• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What Has Influenced Your Views?

What Has Influenced Your Thinking?

  • Total voters
    58
Seeing an Iraqi woman cry tears of joy as her daughter leaves home for school for the first time...........Seeing an Afghan family celebrate after voting for the first time in any of their lives.................Seeing people in Berkeley, CA burning American flags in the street while foreigners overseas wave them in appreciation............Seeing healthy young men collect government checks while sitting at home while a man in a wheelchair refuses government help and runs a cash register to earn a living at the PX here on Ft Gordon...........Things like that have influenced my views more than a person ever could.
 
Last edited:
Goshin said:
When someone uses an example that is false on the face of it, they shouldn't be called on that? When someone posts utter nonsense as fact, they shouldn't be taken to task for it? When someone engages in uber-partisan trolling, ditto?
Click to expand...

I can't honestly expect you to ignore something you are completely against....and for that matter I suppose I can't expect the debate not to get somewhat personal, and low. It's human nature really...

I was hoping that I could just learn a bit more of influences.
 
repeter said:
Now, now. Unless you examine that 48% closely enough, you can't be sure whether they are positioned for it or against it but are waiting for more information. No way to really know that unless you look at that 48% of 528 papers.
Click to expand...

Actually, I can say that. He stated that the majority were dubious at best. I displayed the findings that a majority of those papers stated either complete rejection of the theory, or were unwilling to call it either way. That would be dubious- having doubt or uncertainty in their findings.

An important thing to remember that it is far easier to prove existence of something, whether it be the influence of people on the climate or the existence of unicorns. In order to infallibly disprove existence of something, a scientist needs to be essentially omniscient- how else could I prove that unicorns do not exist, unless I had knowledge of the entire Universe? Furthermore, in order to say Unicorns have never existed, I would then need omniscience of the entire universe for all of time. Obviously, it is impossible for me to infallibly disprove unicorns' existence.

Modern science must operate using facts to disprove something beyond reasonable doubt. And this means that it only takes one unclear study, one off-beat piece of data, or one reasonable counter argument, regardless of whether these things are valid, to make a good scientist say "Woah there!".

That 48% which did not take a clear stand most likely found some abnormality in their findings- something they were unsure of or something that they felt deserved further investigation before making a conclusion. These skeptical 48% are practicing science in its best form- analyzing data and addressing all possible avenues of though before making a conclusion.

Do I believe man had something to do with climate change? It's possible, I haven't been convinced either way. But regardless of your views, you need to realize that the plurality of scientists in this case say that it is too close to call. In my opinion, that should cast serious questions on both the 45% who say there is clear evidence that man is the cause, and also the 7% who say that man is not the cause. Think about it- these sort of percentages would result in a hung jury if this war a court trial, which operates on similar principles, so why should we call in the decision on climate change? We need to stop dividing into camps for war and accept that being undecided is a perfectly reasonable conclusion(or lack thereof for that matter).
 
repeter said:
Well said. I wanted to know what affected you guys, and everyone starts dishing out the attacks....
Click to expand...

You know, you're all to quick to accuse others of hijacking the thread, and yet you jump at the chance to support somebody who shares views with you. Either stop complaining about side debates or stop participating in them.

1 oz. of prevention is worth 2 lbs. of cure. I'm going to have to live in the world of tomorrow, and I'd rather not take the chance that it ends before I end.....or my children for that matter.
Click to expand...
 
Bootsavich said:
Actually, I can say that. He stated that the majority were dubious at best. I displayed the findings that a majority of those papers stated either complete rejection of the theory, or were unwilling to call it either way. That would be dubious- having doubt or uncertainty in their findings.

An important thing to remember that it is far easier to prove existence of something, whether it be the influence of people on the climate or the existence of unicorns. In order to infallibly disprove existence of something, a scientist needs to be essentially omniscient- how else could I prove that unicorns do not exist, unless I had knowledge of the entire Universe? Furthermore, in order to say Unicorns have never existed, I would then need omniscience of the entire universe for all of time. Obviously, it is impossible for me to infallibly disprove unicorns' existence.

