Bias in the Media, LOL

[PLAYER57832]

And he's completely right. A species becoming extinct can be very bad because there might be a worrying cause for it which could destroy the balance in an ecosystem.

True, but whatever is killing anything is likely to kill us as well. THAT is the other reason to worry.

[thegreekdog]

Several have weighed in, so I won't quote them all, I will just add this point.

In about 1989, the American Fisheries society published an article title "how to destroy a resource". It outlined how U.S. policy has divided control and legislation over our water resources to the point it is a wonder we have anything left.

Marine resources are probably the worst. Coasts are controlled by a variety of municipalities and agencies. Teh overal science study is given to National Marine Fisheries Service (under NOAA/Department of Commerce -- which should give you an idea of their directives). Endangered species are left up to the Fish and Wildlife service. Regulation of the fisheries is generally left up to a series of combined committees. States, Native American Tribes, Commercial Fishermen's groups, Business, etc. etc. .. ALL have independent stakes and all fight each other. Enforcement is left up to the Coast Gaurd, which, of course puts tackling errant fishermen up at the very top of its list!

Land is not much better. Every state is different, but typically you have one agency in charge of the species (sometimes fish or fish/crustaceans get one agency and other animals, amphibians, etc get another), another in charge of the water itself (often multiple agencies depending on whether it is a dam, natural stream, modified stream or canal. The Forest service controls land (and some water) on its lands. (BLM, National Park Service, Corps of Engineers etc. all do same on their lands). States generally control private lands, unless its an Indian reservation and then its tribal or federal jurisdiction. Endangered species are again Fish and Wildlife. Enforcement isn spread out among multiple agencies. And that is NOT a full listing of the compexity.

That was 20 years ago. Some things have actually improved since then. Some international commissions have functioned reasonably well to allocate fisheries. Other stocks are in far worse shape and perhaps may never recover.

Two big points, though. When it comes to fisheries, you have to think "Tragedy of the Commons". (famous paper.. look it up). The name comes from the old English "commons". Essentially the idea is that when no one owns it, then no one really takes care the way they do if its their own property. Some of the better attempts have tried to give fisherment, for example a better stake. Bristol Bay fishing rights, for example were sold. It worked well for a while. (have not kept up on it ... don't know if it still succeeds or not, but they also had some unrelated fishery collapses compounding and there was debate over whether the ownership rights came too late). In the east, limits seem to be more the fashion. They have not worked so well. (these things change yearly, so what's currently happening, what has happened in the past 8 years or so I don't know).

Anyway, the thing is that fisheries HAS to be controlled internationally. It does no good for the US to cease whaling if Japan can take as many as they wish, willy-nilly. (they still take a few now in "scientific whaling" expeditions, but not the scale of former times)

Water is historically one of the main reasons FOR government regulation. Because if you dump sewage in your stream or dam it so you can water your fields, it affects me. Wars were literally faught over these rights. Governance of free flowing waters is historically federal jurisdiction (navigable waters), though the reasons were mostly to do with navigation and commerce. Still, now those same laws are helping to protect the water we drink and, in the sense of the "canary in the mine", protect our general health and well-being. These things plain and simply CANNOT be decided locally. When they are... disaster. And we have plenty of examples!

Interesting stuff. Ironically (maybe), what I got out of this was that we need to streamline government control of commonly owned areas, specifically where activities in such areas affect the environment. And what I mean by streamline is merge and cut some of these departments.

[GabonX]

It seems to be the general attitude.

I've already conceded that we should not recklessly destroy marine eco systems.

Yes. And if you concede that the sky is blue that is equally unimportant. Recklessly destroying anything is stupid.

I do believe that there is a lot of life in the ocean which is completely disconnected from my own life. Lets leave it at that.

No, let's not leave it at that. If I say "I believe germans are genetically programmed to commit violent crimes, let's leave it at that" I would be wrong and people would call me on it. Just because you don't want to discuss your ignorant views doesn't mean you can just act like it's unimportant. If you refuse to back up your viewpoints with reasons and proof, you're being an ignorant moron.

