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.
TI'm perfectly aware that pollution causes problems for us and our planet. That's common sense. The problem I have with the global warming crowd is that they hide the fact (as you tried to do with your post) that the earth has been much cooler and much warmer than it is now, many times over, and that the nature of our climate is naturally cyclical over seasons and over millennia. I call these folks the "Static Eathers" (whose belief is just as wrong as Flat Earthers). They believe the earth's mean temperature is supposed to be a set temperature and that it should never vary. This is incorrect. Fourth grade science class is all you need to figure that out.
This is not true either.
No one is denying that the earth has been warmer.
No one is denying that the earth has been cooler.
The issue is the RATE at which the Earth is warming. It isn't that it is warming, it is that it is warming FASTER than most living things can adapt.
The last time it warmed, it did so over the course of 20,000 years... meaning there was time for animals, plants, humans, etc... to relocate, adapt, etc. This warming is occurring over the course of about 200 years. This is why species are being completely wiped out on a daily basis, why crops won't survive, why cities are going to fall into the oceans.
The anti-tobacco crusade that started in the early 1990's was in fact a tax grab, and an assault on personal freedom. Much of the $206 billion paid by Big Tobacco in the Master Settlement Agreement was used as a big slush fund.by the states.
I've never met a smoker over 25 yrs-old who didn't want to quit, yet little of the $206 billion was spent on smoking cessation programs. My state (WA), which was a leader in the anti-smoking crusade of the 90's, offered a 1-800 number where people who wanted to quit could call and commiserate, but no actual treatment.
I don't know about the US, but in Canada smoking rates have seriously dropped. Cigarettes are well over $10/pack-- but what really did the trick was banning it in public places.
And you know-- the article I quoted mentioned that big tobacco wanted this to become a 'personal freedom' issue. But I also believe that other people should have a right to breathe clean air in public spaces, preserve their own health, and be properly warned if a product they're consuming is dangerous.
You know, you're also 'free' to drink rat poison and I'm sure it will give you a pretty good buzz... but people don't do it just to prove how 'free' they are for a reason.
No one is denying that the earth has been warmer.
No one is denying that the earth has been cooler.
The issue is the RATE at which the Earth is warming. It isn't that it is warming, it is that it is warming FASTER than most living things can adapt.
The last time it warmed, it did so over the course of 20,000 years... meaning there was time for animals, plants, humans, etc... to relocate, adapt, etc. This warming is occurring over the course of about 200 years. This is why species are being completely wiped out on a daily basis, why crops won't survive, why cities are going to fall into the oceans.
At the current RATE of warming, there won't be enough time for cities to prepare, or people to adapt, or for crops to evolve, etc.
Again: The threat isn't from the warming itself, but from the unnatural rate at which it is occurring.
Monsanto is going to make a killing.
So this will be where Darwin's theory is put to the test then, no? We're all big on Darwin. So there shouldn't be a problem. Just unnatural natural selection in action.
As an aside, I applaud you for understanding that the earth's climate cycles naturally. Most AGW followers don't even realize that.
This is a perfect example of someone who (much like global warming deniers) decades after the FACT that smoking causes cancers states "I'm not sure there is a provable causation."
Proving that that PR strategy is remarkably effective.
Have you ever read where a credible scientist cut to the center of a cancerous lung tumor and unequivocally stated "SEE HERE? This is PROOF that tobacco smoke caused this tumor!"
If so, please give a link to the peer-reviewed paper that presented the findings.
Again, I have to say; DO NOT try to read between the lines. Read ONLY what is actually written!
While it is commonly accepted that smoking tobacco probably causes lung cancer, I doubt that it has ever been scientifically proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Talk to your doctor, and see if he is willing to state that there is no doubt about it. then ask him to explain those people who get lung cancer who have never smoked or been around anybody who did.
If you have irrefutable proof, I would like to see a reference to it.
Smoking fell out of favor in the 70s, when the research gained momentum-- well after the war.
Aside from being addicted, I would say people smoke because the marketing is still there, and because, like denialists, none of the long-term consequences feel real to them.
