Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sure, then our definitions of bias must differ. Here's your quote, with everything that I considered biased bolded:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1watertiger
explain to me again what she has accomplished in the past 6 yrs.? She makes shadyndeals with [b]countries who sponsor terror[b/]. She takes money from countries that have abismal records on the treatment of women. She lied about Benghazi and Americans died. She told us (the public) and everyone to stick it, and destroyed records. Breaks laws and uses personal server for secretary of state position. Real secure and smart she is! A vote for her is.a vote for no dignity, no honesty, and terrible record.. I personally don't want these crooked royal families (clintons and Busches) to run our country anymore! I will vote for anyone that runs against her.
Quote:
Originally Posted by woxyrome
The low information crowd has made up their minds, they don't want to be confused with facts.
I'll just give the below quoted response to this a +1
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeP
Yes low information FOX/AM radio shock jock infortainment voters indeed.
Sure it's a based statement, but I dont really care. Best of luck to yall.
Still waiting for someone to list Hillary Clinton s. Accomplishments during the past 8 months... @joe,swoh, you and I would be in jail for what she has done. And yes she and the state dept. Lied about Benghazi .(remember we were told the muslims were mad about a film?).. But I am very interested why people would vote for her instead of a kasich or another candidate...
Still waiting for someone to list Hillary Clinton s. Accomplishments during the past 8 months... @joe,swoh, you and I would be in jail for what she has done. And yes she and the state dept. Lied about Benghazi .(remember we were told the muslims were mad about a film?).. But I am very interested why people would vote for her instead of a kasich or another candidate...
I'm not a fan of Clinton. Her personal server for State Dept. e-mails is just another example of her willingness to play outside the rules. It should be a disqualifying event IMO.
The problem is that those of us who have faith in science and therefore believe in human-caused climate change can't vote for any Republican presidential candidate, with the possible exception of Jon Huntsman.
Kasich, by signing a bill to allow fracking in Ohio state parks (none of which are very big and would have their visitor experiences greatly impaired by fracking operations) and forests, has proven his subservience IMO to the oil and gas industry.
Few Ohioans know about the very high radioactivity levels of fracking waste water or know that Kasich and his administration have championed the deep injection of fracking waste water in Ohio from even other states. While PA greatly limits deep injection of fracking waste water, we gladly take PA's fracking waste water under the questionable assumption that it will never pollute the aquifers that provide many Ohioans with their water supplies.
Kasich and the Republicans also have defended the massive pollution of Lake Erie caused by factory livestock operations. These operations, which produce waste equivalent to small cities, aren't required to have processing plants. By hook or crook, massive increases in phosphate pollution end up in our waterways. Why are cities required to process human waste, but massive corporate livestock operations are given a free pass? I wish one of our corporate-controlled newspapers in Ohio would ask this simple question.
It's interesting that Ohio's newspapers and other media haven't made this a major concern. Why not?
Will Republicans want to nominate someone who Democrats can accuse of turning Ohio into a toxic radioactive waste dump without public hearings/scrutiny? Ever hear of "opposition research?"
It was only recently I learned about the high radioactivity level of these injected wastes. I wonder how Kasich would have fared in the governor's race if this had been an issue. No wonder he dodged debating Fitzgerald.
As questionable as Clinton is, does anybody believe that she would have approved as Ohio governor making Ohio the capital of toxic fracking waste water dumping? Is she more likely than any Republican to confront the perils of increasing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere?
I'm not a fan of Clinton. Her personal server for State Dept. e-mails is just another example of her willingness to play outside the rules. It should be a disqualifying event IMO.
The problem is that those of us who have faith in science and therefore believe in human-caused climate change can't vote for any Republican presidential candidate, with the possible exception of Jon Huntsman.
Kasich, by signing a bill to allow fracking in Ohio state parks (none of which are very big and would have their visitor experiences greatly impaired by fracking operations) and forests, has proven his subservience IMO to the oil and gas industry.
Few Ohioans know about the very high radioactivity levels of fracking waste water or know that Kasich and his administration have championed the deep injection of fracking waste water in Ohio from even other states. While PA greatly limits deep injection of fracking waste water, we gladly take PA's fracking waste water under the questionable assumption that it will never pollute the aquifers that provide many Ohioans with their water supplies.