The fact that you refuse to argue and just spout your ignorant shit in every single thread infuriates me no end. Stop refusing to back up your viewpoints!

I do my best to back up my views. I usually do get around to it but I have other things going on.

My point is that I hear a lot about how the extinction of a species will cause it's entire respective eco system to collapse and although I know of many species which have gone extinct, the world still seems to be functioning.

Life is more resilient than most people seem to give it credit for. If there is one species which completely depends on another species for it's survival, I have to question the real value of the first species. Life seems to be relatively good at adapting and finding a new way of propogating itself regardless of whether an one species disapears.

Quite frankly marine eco systems in general have much less of an affect on people's lives than most eco systems on land. Regardless, there is probably not a single species man could not live without other than man.

Plus if countries like Cuba and China are drilling for oil off of the coast of Florida, I don't see why we shouldn't. It's going on anyways.

[Neoteny]

Don't be using what I said in your favor, Gabon; what I typed was intended to demonstrate an effect on multiple species. Poorly, I might add, but the intent was there. So I'm a dog in that respect, rather than a sheep-wolf.

To clarify, whales eat many different species that feed on many other different species. A cause that has an effect large enough to affect whales, is obviously harming many species, rather than just the obvious one.

Also, somewhere in that food chain is the stuff that produces a significant portion of our oxygen. They're kinda important.

[thegreekdog]

Also, somewhere in that food chain is the stuff that produces a significant portion of our oxygen. They're kinda important.

We need to figure out a way to create our own oxygen. And build flying cars.

[Neoteny]

Also, somewhere in that food chain is the stuff that produces a significant portion of our oxygen. They're kinda important.

We need to figure out a way to create our own oxygen. And build flying cars.

Ideally, we'd make flying cars that pump out oxygen. We'd be so fracking rich...

[GabonX]

Don't be using what I said in your favor, Gabon; what I typed was intended to demonstrate an effect on multiple species. Poorly, I might add, but the intent was there. So I'm a dog in that respect, rather than a sheep-wolf.

Hehe

I thought that it was pretty good, a perfect example!

Also, if you don't want me to use things you've said to demonstrate my point, I would advise you not take things I've written to make you're point two sentences later.

[PLAYER57832]

Interesting stuff. Ironically (maybe), what I got out of this was that we need to streamline government control of commonly owned areas, specifically where activities in such areas affect the environment. And what I mean by streamline is merge and cut some of these departments.

This is what I believe, yes. Although merging won't necessarily mean fewer people, because the truth is that for all we know about the natural world around us and how much we depend on it, there is far more that we don't know. However a lot of what is being done right now is duplication or "the left foot stepping on the right foot". So, there might well be fewer people overall.

[Snorri1234]

We should trust companies to cut their profits by ensuring the safety of something which doesn't directly affect them. Big companies have always shown that they are protective of the environment, even when it means less profit. Ofcourse we need regulation and control.

There are big companies that do a lot to protect the environment that are unrelated to government regulations. For example, companies have begun to build wind mills and nuclear power plants. In any event, let's assume big companies are completely selfish and have no interest in helping the environment.

That's not what I meant. I said that because we can never trust all companies to do the right thing. And because damage to the environment isn't simply a matter of good things negate bad things, it's pretty fucking important to still make regulations.

If there was never any toxic waste dumped, we would've never made regulation. So while there are probably companies which help the environment (or try to do as little damage as possible) there are also companies which wouldn't give a f*ck about all of that and rape nature to make a little more extra cash to buy more shit. And for those companies we need a way to control them.

Let's also assume that helping the environment and making money are mutually exclusive (they aren't, but let's say they are).

Saying "f*ck the environment" always makes more money than not in the short run. You can help the evironment and make money, it's just that you make less than if you don't help it.

What regulations should we throw down? Do we not do enough now? Do we need to do more, environmentally? Should we close all coal plants? What do we do with the people who work at the coal plants? Do we give them government-sponsored reeducation programs? If so, who pays for that? Does the company that previously employed them pay for that or do you and I pay for it?

See, these are valid questions where discussion can be had. I was just saying that the question of whether we need any regulation is stupid.

