparison. And you have to still trott out the same refutations a hundred time.
You really need to stop being a jack a s s and making comments about those who disagree with you.
If someone at Paizo wishes to delete my post then so should zn's post.
Making fun of those who disagree with a point while disagreeing with posters on a point but not explicitly pointing out the ones being disagreed with is just as much being an a s s. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.
Awww, that was a good discussion. Too bad people had to ruin it by ridiculing people's beliefs and name calling. What happened? I thought we were having a grown up discussion.
What happened to the tax discussion? Taxation today is one form of tyranny of the majority and that is one thing the founding father's feared.
|
Well I'm glad that this thread on climate change continues to stay on topic, I hate when someone starts a discussion on climate change on these boards and it gets swallowed up by off topic nonsense, yes I am so glad the OP started this thread with the sole express purpose of discussing climate change. Yes indeed, climate change.
You claimed the majority are from right wing think tanks.
Give anecdotal evidence that some aren't.
Looks like you made that up to me.
Work for in this case is colloquial. It includes, directly employed by, membership of, free lancing for, or working on projects for which funded by the organisation.
I then provided twenty eight individuals, from the first list I found going, of notable climate sketpics. Of the twenty eight, six where not directly employed or members of a right wing think tank. Of those, all but one(of the top of my head), I found had serious conflicts of interest.
I am more than prepared to work my way slowly through the rest of said list. Maybe even a few more from other lists, if I don't get bored first.
It isn't anacdotal, though the sample size is small.
You can think it is made up, that is your porogative, but just because you want to believe it so, doesn't make it so. If your really interested in the subject, a good place to start is Naomi Oreskes' book "merchants of Doubt."
If you don't have the entire sample or something that is DEMONSTRABLY a significant sample of those who hold a pov, reaching conclusions about the whole sample is making stuff up.
Do you just not understand anecdotal and what it means?
You are continuing to argue it means something it doesn't.
The sample is simple to large to be practical. I have come to the conclusion based on researching the subject. I can point you in the right direction for the books and papers you'll need to read to understand it. I can post video's that provide a summery of said books, I can point out the money trail from energy resource companmies to research, I can show you relatively representative snapshots of the data. I can explain the governing principles to you. I can provide specific examples of historic and current disinformation publication be these think tanks.
What I can't do is right you the 7,000+ words min essay, with meta analysis, that it would require demonstrate what your asking for to you without the need for you to do the work your self. At least, not without pay. Because their arn't enough hours in the day for me to waste them on it for you.
Buts them's the breaks.
If your really, desperately must have me demonstrate your wrong on this, thats fine. Pay me £200 + expenses, and I'll work on providing you the information by the end of the month. If your not willing to do that, do the work your self.
Awww, that was a good discussion. Too bad people had to ruin it by ridiculing people's beliefs and name calling. What happened? I thought we were having a grown up discussion.
What happened to the tax discussion? Taxation today is one form of tyranny of the majority and that is one thing the founding father's feared.
I take part of the blame for it disintegrating, now.
We were having a discussion til zn did this,...again
Basically, I get tired of putting up with s*#! like that repeatedly from the same people. So, I decided to do something different.Climate Change links as refuting the same boring PRATTs on Climate Change is about as fun as refuting them on Evolution.
18 questions and answers from New Scientist
New Scientist Introduction to Climate change
Both are from 2006 and so will not have been updated with the latest research but should cover most of the alleged problems.
Do yo think? I mean, creationists are usually kind of funny. Their so out their that there is inherant fun, even if the repetition of the same list or reufations gets trotted out time and time again.
I find Climate change deniers just plain dull by comparison. And you have to still trott out the same refutations a hundred time.
I am a catholic who believes in creationism, that is why math is so prevalent in the universe and also have a BA in environmental science, but I have learned that it is far more interesting to hear people's beliefs and why they do, than to argue who is right and wrong. In my line of employment I am a minority who gets laughed at because I have a different belief. But I persevere and so should you.
The sample is simple to large to be practical. I have come to the conclusion based on researching the subject. I can point you in the right direction for the books and papers you'll need to read to understand it. I can post video's that provide a summery of said books, I can point out the money trail from energy resource companmies to research, I can show you relatively representative snapshots of the data. I can explain the governing principles to you. I can provide specific examples of historic and current disinformation publication be these think tanks....You claimed the majority are from right wing think tanks.
Give anecdotal evidence that some aren't.