Kasich and the Republicans also have defended the massive pollution of Lake Erie caused by factory livestock operations. These operations, which produce waste equivalent to small cities, aren't required to have processing plants. By hook or crook, massive increases in phosphate pollution end up in our waterways. Why are cities required to process human waste, but massive corporate livestock operations are given a free pass? I wish one of our corporate-controlled newspapers in Ohio would ask this simple question.
40 yrs ago we were taught in school an ice age was coming. 10 yrs ago that was changed to "global warming". Now this year its " climate change". Have you looked into the scientific studies and were their funding comes from??? Its a hoax to get u to buy into green energy that all the rich politians and their cronies have vested interest and stock in... How are the environmental activists going to stop China,Russia and all the 3rd world countries from expanding their growing industries? Or are we going to just keep eliminating good paying jobs here while the rest of the world grows their economies? And did you know 1 active volcano produces more crap in the air in 1 yr. Than all of mankind together? (20 active volcano's on any given day)... The greatest threat to our country(but news mostly ignores) is the national dept. And the insolvency of the fed. We should be electing a caudate that is concerned about our dept owed to China and Russia. If those countries ccall us on our debt our dollar will be worthless. For every dollar the fed prints we currently get 3 cents back. It was 13cents 10yrs ago and down from $2.43 in the 60's.. Climate change, race relations, abortion, illegal aliens, gay rights is all a smoke and mirrors diversion to keep the mostly uninformed public from our real crisis.
40 yrs ago we were taught in school an ice age was coming. 10 yrs ago that was changed to "global warming". Now this year its " climate change". Have you looked into the scientific studies and were their funding comes from??? Its a hoax to get u to buy into green energy that all the rich politians and their cronies have vested interest and stock in... How are the environmental activists going to stop China,Russia and all the 3rd world countries from expanding their growing industries? Or are we going to just keep eliminating good paying jobs here while the rest of the world grows their economies? And did you know 1 active volcano produces more crap in the air in 1 yr. Than all of mankind together? (20 active volcano's on any given day)... The greatest threat to our country(but news mostly ignores) is the national dept. And the insolvency of the fed. We should be electing a caudate that is concerned about our dept owed to China and Russia. If those countries ccall us on our debt our dollar will be worthless. For every dollar the fed prints we currently get 3 cents back. It was 13cents 10yrs ago and down from $2.43 in the 60's.. Climate change, race relations, abortion, illegal aliens, gay rights is all a smoke and mirrors diversion to keep the mostly uninformed public from our real crisis.
So you're a science denier who deals in falsities and downplays the obvious when it comes to climate change? There can be little useful debate with those either who refuse to look at empirical evidence, who have little or no understanding of the scientific method, or who are just dishonest.
Actually, about a week ago, the Plain Dealer's resident science denier wrote a column echoing your views.
As is typical with O'Brien's columns, he was skewered in the comments.
If you read the comments, you'll see that O'Brien, like almost all climate change science deniers, ignored ocean acidification and the inevitable release of frozen methane into the atmosphere. The latter means that all scientific projections of global warming likely are understated as the most highly respected projections specifically don't comprehend methane release.
One of the last comments addresses your concern about scientific studies and their funding. Would you believe research funded by a Koch brother, a financial puppet master of the Republicans, and conducted by one of the nation's leading climate change skeptics?
<<
While Mr. O'Brien states that the <<argument for man-caused climate change couldn't get much weaker," it is informative to read what one of the nation's most respected scientists and a one-time climate change skeptic has to to say about this.
Richard Muller is a professor of physics at Berkeley and a prestigious MacArthur fellow. Several years ago he was one of the most prominent climate change skeptics. So much so, that a Koch brother's foundation helped fund a Muller-led, definitive review of the science of climate change. The Koch brothers are petrochemical billionaires who spend hundreds of millions of dollars supporting Republican politicians.
Here's what Muller wrote in 2012 at the conclusion of the Koch-funded climate change study. Note particularly that Muller now says of global warming that “HUMANS ARE ALMOST ENTIRELY THE CAUSE.”
<< CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.
My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases....
Our Berkeley Earth approach used sophisticated statistical methods developed largely by our lead scientist, Robert Rohde, which allowed us to determine earth land temperature much further back in time. We carefully studied issues raised by skeptics: biases from urban heating (we duplicated our results using rural data alone), from data selection (prior groups selected fewer than 20 percent of the available temperature stations; we used virtually 100 percent), from poor station quality (we separately analyzed good stations and poor ones) and from human intervention and data adjustment (our work is completely automated and hands-off). In our papers we demonstrate that none of these potentially troublesome effects unduly biased our conclusions....