I'd say that we already have enough regulations now. However, we need to enforce them better and make sure that there is no way to make a higher profit by ignoring the regulations. (If a company saves a few million by dumping it's waste and has to pay just 50,000 dollars as a fine, there is a problem.)

Personally, I think we need to encourage free enterprise that will have a positive effect on the environment. Admittedly, I know little about how best to do this.

I agree. Over here we are subsidizing companies which go for greener policies. However, companies themselves also need to see the benefit of doing this.

[PLAYER57832]

What regulations should we throw down? Do we not do enough now? Do we need to do more, environmentally? Should we close all coal plants? What do we do with the people who work at the coal plants? Do we give them government-sponsored reeducation programs? If so, who pays for that? Does the company that previously employed them pay for that or do you and I pay for it?

See, these are valid questions where discussion can be had. I was just saying that the question of whether we need any regulation is stupid.

I'd say that we already have enough regulations now. However, we need to enforce them better and make sure that there is no way to make a higher profit by ignoring the regulations. (If a company saves a few million by dumping it's waste and has to pay just 50,000 dollars as a fine, there is a problem.)

I agree with almost all of what you said, Snorri. However, the "enough regulation" bit really depends on the country. In the US, the state, too.

In the US, I would say it is not a matter of "more" or "less" regulation. I would say it is a matter of "appropriate" and "effective". The numbers are irrelevant.

[thegreekdog]

See snorri? Now we agree. However, our original disagreement stemmed from your colored opinions of someone like me and my colored opinions of someone like you. Anyway, I still disagree with some stuff.

I'd say that we already have enough regulations now. However, we need to enforce them better and make sure that there is no way to make a higher profit by ignoring the regulations. (If a company saves a few million by dumping it's waste and has to pay just 50,000 dollars as a fine, there is a problem.)

I do agree with this whole heartedly.

Saying "f*ck the environment" always makes more money than not in the short run. You can help the evironment and make money, it's just that you make less than if you don't help it.

I disagree with this one. There are environmentally sound policies that help a company make or save money. For example, if I have a ton of toxic waste sitting around, I could dump it in a hole and cover it up. However, I know that if someone finds it, I'll get sued, and I'll lose a boatload of loot. As another example, I believe water, wind, and nuclear power are fairly cheap alternatives to other power generation methods (say, coal-powered electricity). I could be wrong about that.

I agree. Over here we are subsidizing companies which go for greener policies. However, companies themselves also need to see the benefit of doing this.

We have that in the US too, sort of - we give tax credits for certain environmentally-friendly things. I'm a tax attorney, so I know about these rules. Unfortunately, they are not widely advertised by the various states and the federal government (probably because they like their tax money).

[Snorri1234]

Saying "f*ck the environment" always makes more money than not in the short run. You can help the evironment and make money, it's just that you make less than if you don't help it.

I disagree with this one. There are environmentally sound policies that help a company make or save money. For example, if I have a ton of toxic waste sitting around, I could dump it in a hole and cover it up. However, I know that if someone finds it, I'll get sued, and I'll lose a boatload of loot. As another example, I believe water, wind, and nuclear power are fairly cheap alternatives to other power generation methods (say, coal-powered electricity). I could be wrong about that.

You misunderstand. That rule goes only for when there is no regulation. If you can just dump your toxic waste anywhere you like and there is no penalty, why would you find a way to despose of it safely?

And alternative powersources are not all good if the waste from other methods can just be dumped. And even then they are generally not as good, it's just that their effect on the environment is far less.

We have that in the US too, sort of - we give tax credits for certain environmentally-friendly things. I'm a tax attorney, so I know about these rules. Unfortunately, they are not widely advertised by the various states and the federal government (probably because they like their tax money).

Indeed. Is why I say that companies need to see the benefit, people need to know about these things.

I agree with almost all of what you said, Snorri. However, the "enough regulation" bit really depends on the country. In the US, the state, too.

In the US, I would say it is not a matter of "more" or "less" regulation. I would say it is a matter of "appropriate" and "effective". The numbers are irrelevant.

uh yeah, you're right. Enough is a bad worse to use. I meant that we mostly have all the regulations that appropriate.

