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.
There isn't a correlation. This thread was a weak and easily disproven attempt to turn the parallels between how the tobacco industry fought science of cancer and how the energy industry is fighting climate science, each trying to foment doubt in the public where there is none in science.
They even use some of the exact same PR and lobbyist folks. The movie Merchants of Doubt covers the tobacco - energy parallels well.
Hmm, this article below doesn't sound like doctors thought the problems caused by smoking were limited to cancer, even back in 1928 - as it looks like they knew about it's effects on the cardiovascular system. Also, doesn't look like there was any kind of consensus or that the 'science was settled' (whatever that's supposed to mean) that doctors thought smoking was "good for you" as Hawkeye claimed.
"That tobacco smoking may cause a clinical condition closely resembling true angina pectoris due to coronary or aortic disease is more or less well known. The difficulty in the differential diagnosis between the two conditions may be increased when the patient shows some objective evidence of coronary and aortic disease; in such instances, one cannot speak strictly of "tobacco heart" but of the effect of tobacco on an already existing cardiovascular disease."
My guess is Yolanda is gone until after labor day, can't wait to see how this get's uploaded to CD or maybe just quotes from the article.
Or {{{{crickets}}} or excuses or insults...
Well here is yet another JAMA article from 1928 that says that the removal of the "objectionable nicotine from tobacco has been ardently desired accomplishment of many inveterate smokers" and discussed that nicotine is "not the only menacing ingredient in tobacco and tobacco smoke", then goes on to list other chemical compounds which are "menacingly noxious"
Well here is yet another JAMA article from 1928 that says that the removal of the "objectionable nicotine from tobacco has been ardently desired accomplishment of many inveterate smokers" and discussed that nicotine is "not the only menacing ingredient in tobacco and tobacco smoke", then goes on to list other chemical compounds which are "menacingly noxious"
Sure not sounding like there was any sort of "consensus" amongst doctors that smoking was "good for you".
I wonder if Hawkeye just looked up the JAMA website and found the staff list.
It looks like all these journals can be downloaded online what's with the FAX. The abstract of several journals from JAMA in 1928 indicated issues with smoking, didn't see any blessings for tobacco.
It looks like all these journals can be downloaded online what's with the FAX. The abstract of several journals from JAMA in 1928 indicated issues with smoking, didn't see any blessings for tobacco.
I read all the JAMA articles from 1928 which matched the search words 'smoking' and/or 'tobacco'. There were only 10 in total and some were not relevant. The rest all discussed problematic health issues with nicotine, tobacco and smoking. In one article titled "Health Appeal", the author called claims from the manufacturers of Lucky Strikes "Hooey!" (yes he actually used that word).
The article that the OP claimed existed, doesn't appear to exist at all. The claim that the OP made about the views of doctors in 1928 that smoking was "good for you" was completely false.
I think it's obvious that the OP was telling porky pies and has disappeared now that his false claims have been exposed. Making up a story about calling 'Yolanda the archivist' at JAMA to "go pull the article from the archives and fax it to him" when all the Journal articles from 1928 are available in digitised form online, was the just icing on the cake
You claim the scientific conclusion of AGW is based on bad science.
Since that conclusion derives from thousands upon thousands of studies across many disciplines, funding sources, and data sets, please explain, study by study, why each one is not valid scientifically.
Also, if those who conclude the Earth is warming Sue to humans are in a cult, shy has every major scientific organization in the world risked their credibility to join this cult?
Thank you for a clear explanation.
That's not necessary. When the baseline foundational argument is a farce, all else is totally irrelevant.
Given that core ice records show that atmospheric CO2 levels increase as a RESULT of a warming cycle .... and this relationship between temperatures and CO2 has remained consistent throughout hundreds of thousands of years of climate data stored in those ice core samples, and that such increases in atmospheric CO2 occur approximately 800 years AFTER a warming cycle, the basic premise that CO2 is the driver of temperatures is total idiocy.