Looks like you made that up to me.
Work for in this case is colloquial. It includes, directly employed by, membership of, free lancing for, or working on projects for which funded by the organisation.
I then provided twenty eight individuals, from the first list I found going, of notable climate sketpics. Of the twenty eight, six where not directly employed or members of a right wing think tank. Of those, all but one(of the top of my head), I found had serious conflicts of interest.
I am more than prepared to work my way slowly through the rest of said list. Maybe even a few more from other lists, if I don't get bored first.
It isn't anacdotal, though the sample size is small.
You can think it is made up, that is your porogative, but just because you want to believe it so, doesn't make it so. If your really interested in the subject, a good place to start is Naomi Oreskes' book "merchants of Doubt."
If you don't have the entire sample or something that is DEMONSTRABLY a significant sample of those who hold a pov, reaching conclusions about the whole sample is making stuff up.
Do you just not understand anecdotal and what it means?
You are continuing to argue it means something it doesn't.
Again, you miss the point.
It has nothing to do with my abilty "understand it".
You made a claim that the majority fits a criteria (right wing think tank).
You give anecdotal evidence otherwise.
You tell me that books say otherwise. But, I see no evidence of a comprehensive study that such and such people who hold such and such positions are characterized by being a mjority from right wing think tanks.
You have read a bunch of people saying it and seen lists that some do and therefore concluded it is true. But, there is no study that says it you have cited. That is the point. You are making it up.
Awww, that was a good discussion. Too bad people had to ruin it by ridiculing people's beliefs and name calling. What happened? I thought we were having a grown up discussion.
What happened to the tax discussion? Taxation today is one form of tyranny of the majority and that is one thing the founding father's feared.
I take part of the blame for it disintegrating, now.
We were having a discussion til zn did this,...again
Basically, I get tired of putting up with s*#! like that repeatedly from the same people. So, I decided to do something different.Climate Change links as refuting the same boring PRATTs on Climate Change is about as fun as refuting them on Evolution.
18 questions and answers from New Scientist
New Scientist Introduction to Climate change
Both are from 2006 and so will not have been updated with the latest research but should cover most of the alleged problems.
Do yo think? I mean, creationists are usually kind of funny. Their so out their that there is inherant fun, even if the repetition of the same list or reufations gets trotted out time and time again.
I find Climate change deniers just plain dull by comparison. And you have to still trott out the same refutations a hundred time.
I am a catholic who believes in creationism, that is why math is so prevalent in the universe and also have a BA in environmental science, but I have learned that it is far more interesting to hear people's beliefs and why they do, than to argue who is right and wrong. In my line of employment I am a minority who gets laughed at because I have a different belief. But I persevere and so should you.
I expect to be treated with some respect.
If not, I will respond likewise.
Awww, that was a good discussion. Too bad people had to ruin it by ridiculing people's beliefs and name calling. What happened? I thought we were having a grown up discussion.
What happened to the tax discussion? Taxation today is one form of tyranny of the majority and that is one thing the founding father's feared.
I take part of the blame for it disintegrating, now.
We were having a discussion til zn did this,...again
Basically, I get tired of putting up with s*#! like that repeatedly from the same people. So, I decided to do something different.Climate Change links as refuting the same boring PRATTs on Climate Change is about as fun as refuting them on Evolution.
18 questions and answers from New Scientist
New Scientist Introduction to Climate change
Both are from 2006 and so will not have been updated with the latest research but should cover most of the alleged problems.
Do yo think? I mean, creationists are usually kind of funny. Their so out their that there is inherant fun, even if the repetition of the same list or reufations gets trotted out time and time again.
I find Climate change deniers just plain dull by comparison. And you have to still trott out the same refutations a hundred time.
I am a catholic who believes in creationism, that is why math is so prevalent in the universe and also have a BA in environmental science, but I have learned that it is far more interesting to hear people's beliefs and why they do, than to argue who is right and wrong. In my line of employment I am a minority who gets laughed at because I have a different belief. But I persevere and so should you.
Dude, if you can square that circle, and it doesn't affect your work. Good for you. I disagree with your conclusion that their is both a good, and that he created the universe. I just don't see any evidence to support that hypothosis.
But your not reflective of the group who refer to themselves as creationist. You do not near as I can tell, believe the world is 6,000 years old, made in seven days and that noah had awesome dinosaurs on a huge boat.