[GabonX]

You misunderstand. That rule goes only for when there is no regulation. If you can just dump your toxic waste anywhere you like and there is no penalty, why would you find a way to despose of it safely?

Pirates

[PLAYER57832]

My point is that I hear a lot about how the extinction of a species will cause it's entire respective eco system to collapse and although I know of many species which have gone extinct, the world still seems to be functioning.

Problem is when it stops "functioning" ... well, we will be gone. Most of us would prefer to avert the problems beforehand.

Life is more resilient than most people seem to give it credit for. If there is one species which completely depends on another species for it's survival, I have to question the real value of the first species. Life seems to be relatively good at adapting and finding a new way of propogating itself regardless of whether an one species disapears.

Sorry, GabonX, but in this you seem to have just enough knowledge to be dangerous.

Life IS resiliant. But, to say you can simply substitute one species for another is just not true for a lot of reasons. First, if you say that any species which completely depends on another species for survival, it is not needed is just wrong. That applies to a huge number of animals, plants, etc. Biologists do speak of "ecological niches", in the sense that there are certain species that are herbivore/prey (for example), others that are predators. BUT, those things only apply in very broad ways. Its like saying that one family is equal to another. In some ways, anthropologically, true. YET...

Anyway, without getting into a whole ecology/biology lesson, the bottom line is as I asserted before Do you really know WHICH species we can live without?

Quite frankly marine eco systems in general have much less of an affect on people's lives than most eco systems on land. Regardless, there is probably not a single species man could not live without other than man.

You seriously need to study ecology and biology if you even begin to think this is true. Truth is we depend very, very heavily upon the marine ecosystem. We depend upon it for the air we breath, the purity of our water, much of the food we eat, transportation, etc... etc.

Plus if countries like Cuba and China are drilling for oil off of the coast of Florida, I don't see why we shouldn't. It's going on anyways.

Not sure where you get your information, but I know of no Chinese or Cuban rigs in US waters off Florida. US Companies DO have leases off Florida.. and Alabama and Mississippi and Texas. Some are quite active, but oil companies also have many leases that they are not using. Why? Because, despite record profits, the prices are still not high enough for stockholders to encourage the companies to activate existing rigs or establish new ones.

This is one reason why cries to "drill in Anwar", etc. are silly.

That said, my concern about using all the US oil up is that I think we WILL need it more in the future. I would rather take some hit now and less later than push it all back to later.

[thegreekdog]

Are any of you guys in the oil or coal industry? I was wondering because part of the issue with this is that, ignoring the actual companies themselves, many people work in such industries - logging, coal mining, oil exploration, etc. If we need to "save the environment" we effectively put these people out of jobs. Additionally, if we don't find a way to make environmentally-friendly things cheaper, people spend a whole lot more money on the stuff. I'll be the first one to buy an electric car if you can tell me it's cheaper. In other words, many people (including myself) will protect the environment if it doesn't hurt them.

I would put it like this. Let's say your a lawyer (barrister in England I think). Let's say that in order to protect the environment, you'd be forced to leave your job. Would you be for or against protecting the environment in a manner which would require you to leave your job? This is part of the issue, and why the environmentalists who scream about people not understanding the need to protect the environment are missing the point. If I'm a coal miner, I care a whole lot more about keeping my job, putting food on the table for my family, than I do about the environment. But, if you can ensure that I'll be okay, maybe I'll go along with your saving the environment.

Man, I'm starting to ramble...

[TheProwler]

And now, for the surprise of the day!!!!

A. I am not wrong.

Hahaha!!

Cut off most of a quote and you can make it seem as if anyone said anything.. doesn't make it true.

(and yes, the media does have a conservative bias)

The proof is in the pudding.

A. I am not wrong.

Hahahahaha!!

Global warming. caused by increased solar activity?

Not even close.

Yeah, it accounts for it on **every other planet in our solar system**....but not Earth.

I suppose you only believe in scientists that agree with your political party's agenda.

Did I just hit a nail on the head??

I suppose you only believe in scientists that agree with your political party's agenda.

