Big Tobacco Funded Anti-Global Warming Messages 623
An anonymous reader writes, "The UK Guardian is running an excerpt from the new book "Heat" by George Monbiot (to be published later this month) spelling out the network of funding opposing global action against global warming — specifically, limits on human carbon dioxide generation. The excerpt outlines a web of fake citizens' groups and bogus (but authoritative sounding) research institutes designed to convince laypeople that human causation of global warming is scientifically controversial. Not surprisingly, the article notes funding by ExxonMobil. More interesting is the role played big tobacco, tying their attack on the health risks of second-hand smoke to global warming skepticism." From the article: "What I have discovered while researching this issue is that the corporate funding of lobby groups denying that man-made climate change is taking place was initiated not by Exxon, or by any other firm directly involved in the fossil fuel industry. It was started by the tobacco company Philip Morris."
Common agenda (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Common agenda (Score:4, Insightful)
Isn't there a huge difference in magnitude, though? Do cigarettes contribute a significant amount to the incrase of carbon in the air? People have been smoking, lighting candles, etc. for thousands of years with no problem. It is the massive use of automobiles and fossil fuel to create electricity that has caused the problems with global climate change.
That's not to say that cigarettes aren't bad for you and for society.
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, with all the other attacks on Big Tobacco and their history with politics, they saw the fact that the political danger to their business from the scientific sector does not depend on their product being a *significant* contributer, only a contributer.
Having said that, given the relative size of dried tobacco leaves to the entire plant, I'm willing to bet that tobacco use is actually atomopheric carbon
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As your reference implied, most people are incapable of doing a risk assessment, especially if there's mathematics involved, so tobacco companies just need to obfuscate a bit to make sure their customers ignore the risks.
Re: (Score:2)
But you're right, the amount of gases from cigarettes is probably relatively insignificant. Besides, there is no net gain from cigarettes. I mean, carbon is drawn out of the atmosphere to grow the tobacco. Smoking just puts it back.
-mat
Re: (Score:2)
Yes.
People breathing has been known to cause historical climate changes. Fires to keep humans warm have had even more pronounced effects.
The big difference is that it's tricky to call the historical instances "damage". The nature of any animal is to have some effect on its environment. Wit
Re: (Score:2)
If that is the case, then fuck'em. I can surely give up cigarettes, but, there is NO WAY I'm ever giving up my smoker for good BBQ. I mean, shit, life is short, you gotta have some things you enjoy. Nothing beats good bbq'ed meats....and I don't mean grilled either, long slow smoking is the only way to go for 'real' BBQ.
Re:Common agenda (Score:5, Insightful)
I assume that big oil just wanted big tobacco's expertise in suppressing science and creating false "controversy" in the garbage news industry. I think we've witnessed our first corporate memetic mitosis.
The aim isn't to fund science, it's to create a false air of debate when the facts just don't warrant it. "Reasonable people can disagree on this matter" is the meme they want floating through the blow-dried heads of the media gods. But of course, reasonable people don't disagree. Unreasonable liars disagree. But no one is allowed to call a corporate shill a liar anymore, I guess. That wouldn't be "balanced".
Journalists are now inculated with the idea that their job is to present both "sides" of an "issue", where "reasonable" people can disagree. They don't take sides. The result of this is that PR masters can create BS "sides" and create fake debate that dethrone reason and install "balance". (I'd like to see this done with religious talking heads. Fat chance.)
A reasonable news industry would winnow out and dismiss the robots dancing to their masters tune. There would be no "debate". Hell, you can't find any opinion to the "left" of Ronald Reagan in the news shows anymore, so they apparently *can* filter out what they consider nuts; they unfortunately can't seem to apply their debate filters to fake science corporate fronts and economic looting institutes.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
CEI? (Score:2)
So what's the deal with CEI? Are they reputable?
http://www.cei.org/ [cei.org]
Re:CEI? (Score:4, Informative)
Exxon's Cash Pipeline to CEI [sourcewatch.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Lost in the shouting are two... ahem... inconvenient truths.
1. "Oil" companies are really "energy fuel" companies. They will sell you whatever fuel you want to buy. The debate on global warming is irrelevant to them. In fact, if you switch to more expensive fuels, like hydrogen induction for your car and nuclear for your electricity, their profit margins might actually go up.