There is hardly any marketing. It's gone from radio, television, sports, etc etc etc. Yet kids still start smoking every day.
As an aside, I applaud you for understanding that the earth's climate cycles naturally. Most AGW followers don't even realize that.
Ironic that the post below followed your assertions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Think4Yourself
The denialist claim that AGW is some how the result on natural cycles has been completely debunked over and over and over again by actual science. If you're going to lie then at least be smart enough to use a line which hasn't already been debunked a million times.
You used the same identical argument when you said that AGW has been endlessly peer reviewed and proven. Yet when asked to provide 100, or even 10 peer reviews proving AGW, you went silent or became deflective.
Debunked a million times? Then it should be easy for you to cite just 10 scientific reviews that positively without a doubt debunk the natural heating and cooling cycles of the earth.
I found this very interesting article on the tobacco industry's battle against science when the harmful effects of smoking were first discovered and the popularity of smoking declined, and I find numerous similarities to the PR strategies of the denialists/Big Oil.
They had three key things in their favor: knowledge is a social construction, strongly interconnected with power; academics usually are highly regarded and that gives their opinions power; and academics require funding and that makes them susceptible to corporate influences. To combat the declining social acceptability of smoking, the tobacco industry gathered their own biomedical, economic, and social scientists to report on second hand smoke and other social smoking concerns.
Exactly what the Heartland institute has been doing, giving academics grants of up to $1 million in order to use their credentials to support their own cause. But beyond that, they're also using social media-- which has grown important now that people in general have a greater influence on each other, and online bullies and Limbaugh/Jones-style indignation is popular because of its ability to provoke outrage among conservatives.
Knowledge is definitely a social construction-- denialists are the high school bullies who sway opinion through intimidation and mockery, a 'join us or prepare to fight'-type strategy.
RJR and several international tobacco companies met and put together a Social Costs/Social Values (SC/SV) project and formed the International Committee on Smoking Issues (ICOSI). Landman wrote in the study, “ICOSI members adopted the plan in 1979 to secretly recruit and fund a group of prominent academic sociologists, philosophers, economists, anthropologists and political scientists to develop arguments promoting the benefits of smoking, refute arguments about the social costs of smoking, and emphasize the negative effects the companies believed smoking bans had on society.”
The Heartland Institute (which was also involved in pro-smoking campaigns) now does this for climate skeptics. Every single academic who has publicly espoused a skeptic theory is involved in some fashion with the Heartland Institute, has spoken at one of their conferences, or even received money directly from the oil companies.
They held conferences which attacked the US Surgeon General’s reports that nicotine was as addictive as cocaine or heroin. Indeed, they often compared smoking to activities as innocuous as eating or drinking.
This sounds very familiar to the 'Global Warming is perfectly natural' or 'It isn't hurting anyone' or 'It's actually good for the Earth' arguments.
Common pro-tobacco arguments that divert the focus away from health, like civil rights, Puritanism, economic doom, class warfare, prohibition, excessive government intrusion, tyranny and creeping totalitarianism can indicate the presence of industry influence,
This is exactly, word for word, the strategy denialists are using. 'The government wants to tax you', 'it's a violation of our freedoms', 'stupid Liberals' (substituting for puritans), 'this is part of the NWO/Obama's conspiracy to control you'. Tobacco industries marketed the anti-tobacco campaign as an assault on personal freedoms and the transformation of the US into a 'Nanny State'.
On top of this there are also strategies similar to those creationists use, ie: 'Teach The Controversy', as if denialism deserves equal consideration to valid science and instead of the consensus being a legitimate product of countless studies, it is an industry-wide conspiracy to silence the dissenters, just because they're saying something that isn't popular.
So yeah, I know what kind of responses this may get, but if you are a denialist how do you feel about big tobacco? Does it cause cancer, or is it a government conspiracy to take away your freedom and make you pay a tax on your cigarettes? Are cigarettes even bad for you?