I think I did.

Evolution

Where'd that Missing Link disappear to?

museums.

But here are just a few easy links:
On trasition fossils specifically: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

On more general evolution issues:
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/evotheory.html
http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurri ... nsense.pdf

Denying that transition fossils exist would be funny, if so many people didn't believe it true.

Yeah, because reality is determined by a vote. Isn't democracy such a simple concept?

Hahaha!!! Try to use your head.

effects of oil drilling on our marine life The ocean is home to the most important ecosystem on the planet.

Exactly.

I know....but for some reason....now....I am....doubting....this....hmmmm...

Hahahaha!!!!

[TheProwler]

Also, somewhere in that food chain is the stuff that produces a significant portion of our oxygen. They're kinda important.

We need to figure out a way to create our own oxygen. And build flying cars.

That go fuckin' fast!!!

[Snorri1234]

Prowler, if you want to be stupid go do it in another thread.

[TheProwler]

Prowler, if you want to be stupid go do it in another thread.

I think I made quite valid points in everything I said.

Feel free to PM me if you need clarification.

[PLAYER57832]

And now, for the surprise of the day!!!!

A. I am not wrong.

Hahaha!!

Cut off most of a quote and you can make it seem as if anyone said anything.. doesn't make it true.

(and yes, the media does have a conservative bias)

The proof is in the pudding.

Exactly... . young jokers like you who seriously think that Liberal= commy=anti business and that conservative = saviours of our universe, morally superior.

Global warming.

caused by increased solar activity?

Not even close.

Yeah, it accounts for it on **every other planet in our solar system**....but not Earth.

We know even less about other planets than our Earth. Your claim is plain ludicrous.

I suppose you only believe in scientists that agree with your political party's agenda.

Did I just hit a nail on the head??

I suppose you only believe in scientists that agree with your political party's agenda.

I think I did.

I don't remember even mentioning a political affiliation,

but I spoke of a worldwide consensus of scientists.... there were almost NO credible scientists in ANY country of ANY political persuasion who disagreed that Global Warming occured.

And anyway, exactly what "agenda" are these millions of scientists all supposed to have together?

Evolution

Where'd that Missing Link disappear to?

museums.

But here are just a few easy links:
On trasition fossils specifically: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

On more general evolution issues:
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/evotheory.html
http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurri ... nsense.pdf

Denying that transition fossils exist would be funny, if so many people didn't believe it true.

Yeah, because reality is determined by a vote. Isn't democracy such a simple concept?

Hahaha!!! Try to use your head.

yes, let's see... roughly 24 years of education, a few years working in the field, studying the IRC websites (and its many sister spin-offs) thoroughly... yep, I am ignorant, yep..
and I have a standing invitation to ANYONE who can offer real evidence of Creationism.

But you never bothered to even follow the links I gave you. The TRUTH is that while parts of the theory of Evolution might be wrong, the only way the earth could be less than a fwe million years old is if God specifically made it to look as if it were old. The EVIDENCE supports an ancient Earth.

[GabonX]

You can accept the Bible as evidence or not, it comes down to faith. Personally I think evolution is more likely but saying that there is no evidence is ridiculous. There is a written testimony, this is evidence.

You also mention the distinct possibility that scientists have misunderstood the work of God which does act to legitimize faith.

Also, you view on bias in the media is laughable. You claim that there is a conservative bias even though you admit you are completely unfamiliar with the network with the greatest liberal bias which happens to have the greatest viewership of any cable new network aside from Fox.

Let me say that again, you had no knowledge what so ever of the largest and most powerful leftist biased news network in existance today and you still claim that you're orriginal view is valid. Frankly you've admitted that you don't know what you're talking about and you're still talking..without any substance.

The conservative bias in the media is limited to Fox News, AM radio (which you have to look for, it doesn't jump out at you like television) and a handful of political pundits on predominantly liberal stations.

Conservative media: Fox, AM Radio
Liberal media: MS NBC,CNN,NPR(FM Radio), BBC, CBS, LA Times, New York Times etc. etc.

It's a matter of counting and it's plain to see.