Modern science must operate using facts to disprove something beyond reasonable doubt. And this means that it only takes one unclear study, one off-beat piece of data, or one reasonable counter argument, regardless of whether these things are valid, to make a good scientist say "Woah there!".

That 48% which did not take a clear stand most likely found some abnormality in their findings- something they were unsure of or something that they felt deserved further investigation before making a conclusion. These skeptical 48% are practicing science in its best form- analyzing data and addressing all possible avenues of though before making a conclusion.

Do I believe man had something to do with climate change? It's possible, I haven't been convinced either way. But regardless of your views, you need to realize that the plurality of scientists in this case say that it is too close to call. In my opinion, that should cast serious questions on both the 45% who say there is clear evidence that man is the cause, and also the 7% who say that man is not the cause. Think about it- these sort of percentages would result in a hung jury if this war a court trial, which operates on similar principles, so why should we call in the decision on climate change? We need to stop dividing into camps for war and accept that being undecided is a perfectly reasonable conclusion(or lack thereof for that matter).
Click to expand...

So basically, we should wait and see....and hope Al Gore was wrong, or our children will hate us all....I'd rather act, and then turn out to be wrong then to not act, and get screwed.
 
Joe1991 said:
meterologists are dubious at best about man-made global warming[/I]", I'll accept the "lying troll" label and ban myself for a month.

Otherwise take the insults to the dungeon, mkay?
Click to expand...

How about the weather channel founder?

Weather Channel Founder Disputes Global Warming Claims


"The frenzy about global warming is wildly exaggerated. The constant hype borders on ridiculous. Global warming is about science; the science of meteorology. It is not an environmental issue or a political point of view. It is not something you "believe in". It is either a scientific fact or it isn't. And, after reading dozens of scientific papers on the topic I am absolutely convinced that there is no global warming crisis. "


Dont ban yourself. The circus can always use another clown.


Last year was like in the top ten of cold years since they started keeping track in the late 1800s.
 
Last edited:
repeter said:
So basically, we should wait and see....and hope Al Gore was wrong, or our children will hate us all....I'd rather act, and then turn out to be wrong then to not act, and get screwed.
Click to expand...

And yet, you would condemn Bush's war on Iraq, yes? That was a case where we were dead wrong, but instead of finding out the truth we had to act lest we be killed by WMDs. Great success we had there.

And what happens if we get screwed trying to prevent something we had no control over? You post as if eliminating CO2 emissions is as easy as flipping a switch. Cap and trade is going to drastically increase energy costs, at a time when we really can't afford it. What happens when we stagnate the economy only to learn that Al Gore was pushing an agenda without any facts to back it up, and once again we acted on media hype and trust for our government without demanding any sort of assurance that this was the right move? Wake up and quit being a sheep. You're falling victim to the scare tactics always used by politicians for whatever it is they want to push, be it the stimulus plan, the war on Iraq, Cap and Trade, you name it.

honestly, have you considered what would actually happen ifglobal warming is occurring and if we are the cause and if we continue spewing CO2? I mean really... do you think the world is going to end?
 
Al Gore is your average Establishment rich kid. He compromises his own credibility when he rakes in some $100 million bucks peddling 'carbon credits', an entirely legislative legal fiction being peddled by, well, a career legislator ...

Nobody should be surprised that many would be suspicious of what he's peddling; he certainly knows how bad that makes him look, and he never really needed the money, so it doesn't really look like he is seriously concerned about it, frankly, just cashing in on hysteria. The right wing isn't credible on this issue, either; they have no problem with pollution or businesses poisoning employees, as a rule, so neither side has much of a moral high ground over the other, and 'science' has always been for sale as well.

Corruption will choke any system to death, regardless of ideology.
 
Bootsavich said:
And yet, you would condemn Bush's war on Iraq, yes? That was a case where we were dead wrong, but instead of finding out the truth we had to act lest we be killed by WMDs. Great success we had there.