You have not expressed views with are counter to all the evidence of biological science, geology, physics and chemistry. You don't seem to believe that the flood was caused by the breaking of the firmimant and its fall to earth, or the land mass suddenly falling hundreds of meters and shooting jets of water into space, causing the craters on the moon.
To anyone with an education in the sciences such beliefs are tragically funny, because they are indicative of complete detachment from reality.
They are entitled to hold the view, but those beliefs have no inherant right to be protected from ridicule, than some one saying commoner is the best choice of class in hyper-optimised a game of pathfinder.
I expect to be treated with some...Awww, that was a good discussion. Too bad people had to ruin it by ridiculing people's beliefs and name calling. What happened? I thought we were having a grown up discussion.
What happened to the tax discussion? Taxation today is one form of tyranny of the majority and that is one thing the founding father's feared.
I take part of the blame for it disintegrating, now.
We were having a discussion til zn did this,...again
Basically, I get tired of putting up with s*#! like that repeatedly from the same people. So, I decided to do something different.Climate Change links as refuting the same boring PRATTs on Climate Change is about as fun as refuting them on Evolution.
18 questions and answers from New Scientist
New Scientist Introduction to Climate change
Both are from 2006 and so will not have been updated with the latest research but should cover most of the alleged problems.
Do yo think? I mean, creationists are usually kind of funny. Their so out their that there is inherant fun, even if the repetition of the same list or reufations gets trotted out time and time again
I find Climate change deniers just plain dull by comparison. And you have to still trott out the same refutations a hundred time.
I am a catholic who believes in creationism, that is why math is so prevalent in the universe and also have a BA in environmental science, but I have learned that it is far more interesting to hear people's beliefs and why they do, than to argue who is right and wrong. In my line of employment I am a minority who gets laughed at because I have a different belief. But I persevere and so should you.
I guess I am a more turn the other cheek guy than you are, but to each his own. Just don't get crazy about it
I'm loving the warm and fuzzy tolerance of difference the left is known for.
Dude, if you can square that circle,...Awww, that was a good discussion. Too bad people had to ruin it by ridiculing people's beliefs and name calling. What happened? I thought we were having a grown up discussion.
What happened to the tax discussion? Taxation today is one form of tyranny of the majority and that is one thing the founding father's feared.
I take part of the blame for it disintegrating, now.
We were having a discussion til zn did this,...again
Basically, I get tired of putting up with s*#! like that repeatedly from the same people. So, I decided to do something different.Climate Change links as refuting the same boring PRATTs on Climate Change is about as fun as refuting them on Evolution.
18 questions and answers from New Scientist
New Scientist Introduction to Climate change
Both are from 2006 and so will not have been updated with the latest research but should cover most of the alleged problems.
Do yo think? I mean, creationists are usually kind of funny. Their so out their that there is inherant fun, even if the repetition of the same list or reufations gets trotted out time and time again.
I find Climate change deniers just plain dull by comparison. And you have to still trott out the same refutations a hundred time.
I am a catholic who believes in creationism, that is why math is so prevalent in the universe and also have a BA in environmental science, but I have learned that it is far more interesting to hear people's beliefs and why they do, than to argue who is right and wrong. In my line of employment I am a minority who gets laughed at because I have a different belief. But I persevere and so should you.
I explained my belief to a co worker once like this. I see evidence of a greater being at everything I look at. When I see the night sky full of stars, the power of the sun and single celled organism through a microscope, I see God. The math just makes too much sense for it not to be designed in my eyes. Others look at the same thing and don't see it, but that's ok with me too. The greatest tragedy is when people tell each other they are wrong and deal in absolutes. The open minded can be just as close minded at times.
I have no problem with that attitude. I only start to have problems when people want to have non-scientific beliefs taught in science classes.
I think that is my responsbility as a parent for me to teach my own children.
I explained my belief to a co worker once like this. I see evidence of a greater being at everything I look at. When I see the night sky full of stars, the power of the sun and single celled organism through a microscope, I see God. The math just makes too much sense for it not to be designed in my eyes. Others look at the same thing and don't see it, but that's ok with me too. The greatest tragedy is when people tell each other they are wrong and deal in absolutes. The open minded can be just as close minded at times.
That's cool. I still think your wrong. I could explain why in detail, but there is no need. Your kind of belief isn't trying to prevent children from getting proper education, it is making you happy and the major problem I have with your church, if your anything like the Catholics I know IRL your even more angry about than I am. I see no reason why we couldn't get on perfectly well. And I suspect you'd find some of the beliefs of creationism just as amusing as I do, such as 'you cannot create new genetic information'. Your background is in environmental science, so I am guessing you know about enough about genetics to find such a claim amusing.