What has caused the gradual but systematic rise of two and a half degrees? We tried fitting the shape to simple math functions (exponentials, polynomials), to solar activity and even to rising functions like world population. By far the best match was to the record of atmospheric carbon dioxide, measured from atmospheric samples and air trapped in polar ice....
What about the future? As carbon dioxide emissions increase, the temperature should continue to rise. I expect the rate of warming to proceed at a steady pace, about one and a half degrees over land in the next 50 years, less if the oceans are included. But if China continues its rapid economic growth (it has averaged 10 percent per year over the last 20 years) and its vast use of coal (it typically adds one new gigawatt per month), then that same warming could take place in less than 20 years.>>
Prominent climate change denier now admits he was wrong (+video) - CSMonitor.com
In his column, Mr. O'Brien writes << whatever's happening to the climate is none of mankind's doing." Again, Mr. Muller emphatically says "of global warming that “HUMANS ARE ALMOST ENTIRELY THE CAUSE."
If Mr. Muller had remained a climate change skeptic, he perhaps could have fed at the Koch money trough for many years.
Instead, Mr. Muller reported the empirical evidence as he saw it.
Mr. O'Brien in this column defined a "climate scientist" as a <<a totalitarian who seeks control over political and economic policy (and grant money) by scaring people who ought to have more sense.>>
Does Mr. O'Brien believe that Mr. Muller was seeking grant money when he reached conclusions contrary to those likely sought by the Koch brothers with their well-documented willingness to handsomely fund like-minded individuals? Perhaps Mr. O'Brien could explain to us specifically how Mr. Muller is a "totalitarian," as he certainly is a climate scientist.
"Totalitarian" is a term usually reserved for Nazis, Fascists and Communists. Totalitarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Among the other disdainful aspects of this column, Mr. O'Brien's belittling of climate scientists by calling them "totalitarians" is perhaps the most disturbing.
Perhaps this type of propaganda-speak is the only way for Mr. O'Brien to maintain an argument that with every passing year can no longer be won by the application of empirical evidence and scientific reasoning.>>
O'Brien's column was inspired by anticipation of an historic statement by Pope Francis on climate change this summer. Climate change denying Republicans may see a tectonic shift in the political foundations of the climate change debate in the U.S. depending upon what Francis says in such a statement.
Please produce the numbers for your statements about volcano greenhouse gas emissions versus human-caused emissions. Keep in mind that volcanoes always have been part of the natural process. Human-caused emissions are marginal increases that tip the scales towards global warming, and making normal volcanic emissions largely irrelevant.
Do you understand that energy costs are lower in the U.S. than in China, Japan, Canada and the European Union? China uses much less energy per capita than the U.S., which actually is a competitive advantage, and is making a much more concerted effort than the U.S. to shift to non-fossil fuel energy sources.
However, your message is that we should forget that humans have brains and we should ignore the best and brightest among us and bequeath a miserable world to our children and grandchildren. Party on and damn the consequences. I agree that IS the message of the Republicans and, especially with his policies on fracking, also of Kasich.
I agree with the thrust of some of your other points about trade, budget deficits, illegal immigration, etc. The problem is that on most of these issues, the Republicans are as bad, if not worse, than the Democrats. E.g., George W. Bush was one of, if not the most, fiscally irresponsible presidents in American history. Where is any Republican bill on illegal immigration, even though the Republicans now control Congress? Do you remember when George W. Bush said he was going to crack down on illegal immigration and then did nothing?
Most importantly, you ignored the salient point that Kasich is turning Ohio into a dumping grounds for radioactive fracking waste without any public hearings and likely inadequate monitoring and regulation.
Lousy attempt to change the subject. Do you support the Kasich fracking policies? Do you believe that we should be injecting huge amounts of radioactive waste wonder under extremely high pressures into deep geological formations and just pray that they'll never poison vital drinking aquifers, a risk no other state government is willing to take? Would you have signed a bill to allow fracking in state parks and forests?
If you would answer "yes" to these questions, then it's obvious the difference between you and most Ohioans who are cognizant on this topic, and why you are such a rah-rah Kasich supporter.
Last edited by WRnative; 05-09-2015 at 06:57 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