Finding all of the major liberal news outlets would take more time than I'm willing to put towards the task. Frankly I've posted enough of them off of the top of my head to show that it's quite obvious that there are more liberal news outlets than conservative outlets.

Can you mention any other major new outlet, aside from Fox and AM talk radio, that has a conservative bias? If you can't, and you continue to cling to this belief you're being very unscientific Player

[TheProwler]

Exactly... . young jokers like you who seriously think that Liberal= commy=anti business and that conservative = saviours of our universe, morally superior.

You missed the point.

Yeah, it accounts for it on **every other planet in our solar system**....but not Earth.

We know even less about other planets than our Earth. Your claim is plain ludicrous.

You ignore the scientists that are witnessing the increased solar activity. You are ignoring the scientists that are providing evidence of increased temperatures on the other planets in our solar system. You ignore anything that is contrary to what Al Gore told you.

I suppose you only believe in scientists that agree with your political party's agenda.

Did I just hit a nail on the head??

I suppose you only believe in scientists that agree with your political party's agenda.

I think I did.

I don't remember even mentioning a political affiliation,

but I spoke of a worldwide consensus of scientists.... there were almost NO credible scientists in ANY country of ANY political persuasion who disagreed that Global Warming occured.

And anyway, exactly what "agenda" are these millions of scientists all supposed to have together?

It's the cause of global warming that is the question. Carbon emissions are just a very small and relatively insignificant piece of the puzzle.

Haha!! "millions of scientists" Did you count? Try not to be so silly with your exaggerations. And quit playing dumb.

Yeah, because reality is determined by a vote. Isn't democracy such a simple concept?

Hahaha!!! Try to use your head.

yes, let's see... roughly 24 years of education, a few years working in the field, studying the IRC websites (and its many sister spin-offs) thoroughly... yep, I am ignorant, yep..
and I have a standing invitation to ANYONE who can offer real evidence of Creationism.

But you never bothered to even follow the links I gave you. The TRUTH is that while parts of the theory of Evolution might be wrong, the only way the earth could be less than a fwe million years old is if God specifically made it to look as if it were old. The EVIDENCE supports an ancient Earth.

Haha!! Do you have any idea what I believe? Or are you off making assumptions again? I think I said this before: You really seem to have a hard time understanding that there are people (like me) who think with an open-mind and can actually separate political affiliations with scientific and religious studies. And you think that because I happen to agree on one topic with Christians, that I must agree with Christians on every topic. And you think that if I agree with conservatives on one subject, that I must agree with conservatives on every topic. I don't restrict myself that way. I've told you this before, but you don't seem to be able to grasp the concept. Really, how do you feel about having to agree with certain ideas on a predetermined basis, when in your heart and mind, you really disagree? You must be very morally conflicted. You aren't being true to yourself. I could never box myself in that way.

On the bright side, you'll please Big Brother. Hahaha!

[PLAYER57832]

You can accept the Bible as evidence or not, it comes down to faith. Personally I think evolution is more likely but saying that there is no evidence is ridiculous. There is a written testimony, this is evidence.

Missed this earlier. I want to clarify that absolutely believe the Bible and that it is the word of God, but this idea that Genesis means that the Earth was created in 6 revolutions of our earth (which did not even exist at the time, among other issues) is just not true.

That is one of the big issues I have with so-called "Creationists". They wish to paint this as a Christian= the earth is young versus atheist scientists =Evolution.

The truth is far, far more complex.

[TheProwler]

[GabonX]

You can accept the Bible as evidence or not, it comes down to faith. Personally I think evolution is more likely but saying that there is no evidence is ridiculous. There is a written testimony, this is evidence.

Missed this earlier. I want to clarify that absolutely believe the Bible and that it is the word of God, but this idea that Genesis means that the Earth was created in 6 revolutions of our earth (which did not even exist at the time, among other issues) is just not true.

That is one of the big issues I have with so-called "Creationists". They wish to paint this as a Christian= the earth is young versus atheist scientists =Evolution.

The truth is far, far more complex.

Why do you claim to believe in the Bible when you don't believe what is written?

This never made sense to me.