If there is one thing I don't agree with you on though. I don't think it is a tragedy when someone tells another they are wrong. Because we live in a world where there are right and wrong answer. While we can never be 100% certain that a position is right(we cannot know something with absolute certainty.) We can be sure enough to make rational decisions. I mean, you and I don't try leaving our houses by the window on the second floor, in the belief gravity is not real, do we? And we would discourage anyone who tried to do so. The strange and often funny beliefs of many creationists are as wrong as the belief one can fly, and when spread potentially even more dangerous.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
With so many posts to link to, so I’m just going to do a general response.
1. Of course China wants us to follow regulations they don’t follow. We also want China to follow regulations we aren’t willing to follow. It is called competition. A perfect example is the whole Solyndra controversy.
Do you know why Solyndra went out of business? Because China could make and sell solar panels cheaper. Why? China subsidizes their solar businesses much, much more than we do, allowing them able to undersell everyone else. So they now are the leaders in produce a renewable resource technology that will be growing in value as fossil fuels dry up/become more expensive while we subsidize the oil and gas industry that will be in decline over time given the fact that they sell an non-renewable resource. It is not coincidence that the highly subsidized Oil and Gas industry are having record profits.
You’ll notice the “Small Government” side isn’t calling for cuts for subsidies for Oil and Gas.
2. The fact that the Earth is getting warmer isn’t a debate. We have these new fangled inventions called “Thermometers” that say it is happening. The only thing even marginally debatable is the cause, and when over 95% of people studying a problem say it is caused by humans…well.
Taking it another way, there is a huge incentive financial incentive from oil and gas industries and right wing groups to take the other side. The above listed “Scientists” make a lot more money in speaking fees and think tank payments than they would doing research. Yet despite that, they are still a tiny minority.
That to me should speak volumes to anyone who believes in the power of the free market.
3. On the topic at hand, the entire point of what she is saying is to point out that wealth doesn’t happen in a vacuum. If you are born poor in a corrupt nation without a middle class, you are pretty much SOL. Lets ask the question, assuming you are a super awesome business genius “What would a business need to be successful.”
A. Capital to start the business. If you aren’t inheriting this, you are taking out a loan, generally a government subsidized small business loan.
B. Security to assure that if you start making money, it isn’t just taken by thieves and bandits. Additionally security to assure that the retailers you are selling to aren’t just robbed so they can’t get money for your products. Generally this is a Government paid for police or military.
C. Intellectual Property and Physical Property protection. Something we take for granted here, but in China if your business gets to successful the Government can either take it over as a state business if you are Chinese and won’t play ball, or steal your technology for an internal state company if you are foreign. (I point this out to show that I’m not saying “all” government is good, checks and balances need to apply both to private and public sector, which is where I differ from Comrade Anklebiter) In countries without security, warlords will just come in and take over your factory, because what are you going to do about it with Government Protection. And of course without Government patent protection, good luck not getting crushed.
D. Educated employees. Believe it or not, human beings are not born literate. Not to mention able to follow schedules and complete assignments. Without mandatory government funded public schooling, good luck a) Finding employees who can do what you need to do and b) Finding customers who can be employed enough to purchase your product.
E. A Transportation infrastructure that will allow you to get supplies and equipment to you and then to get goods to market.
F. A communications infrastructure that will allow you to receive and send orders, which would include at minimum postage and telephone, and would likely extend to internet and could even go as far as television and radio for advertising.
G. An stable electrical grid that will allow you to power your equipment (including the above communication tools)
H. Confidence that the laws and regulations will be enforced consistently rather than having to bribe different “officials” and wonder if the guy in power today saying these are the rules and demanding that kickback with we in power next week…and if your factory will be looted during the riots…
All of the above do not happen without a stable, well funded government. Do. Not. Happen.
This country was not created in a vacuum. In the glorious 1950’s the marginal tax rates on high incomes was 91%.
91%
What she is saying, and what she is correct about, is that we have to fund the system that made you rich to assure the next generation has the same benefits as you do. Instead, we are running up debt, neglecting our infrastructure, and unsurprisingly slipping.
Everyone should be able to make money. But someone has to pay the bills. I don’t like paying my mortgage, but I do like living in my house. If you are making over 250,000 dollars a year, you are doing really, really well.