2. One of the most powerful, corrupt, and
Re:CEI? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Come on. It's freakin' Penn and Teller. Not exactly a bastion of unbiased neutrality there. Penn & Teller: Bullshit is entertainment.
Re: (Score:2)
Big Tobacco Funded Anti-Global Warming Messages (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The Japanese diet seems to have some protective effects. Japanese women who move the US have higher breast cancer rates, for example. If so that would account for some difference.
Even so the Japanese get lung cancer from smoking. From a Japanese lung cancer study [oxfordjournals.org]:
Really questioning my libertarian streak nowadays (Score:5, Insightful)
For the free market to operate "correctly" (allocating money/resources to entities that generate value) its members must have access to good information about products -- their benefits and their costs. In the idealized theory, the market must have perfect information about products.
When the sources of information are so frequently corrupted by established power centers, how is there any home that efficient value-allocation will occur?
Re:Really questioning my libertarian streak nowada (Score:4, Interesting)
I think you mean to say that in an ideal world, the market *participants* have perfect information. Participants in markets don't need to have perfect information for markets to be preferable to other methods of distribution. Communism (for example) doesn't become superior because you have to call around town to find the best price, and you decide to stop searching before you've called them all, in other words.
Re:Really questioning my libertarian streak nowada (Score:5, Insightful)
Libtertarianism also relies on corporations acting in their own best, long-term self interest. We've all see that modern corporations don't look any further down the road than their next quaterly statement and in every place where there is not sufficient regulations they abuse the system and their employees to the limits of human endurance. That chemical spill in India was the result of an American chemical company locating a plant in a country with lax environmental and safety laws and operating their plant at those minimum specs in order to save money.
To blindly trust businesses is folly at best and suicide at worst. The only time businesses care about you is when you spend your money on their products and services. Never forget that.
I grew up in a Libertarian household. None of them remain Libertarians.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, my libertarianism is only a streak, and my green streak is prolly just as big.
Another thing that I find in libertarian theory is the splintering of human life into discrete "transactions". Economic analysis is obviously powerful, but treating every aspect of society as a purchase seems incredibly reductive
In addition to having imperfect information (always having imperfect information) one must consider the fact that people don't always act in their rational self-interest. Which is to say, they don't
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Libertarianism is unworkable and deeply flawed. It, like Communism, relies on something that does not exist: the perfect human being. In order for Libertariansim to work all people must work towards their own elightened self interest. The problem is that's not how humans work.
This is interesting because it is a different way of looking at the same issue I have described before, and with much the same conclusions... but drastically different terminology. From everything I've read, economic extremism fails
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And FYI, extreme Democrat != socialist. On most issues, I consider myself a pretty extreme democrat, but I am not a socialist. I support some sort of national health care system, and a strong social safety net, but I am a small business owner and capitalist.
It is interesting how negative connotations attached to words can cause people to try to redefine them. For example, you claim adamantly to not be a socialist, and then describe several socialist programs you support. Socialism is simply society as a
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Fixed for you. no charge.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Huh? Libertarianism doesn't rely on corporations even existing. Limited liability is just a government-enforced way to keep accountability from happening. Does using government force to prevent people from facing the consequence of their mistakes, sound like heartless libertarianism? ;-)
Incorporation could perhaps somehow be made compatible with libertarianism, but there would be a lot of tit-for-tat to work
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Stop with the slogans already, and say what you actually mean. Your definition of 'liberty' does not include a starving man taking food from a billionaire. Your definition of 'liberty' considers a starving man prevented from eating the food he needs as 'liberty'.
But in your twisted perversion of 'liberty', when the starving man takes food from the billionaire it's the billionai
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You bang on an interesting point.
Property is a right to exclusive enjoyment. (A right is a power, enforceable through the state's monopoly on force.) Freedom to enjoy property not your own, ends where the right to exclusive enjoyment of the owner begins.
Liberty is a right to be free of an oppression. It is not a dipole to property, per se. The idea of property - a
Re:Really questioning my libertarian streak nowada (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed, and that reason is mostly to do with the rule of law and a well regulated market, which is not much like the "free market" libertarians defend. Nations with better-regulated markets than the U.S., like Canada, Denmark and Sweden to name but a few, have populaces that live better than people in the USA do. At least according the UN measure of quality of life.
Neither libertarianism nor communism require "perfect humans", whatever those might be. But they do require human beings to be other than they actually are, and therefore have not been notably successful in the creation of stable societies.