That all of the AGW climate models PRESUME CO2 does drive temperatures, NONE of those models offer any scientific value whatsoever. The entire foundation of the argument fails right out of the gate without some very solid evidence that definitively proves a reversal took place in the 20th century in how the earth's climate has always regulated itself for as long as we've heretofore discovered from the hundreds of thousands of years prior.
As I have said countless times, blaming CO2 for rising temperatures is akin to claiming that a dented fender was the cause of the automobile accident. It's beyond idiocy .... No matter how many con artists claim otherwise.
This whole thread seems to be built on a strawman argument anyway.
Can someone please provide evidence that it's climate scientists who say "the science is settled" rather climate science rejecters who want to attack a strawman?
Names and publications please, not claims by the tabloid press and conspiracy blogs.
Please. The oft used statement that the science is settled came straight from old Al Gore himself, and has been parroted by every AGW con man since.
It's THE MOST USED retort to any challenge to the global warming fraud. You know it, I know it, and so does everyone else.
Please. The oft used statement that the science is settled came straight from old Al Gore himself, and has been parroted by every AGW con man since.
It's THE MOST USED retort to any challenge to the global warming fraud. You know it, I know it, and so does everyone else.
Anyone who brings Al Gore into this conversation reveals himself to have gotten information on climate change through a political filter, be it liberal or conservative.
Algore is not a scientist. In many ways he is a hypocrite with his extravagant lifestyle. The scientists never use the term "settled" because it's an incredibly complex topic and new research is being done every day.
But thousands upon thousands of studies have been done and show humans warming the planet, a conclusion that every major scientific organization in the world has concluded. However, they review those conclusions periodically with the latest research and reassess.
So far, every reassessment has just reinforced the notion that humans are warming the planet even faster than originally thought. But, someday new research could somehow change that conclusion, so it's not settled.
That's not necessary. When the baseline foundational argument is a farce, all else is totally irrelevant.
Given that core ice records show that atmospheric CO2 levels increase as a RESULT of a warming cycle .... and this relationship between temperatures and CO2 has remained consistent throughout hundreds of thousands of years of climate data stored in those ice core samples, and that such increases in atmospheric CO2 occur approximately 800 years AFTER a warming cycle, the basic premise that CO2 is the driver of temperatures is total idiocy.
That all of the AGW climate models PRESUME CO2 does drive temperatures, NONE of those models offer any scientific value whatsoever. The entire foundation of the argument fails right out of the gate without some very solid evidence that definitively proves a reversal took place in the 20th century in how the earth's climate has always regulated itself for as long as we've heretofore discovered from the hundreds of thousands of years prior.
As I have said countless times, blaming CO2 for rising temperatures is akin to claiming that a dented fender was the cause of the automobile accident. It's beyond idiocy .... No matter how many con artists claim otherwise.
What you believe is not actually true, but is a common misnomer that leads many to false conclusions.
About 90% of global warming - both natural and manmade - has followed CO2.
The specific matter regarding the Antarctic ice core samples you're referencing is that the initial warming in that case was caused by an orbital shift. That shift caused oceans to warm because of CO2 already on the atmosphere trapping more of the increased amount of energy from the sun. The oceans in turn released more CO2 that amplified the warming. So, CO2 was both a cause and effect in that case.
It's complicated but there's no scientific disagreement over whether CO2 causes warming.
This is not the article. Again, I am having the archivist pull the article at JAMA.
Speaking of nonsense- no liberal can explain these "inconvenient truths" Once again-
1. what science is solved?
2. why did it warm up during the depression with reduced CO2 emissions?
3. Why have temps remained the same over the last 20 years, despite increased CO2 emissions?
4. Why are there fossilized tropical plants and animals in the Arctic post dating continental drift positions?
5. Why was it warmer during the time of the Roman Empire?
6. What accounted for the "Little Ice Age"?
7. Why has there been wholesale academic fraud in the "climate change" literature?
8. What other area of science condemns and villifies contrary information? Cults, of course, do practice this.
9. Who is making money (and alot of it) from the "climate change" hoax?
Like I said, you should stop making up nonsense.
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.
Where in the world is Yolanda