And so, you can afford to give more than someone making less than 250,000 a year. At least on the income you are receiving over 250,000.
Do I think we should lower some taxes and clean up a lot of regulations? Absolutely. We have a scam business tax rate that screws small businesses who don’t have lobbyists to get them loopholes so they aren’t paying that tax rate.
We need to lower the general business tax rate, paying for this by stopping using tax breaks as backdoor subsidies. If you want to subsidize a business or industry, do it. But call it what it is, a subsidy.
On the other hand, don’t try and tell me raising income taxes on people making over 250,000 is going to kill re-investment in business when I know that re-investment is the money you don’t receive in income specifically because it is being reinvested in the business and not paid to you as income.
Things we want from our government cost money. When 23.5 of all money is going to 1% of the population, that means that more than 1 dollar out of every 5 dollar bills goes to one out of 100 people.
So if you are going to get money to fund the things we want to pay for, those people are the ones who have it. And they have it thanks to the things I listed above, which are provided by the government.
I get people being made about lazy people getting handouts, believe me I firmly believe in welfare reform. I work in a field that sees this every day and if you get a couple of beers in me I’ll tell you about my “Social Services Black Ops” idea along with my “Depoprava in School Lunches” plan.
But at the end of the day we need roads, we need schools, we need old people to not be burdens on their family, we need health care, we need police, fire fighters, infrastructure, etc…
And these things cost money.
And the people that can afford to pay for these things are also the people who have benefited the most financially from these things existing.
And so it is not at all unreasonable to ask them to pay more. From whom much is given, much is expected.
With so many posts to link to, so I’m just going to do a general response.
1. Of course China wants us to follow regulations they don’t follow. We also want China to follow regulations we aren’t willing to follow. It is called competition. A perfect example is the whole Solyndra controversy.
Do you know why Solyndra went out of business? Because China could make and sell solar panels cheaper. Why? China subsidizes their solar businesses much, much more than we do, allowing them able to undersell everyone else. So they now are the leaders in produce a renewable resource technology that will be growing in value as fossil fuels dry up/become more expensive while we subsidize the oil and gas industry that will be in decline over time given the fact that they sell an non-renewable resource. It is not coincidence that the highly subsidized Oil and Gas industry are having record profits.
You’ll notice the “Small Government” side isn’t calling for cuts for subsidies for Oil and Gas.
2. The fact that the Earth is getting warmer isn’t a debate. We have these new fangled inventions called “Thermometers” that say it is happening. The only thing even marginally debatable is the cause, and when over 95% of people studying a problem say it is caused by humans…well.
Taking it another way, there is a huge incentive financial incentive from oil and gas industries and right wing groups to take the other side. The above listed “Scientists” make a lot more money in speaking fees and think tank payments than they would doing research. Yet despite that, they are still a tiny minority.
That to me should speak volumes to anyone who believes in the power of the free market.
3. On the topic at hand, the entire point of what she is saying is to point out that wealth doesn’t happen in a vacuum. If you are born poor in a corrupt nation without a middle class, you are pretty much SOL. Lets ask the question, assuming you are a super awesome business genius “What would a business need to be successful.”
A. Capital to...
Also, about certain people paying more...they do.
When they ship their goods all over the place, they pay for shipping (and that company uses the money to pay for gas/diesel) and when they do it themselves they pay for the gas/diesel themselves. Many states, don't know the exact number (maybe all) use their gas taxes to fund road work. All that shipping requires buying that diesel/gas and paying that tax.
People complain that GE doesn't pay tax on money made overseas. But, when overseas, they are not using our roads. They hire people from those nations and pay the taxes in those nations. GE uses those nations' resources and pays those nations' taxes. The reasoning used to justify charging these companies more doesn't apply to money made overseas.
I still see no argument that we NEED to do this extra roadwork now (road work is still being done without it...) and that the businesses NEED to shoulder the burden as opposed to everyone, including the businesses paying more.
|
|
I explained my belief to a co worker once like this. I see evidence of a greater being at everything I look at. When I see the night sky full of stars, the power of the sun and single celled organism through a microscope, I see God. The math just makes too much sense for it not to be designed in my eyes. Others look at the same thing and don't see it, but that's ok with me too. The greatest tragedy is when people tell each other they are wrong and deal in absolutes. The open minded can be just as close minded at times.
Well said, Hiro.