Re:Really questioning my libertarian streak nowada (Score:2)
Another way to put it is that actors in the free market never choose to supply accurate information of their own accord. It is forced upon them by the freeness of the market, which allows any competitor to sabotage them by exposing lies.
If Dell wants to bullshit you about what's inside their boxen, it won't work, not because Michael Dell has a conscience, but because HP and Sony would gleefully jump on the chance to expose the li
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
'In common parlance the notions "weather" and "climate" are loosely defined1. The "weather", as we experience it, is the fluctuating state of the atmosphere around us, characterised by the temperature, wind, precipitation, clouds and other weather elements. This weather is the result of rapidly developing and decaying weather systems such as mid-latitude low and high pressure systems with their associated frontal zones, showers and tropical cyclones. Weat
Re: (Score:2)
Weather says "40% chance of rain tonight".
Climate says "If you traveling to North Dakoda in November, better take a heavy coat".
Re: (Score:2)
I can't predict accurately when any given person will die. I can stlll show that various diseases have various mortality rates, or make money if I own an insurance company, or st
Futurama predicted this! (Score:5, Funny)
Farnsworth: Very serious, Mayor Poopenmeyer.
Poopenmeyer: I gotta be sure this isn't another scientific fraud like global warming or second-hand smoke. [He presses the intercom.] Send in my science advisor.
Wrong title (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Rob
But, Philip Morris is a "Family Company" (Score:2)
They're not *lying* . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Put another way, what they're doing is encouraging the creation of a population of irate soreheads programmed to doubt anything on command.
I mean, dang, there are a lot of folks out there who think Penn Jillette and Micheal Crichton are authorities on global warming and second hand smoke.
I don't get the connection... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I would have just replied with "RTFA" or something similar, but it is a fairly lengthy article that mentions Phillip Morris only briefly. To me, the bigger story here is that the public has been getting planted bullshit "opinion articles in key markets" for our entire lifetimes and only reently have we found hard evidence of it.
Then, of course, having been trained to doubt anything that isn't presented to me by an approved m
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
George Monbiot (Score:3, Insightful)
After reading that a couple of years back, I would definately be interested in checking out his latest work.
Let's say... (Score:2, Interesting)
1) Given that the "secondhand-smoke" hysteria genuinely was shoddy pseudoscience as a pretext to legislate lifestyle, how useful is it to tie global warming to it? Or am I supposed to read about Big Tobacco, think "Ohmigod, it's *big*!" and fall under my desk in terror?
2) So does Big Oil (Aaaugghhh! Under the desk!!!) get some sort of apology now that it turns out that these groups were actually some sort of bizarre tobacco PR scheme?
Only in America (Score:4, Insightful)
Then again, many (probably most) of us are American, and we are the guys who:
- Believe that evolution is "junk science"
- Don't believe in global warming
- Are proud to be "Ditto Heads"
- Fell prey fear during the Salem Witch Trials, the McCarthy Era, and now Neoconservatism
If you need public support for a scientifically proven wrong point of view, simply back the majority of us who think science is bunk. Join the Religious Right, Big Tobacco, Exxonmobil, and the Neoconservatives in taking advantage of (and promoting) our ignorance.
Re:Let's say... (Score:4, Insightful)
The Myth of Second Hand Smoke claims that inhaling smoke from somebody else's tobacco is at least as dangerous as being a smoker, if not more so.
Ahhh, but this is not what was stated and this is, by itself, an assumption. There is a lot of research that has gone into secondhand smoke by a lot of different groups, some of which was scientific and some of which was not. While there may have been claims by some that secondhand smoke is more dangerous to nonsmokers, that was by no means claimed by all. The important question is, what are the dangers of secondhand smoke and are they significant?
The study you site involves two people both exposed to secondhand smoke. One is a smoker and one is not. It then monitors the rate of lung/throat cancer, presumably with other controls and normalization on the test group. How then can you claim, "claims that Second Hand Smoke is dangerous are bad pseudo-science at best, intentional lies at worst." when this study only addresses the relative danger of smoke exposure to smokers and non-smokers?
By almost all reputable accounts second hand smoke is dangerous to both smokers and non-smokers, although different studies have shown this to differing degrees. To claim that a study that provides support for the idea that secondhand smoke is not more dangerous to non-smokers somehow supports the idea that secondhand smoke is not dangerous, is what I would refer to as "dangerous pseudo-science." From the CDC, "Secondhand smoke exposure causes heart disease and lung cancer in nonsmoking adults. Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or work increase their heart disease risk by 25-30 percent and their lung cancer risk by 20-30 percent."
You seem to have fallen for a bait and switch marketing ploy.
Nothing but white noise... (Score:4, Insightful)
A couple of enabling factors are present that contributes to the problem.
1. In general people are lazy, complacent sheep who hear what they want to hear and don't take the trouble of getting involved until a problem directly impacts their lives. When that happens it is usually too late.
2. There is such a volume of information and disinformation that it all blends into a kind of white noise that can make shifting the truth difficult for the few who really want to get at the truth. And if they do get at the truth problem one and two kicks in. Few will listen and their warnings just become part of the white noise.
I'm just as guilty as most. It's just easier for me to sit back and watch seeds of corruption grow and bear fruit. Oh, I add to the white noise with my complaints but there are so many issues and no one really listens anyway. The shame is that the fruit of corruption will eventually be the end of mankind or maybe even all life on Earth.
Heh, intelligent animals... Mother nature's greatest mistake!
Bush Govt controlling scientists' access to media (Score:2, Informative)
new tagline (Score:3, Funny)
--
This is a joke. I am joking. You have been joked with.
For those who didn't RTFA (Score:2)
The reason why Big Tobacco has an interest in global warming is not because global warming might be linked to cigarettes. (Considering how difficult it is for the environmentalists to prove that cars cause global warming, it would be nigh impossible for them to do the same for tiny little cancer sticks.) No, what they want to do is discredit the EPA's stance on global warming so that they can then go, "Hey, if you thought that was craz
Is it illegal? (Score:2)
A nice test for /. (Score:3, Insightful)
Ready for the brain-twister? They are pro nuclear energy [junkscience.com].
Demonize away!
The other interesting tidbit found here [exxonsecrets.org] (sorry about the horrid flash link) is that Exxon has moved $12+ million (discoverable) towards anti-global warming organizations. That sounds like a lot -- until you realize they make a billion $ a day
smell test (Score:3, Insightful)
next we're going to learn that people who don't believe the moon landing was faked are aligned with nazis
Fanatics, yes, proponents, no. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, IANAGC. (I am not a global climatologist).
Re:Fanatics, yes, proponents, no. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.amazon.com/State-Fear-Michael-Crichton/ dp/0066214130 [amazon.com]
It paints a very diffrent view of what is really happening in terms of climate change.
From Publishers Weekly:
If Crichton is right-if the scientific evidence for global warming is thin; if the environmental movement, ignoring science, has gone off track; if we live in what he in his Author's Message calls a "State of Fear," a "near-
Plug for plug (Score:4, Informative)
I can't believe people buy this. (Score:5, Insightful)
I understand that it makes for good airplane reading, but come on. In the real world, Occam's Razor rips the whole mess to shreds. (Plus, isn't it telling that the best bit of media global warming deniers have on their side is an unabashed work of fiction?)
(Also, if you're going to claim the existence of the aforementioned scientist conspiracy, please provide at least as much evidence as there already is for option (b) [motherjones.com]. Thanks.)
This, by you, is more plausible? (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, I see that you've failed to come up with anything other than vigorous hand-waving to back up your claims. Did you bother to read the last paragraph of the post that you replied to?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But then, the reason it was called the Little Ice Age is that it was the coldest period since the Little Climactic Optimum, which reached its peak in about 1100 (when Vikings were growing grapes in
It's a false equivalence. (Score:3, Insightful)
ExxonMobil's claims are lies, half-truths, distortions and deceptive readi
Re:Global Warming Fanatics Do the Same (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Global Warming Fanatics Do the Same (Score:5, Interesting)
A better term would be 'accelerated global climate change'. And it is the accellerated part that is important. Where in the past ecologies may had had time to adapt to change, if it is too rapid humans and the species they depend upon may not be able to adapt.
However, 'accelerated global climate change' makes for an awkward sound bite.
Re:Global Warming Fanatics Do the Same (Score:4, Informative)
But the "Both sides do it" argument is pretty rediculous. Would some truly argue that the relatively meager lobbies and scientific groups that promote awareness about global warming have the same type of power and persuassion as these mutiti billion dollar profit corporations? Sure both sides point to studies that benefit them. But one side doesn't have to fabricate its science, and isn't backed by monetary interests in the same way the corporations are.
Saying "both sides do it" is like throwing a penny on one side of a scale and a couple of lead bars on the other.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If big tobacco was smart (and I'm sure they are), they would play both sides of the game. Like for instance, big tobacco would do studies to support the claim the global warming exists, screw up the study, and get this to be one of the top studies that people use when trying to prove that global warming exists. They aren't going to do any damage to the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Isn't it amazing how the side you're on is always right?
The other side is always lying, deceiving, manipulating... aka propagandizing. But, certainly not YOUR side.
(pardon my completely unbiased interjection)
Re:Global Warming Fanatics Do the Same (Score:5, Insightful)
Not even close to "the exact same" (Score:2)
The article is about paid lobbyists representing the richest corporations in the world while pretending to be something else entirely. So where so-called "global warming fanatics" are concerned, I don't see the similarity, whether some of them are overly-selective or not.
Perhaps all of the recent (and much-needed) attention that the climate crisis has been getting makes you unc
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you're saying that environmentalists never have ulterior motives for their cause, then you're sadly mistaken. Many of them are anti-technology, including the author of this article, having bought into the myth of the noble savage. They
Re: (Score:2)
I know
Re:Global Warming Fanatics Do the Same (Score:5, Informative)
The key part of the term "Global Warming" is "Global". That is to say that the average temperature of the entire surface of the Earth is increasing. This is, in fact, objectively observable and undisputed (at least in the literature on the subject). As ocean currents and wind patterns are now changing, some places are warming more rapidly, and others cooling -- as predicted. For example, another degree or two will push the Gulf Stream far enough south that the temperature in Northern Europe would be expected to drop to an average of just under 0C. At the same time, however, the 1 degree change in average global temperature would locally increase temperatures in parts of the mideast another 10C.
A popular tactic used by the paid "Global Warming" denial lobby is to concede that global warming is real, but that one of the following is true: the climate is simply following a regular cycle and there's no need for concern (the amount of CO2 and the speed is unprecedented and the effect appears to actually be mitigated by particulate pollutants and accelerating as the pollutants settle out of the atmosphere), or that the effect is not anthropogenic in nature and thus there's nothing we can do about it (it may be too late, but all evidence in the literature points towards anthropogenic causation).
Climatologists are not referring to places with warming trends and ignoring those with cooling trends. They are looking at the whole enchilada and reporting what they see. Lobbyists and gullible press are the only reason anyone thinks otherwise. The literature is very unanimous and exhaustively complete on the subject. From a political perspective there may be two sides or two schools of thought, but not on the scientific side. That argument was settled long ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Mod Parent -1 Troll (Score:3, Interesting)
Where did you get that little "data point" from? The drastic swings indicated by ice core samples are so far back they're from PRE-history.
It must be tough being a conspiracy theorist when most of your targets of blame never get any more specific than "the left" (i.e. scientists) and have almost no assets or power worth speaking of compared to the ultra-wealthy interests trying to discredit them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Then, I would challenge you to quit immediately. It is very bad for you and you are likely to die an early death from smoking. I hope that you have family and friends that care about you and you should think about how your death and/or health problems will affect them. Also, I think that life is a precious thing and you should enjoy your life as healthy and long as you can. So, I would implore you to quit smoking today.
Re: (Score:2)
So do I, but only a pipe. And, like almost all pipe smokers, I don't inhale the smoke. My chances of developing lung cancer are exactly the same as if I didn't smoke at all. If you must smoke, smoke a pipe. Or cigars, as you don't inhale them either.
Smoking related causes... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Smoking related causes... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
People don't spend significant fractions of their lives in poorly ventilated rooms with cars. They do spend signifcant fractions of their lives in poorly ventilated rooms with smokers.
Are there more dangerous things to inhale than tobacco smoke? Sure! There are plenty of things you can inhale that will kill you right then and there.
But you cannot list "dozens" of things that remotely similar numbers of people inhale with remotely similar frequency that are anywhere near as bad for you as cigarrette smoke
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not anymore, because we figured out cigarette smoke was bad for you. But not so long ago, flight attendants, bartenders, and spouses of smokers spent a lot of time in under ventilated spaces with cigarrette smoke. And all had distinctly elevated cancer risk.