Listen up! No one in their right mind wants a carbon tax, PERIOD! Lets call "climate change" a conspiracy theory, and your "climate change doomsday scenarios" conspiracy theories as well. You can't change weather by throwing money at, wild fires, floods, and for heaven sakes stop building houses 3 feet from the ocean!!!
Oh and leaving a pile of quarters for a tornado thats coming will NOT make the tornado stop and think, "what am I doing!!??" "Maybe I should stop tornadoing!
I found this very interesting article on the tobacco industry's battle against science when the harmful effects of smoking were first discovered and the popularity of smoking declined, and I find numerous similarities to the PR strategies of the denialists/Big Oil.
They had three key things in their favor: knowledge is a social construction, strongly interconnected with power; academics usually are highly regarded and that gives their opinions power; and academics require funding and that makes them susceptible to corporate influences. To combat the declining social acceptability of smoking, the tobacco industry gathered their own biomedical, economic, and social scientists to report on second hand smoke and other social smoking concerns.
Exactly what the Heartland institute has been doing, giving academics grants of up to $1 million in order to use their credentials to support their own cause. But beyond that, they're also using social media-- which has grown important now that people in general have a greater influence on each other, and online bullies and Limbaugh/Jones-style indignation is popular because of its ability to provoke outrage among conservatives.
Knowledge is definitely a social construction-- denialists are the high school bullies who sway opinion through intimidation and mockery, a 'join us or prepare to fight'-type strategy.
RJR and several international tobacco companies met and put together a Social Costs/Social Values (SC/SV) project and formed the International Committee on Smoking Issues (ICOSI). Landman wrote in the study, “ICOSI members adopted the plan in 1979 to secretly recruit and fund a group of prominent academic sociologists, philosophers, economists, anthropologists and political scientists to develop arguments promoting the benefits of smoking, refute arguments about the social costs of smoking, and emphasize the negative effects the companies believed smoking bans had on society.”
The Heartland Institute (which was also involved in pro-smoking campaigns) now does this for climate skeptics. Every single academic who has publicly espoused a skeptic theory is involved in some fashion with the Heartland Institute, has spoken at one of their conferences, or even received money directly from the oil companies.
They held conferences which attacked the US Surgeon General’s reports that nicotine was as addictive as cocaine or heroin. Indeed, they often compared smoking to activities as innocuous as eating or drinking.
This sounds very familiar to the 'Global Warming is perfectly natural' or 'It isn't hurting anyone' or 'It's actually good for the Earth' arguments.
Common pro-tobacco arguments that divert the focus away from health, like civil rights, Puritanism, economic doom, class warfare, prohibition, excessive government intrusion, tyranny and creeping totalitarianism can indicate the presence of industry influence,
This is exactly, word for word, the strategy denialists are using. 'The government wants to tax you', 'it's a violation of our freedoms', 'stupid Liberals' (substituting for puritans), 'this is part of the NWO/Obama's conspiracy to control you'. Tobacco industries marketed the anti-tobacco campaign as an assault on personal freedoms and the transformation of the US into a 'Nanny State'.
On top of this there are also strategies similar to those creationists use, ie: 'Teach The Controversy', as if denialism deserves equal consideration to valid science and instead of the consensus being a legitimate product of countless studies, it is an industry-wide conspiracy to silence the dissenters, just because they're saying something that isn't popular.
So yeah, I know what kind of responses this may get, but if you are a denialist how do you feel about big tobacco? Does it cause cancer, or is it a government conspiracy to take away your freedom and make you pay a tax on your cigarettes? Are cigarettes even bad for you?
Oh really?
Of course you don't realize how ignorant you appear, as you have no concept of scientific principles. Please disprove the null hypothesis- that global warming is not happening.
So far, in the history of this farce, NO ONE has disproven the null hypothesis. Therefore, this hypothesis would be considered speculative conjecture at best. The extrapolation of "CO2 effects" is an extension of this absurdity and dismissal of the principles of sound science.
The global warming cult is the enemy of actual science and its principles. Unfortunately, most of its disciples have no clue about what constitutes valid science, and thus are influenced by junk science and journalistic propaganda.
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.