And what happens if we get screwed trying to prevent something we had no control over? You post as if eliminating CO2 emissions is as easy as flipping a switch. Cap and trade is going to drastically increase energy costs, at a time when we really can't afford it. What happens when we stagnate the economy only to learn that Al Gore was pushing an agenda without any facts to back it up, and once again we acted on media hype and trust for our government without demanding any sort of assurance that this was the right move? Wake up and quit being a sheep. You're falling victim to the scare tactics always used by politicians for whatever it is they want to push, be it the stimulus plan, the war on Iraq, Cap and Trade, you name it.

honestly, have you considered what would actually happen ifglobal warming is occurring and if we are the cause and if we continue spewing CO2? I mean really... do you think the world is going to end?
Click to expand...

Comparing Iraq and Global Warming is like comparing apples to oranges. It's just not done, because there are too many differences, and one logic doesn't neccessarily apply to the other.

In Iraq, we were given information that said they might have WMD's. Hussein wasn't acting at all like he had WMD's and the source itself was highly biased in the favor of attack. For global warming, the equivalent would be to say that the earth is getting hot based on information from the transition between summer and winter, and nothing in between.

Antarctic ice would melt, and once enough of that melted, then the sea levels would raise enough that entire valleys, coastal areas and islands would be under water. Where I live, it will probably be 3 feet underwater. The increase in heat, and the decrease in ozone will allow more UV (a and b) to reach, us and skin cancer will probably become a norm, that is if we don't all die. Ozone is rapidly detioriorating and whether the temperatures stay the same, we have lots more crap reaching and hurting us.
 
repeter said:
So basically, we should wait and see....and hope Al Gore was wrong, or our children will hate us all....I'd rather act, and then turn out to be wrong then to not act, and get screwed.
Click to expand...


Attempting to make the changes to our nation that are advocated by the global warming extremist would destroy our economy and severely curtail our liberty. I'm not willing to bet that against some bogus scarism supported by junk-science.
 
repeter said:
Comparing Iraq and Global Warming is like comparing apples to oranges. It's just not done, because there are too many differences, and one logic doesn't neccessarily apply to the other.
Click to expand...
No it isn't. Both are trying to use scare tactics to deceive people into rushing into a decision when the full facts are not available. preventing CO2 emissions is not like brushing your teeth to prevent cavities- it requires more than a few minutes of painless procedure a day. It's much more akin to amputating an arm to prevent the spread of gangrene. Sure, you're safe from the diseases, but you're short an arm.

In Iraq, we were given information that said they might have WMD's. Hussein wasn't acting at all like he had WMD's and the source itself was highly biased in the favor of attack. For global warming, the equivalent would be to say that the earth is getting hot based on information from the transition between summer and winter, and nothing in between.
Click to expand...

No it isn't. It's like going in without the full facts, when most of the information about the situation comes from groups that are heavily biased towards their own predisposition. The whole thing is a thinly veiled cover to raise taxes on energy. The GW theorists have realized that the media will pick up and run with any disaster story you throw at them- whether it be WMDs, SARS, Anthrax, Swine Flu, Bird Flu, whatever. Whether the threat is real or not, they don't care. Doom sells. The faster you come to realize this the faster you'll be able to escape the herd of sheep you blindly run along with.


Antarctic ice would melt, and once enough of that melted, then the sea levels would raise enough that entire valleys, coastal areas and islands would be under water. Where I live, it will probably be 3 feet underwater. The increase in heat, and the decrease in ozone will allow more UV (a and b) to reach, us and skin cancer will probably become a norm, that is if we don't all die. Ozone is rapidly detioriorating and whether the temperatures stay the same, we have lots more crap reaching and hurting us.
Click to expand...

You obviously don't now much about ozone. For starters, ozone isn't destroyed by CO2. It's destroyed by atomic oxygen, in the reaction O3 + O->2(O2). You have absolutely no evidence to support this ozone depletion theory. More scare tactics.

As for ice cap melting, even the GW theorists say that ocean levels will rise by only 8-16 inches between now and the end of the century. 3 feet of water? I think not. The reality is we can reasonably take the time for do research on the situation before acting. No disastrous event will occur even if the GW theory is correct.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom