Quote:
Originally Posted by Cerveza69
I post rarely, because unlike many on these threads, I have a life outside of 2+2. I have a business to run. I have a family to enjoy time with. I have better things to do during the day than troll these threads.
As for the "soy milk scandal" as YOU called it. I never said it was a scandal. I just used it as an example to explain how "Global Warming" was now being marketed as "Climate Change", when it came out that the earth has actually been in a cooling cycle. So "Global Warming" had to be repackaged and marketed differently as "Climate Change" because there was too much money to be made. It's a business, no different than "Soy Milk" that originally was "Soy Juice" but it didn't sell, so it was repackaged as "Soy Milk". And the Veg Heads rejoiced and bought it up. And it was so successful that then came "Almond Milk" and the others.
It's not a scandal, so don't put a "gate" at the end of soy milk. It's just clever marketing.
Wow. That's an incredible amount of condensed wrong. Thank you. You do deliver!
It's cute that you clearly do no research beyond chainmails. Not only is your history on the use of terminology completely wrong, you're even wrong on what parties were involved and why. Sadly for you, most people here know how to look things up before they post. So you again just look dumb.
And to be clear, I'm speaking about both your examples of global warming and soy milk. They're both completely wrong - so much so that it would almost appear that you were trying to be wrong on purpose.
Let's look at soymilk - you claim it was called soy juice and then changed as a marketing event. Isn't it odd then that there are articles from the late 1800's comparing the nutritional value of soy bean milk to dairy milk? Furthermore, the notion that it should be called soy juice instead of milk is largely out there because it was a Lewis black routine. Not because of marketing. It is fitting that you would be pushing punch lines of jokes as facts though. It explains why you seem so ignorant.
I'll close this post with a big excerpt on Frank Lutz - propaganda guy for conservatives who, among other things, is credited with the Bush administration using the term
climate change instead of global warming. Note- there are other documents one can cite showing how the scientific community has used the terms but that's clearly too highbrow and fact based for the kind of troll who thinks comedian's jokes about soy bean milk counts as research.
Quote:
Although Luntz later tried to distance himself from the Bush administration policy, it was his idea that administration communications reframe "global warming" as "climate change" since "climate change" was thought to sound less severe.[18] Luntz has since said that he is not responsible for what the Bush administration did after that time. Though he now believes humans have contributed to global warming, he maintains that the science was in fact incomplete, and his recommendation sound, at the time he made it.[19]
In a 2002 memo to President George W. Bush titled "The Environment: A Cleaner, Safer, Healthier America", obtained by the Environmental Working Group, Luntz wrote: "The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science.... Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field."[20]
In 2010, Luntz announced new research that shows the American people are eager for Congress to act on climate legislation that would promote energy independence and a healthier environment. "Americans want their leaders to act on climate change – but not necessarily for the reasons you think," Luntz said. "A clear majority of Americans believe climate change is happening. This is true of McCain voters and Obama voters alike. And even those that don't still believe it is essential for America to pursue policies that promote energy independence and a cleaner, healthier environment." In reference to recent political events, Luntz added: "People are much more interested in seeing solutions than watching yet another partisan political argument." [21]
I'm sure you'll ignore the fact that this doc shows not only that the republicans recognized that the science was against them but that the public wasn't aware of this yet so they still had time to try to confuse the uninformed members of the public. They set out to confuse idiots like you and you play your part perfectly. The nice thing about you is we all know that even you reading about how they knew the scientific was coming against them and them acknowledging that they're going to basically lie about it - you'll still continue believing the lie.
Too funny.