"many mechanics, both amature and professional, inhale large quantities of car exaust."
If professional mecha
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So now, not only are smoker responsible for 1000's of deaths from 2nd hand smoke, they are now responsible for global freaking warming?
Hehehe...geez. I mean, so far, not even the WHO's study on SHS [davehitt.com] shows a meaningful connections between SHS and lung cancer in non-smokers....
Lordy...if it is that bad, why not just make it against the law...or is this global warming connection thing the last nail in the coffin of tobacco smokers?
(Note: Former smoker here...trying to quit, but,
Re:ummm (Score:4, Insightful)
Finally, original research! (Score:3, Funny)
dammit, mod parent down (Score:5, Insightful)
You got that right: Your feelings about commercials on TV are offtopic.
To see a bunch of snotty college kids in commercials going around telling everyone how evil cigarettes are, when you know these same kids get drunk and smoke weed on the weekends
Wow, typecasting much! Wanna add something about their mama, while you're at it?
they even dupe local governments into complying and forming a nice little pseudo-fascist state where you can be arrested for daring let a smoker into your club or restaurant (but remember, drunks and stoners are a-okay!).
1- Stoners are routinely put in prison.
2- If you drink next to me, I don't get second-hand drinks in my stomach.
When your smoke stays out of my lungs and eyes, and when its stink stays out of my clothes and hair you'll have a point. In the meantime, you couldn't be further from the truth.
Manipulating bitches, all of em (Score:3, Interesting)
And the same asshats are gearing up to make McD's change their menu to reflect their 'enlightened notions' of what you should be eating. Of course these same dipshits are also trying to decide what sort of unsafe at any speed piece of plastic crap car you 'want' to drive in the name of 'global warming' while THEY fly their fucking private jets to (press) conferences to announce what they want to impos
Re:ummm (Score:4, Insightful)
That's not true, but it would have no relevance anyway. Who are you to tell someone they can't slip out the back door and relax with a cigarette?
This is true of alcohol as well, and many other products. Also, there are surgeon's general warnings on every pack of cigarettes informing people of the consequences.
From alcohol to chocolate to fast food, what you describe covers a wide range of products that you apparently feel should also be regulated. Aside from the fact that the government proves time and time again that it's inefficient at regulating anything, you're actually arguing for the government to "regulate" your life and your free will, putting the judgements of what is good and what is bad in the hands of politicans and legislators rather than the individual. If you don't like smoking, fantastic! Don't smoke, and avoid places that allow it. It's a very simple solution that doesn't involve imposing your decision on everyone else.
If the government gets a hold of a study proving a link between angry music and violent behavior, can the government start telling you not to get tattoos or listen to heavy metal for the good of society? Can they start banning other influences they deem negative to your health, such as controversial books and movies?
"I'll smoke, I'll get the cancer, I'll die. Deal? Thanks, AMERICA." - Bill Hicks
Re: (Score:2)
Present your arguments in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, not in an advertisement, where any whacko with enough money can be heard, or in an editorial, where any whacko who can write decently can have their whacko views heard. I'm eager to hear these facts.
Re: (Score:2)
Ummm... no not really...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Fact vs Theory (again) (Score:4, Insightful)
"Gravity" is just a theory. That things denser than air fall toward the surface of the Earth is a fact, as are other facts that relate to gravity. The theory of gravity (pick one... Newton's, Einstein's...) attempts to explain those facts and predict further facts from such an explanation. No amount of watching things fall will EVER "prove" the theory of gravity correct, at least in such a way to change it from a "theory" to a "fact".
Likewise, that the average surface temperature of the Earth is increasing is a fact ("global warming"). There are theories that attempt to explain this. Some of these theories are well-supported by the facts. Others may not be. But none of them will even be "proven" and elevated to anything beyond a theory.
Theories aren't proven. They don't become facts, no matter how much support they receive or how well they hold up. Theories are always theories and being "just a theory" doesn't make an idea any less sound.
Re:I still do not believe in Global Warming ! (Score:4, Informative)
This is part of basic, peer-reviewed science. I'd give them the benefit of the doubt and figure they've thought of that already. If they report the number as 330, it's reasonable to guess that it's around 330 +- 10. If you really can't find the uncertainties in the professional articles, email the authors. No offense, but I'd be shocked if you've thought of something they haven't.
The general consensus is that the global temp is up 0.5c +/- .2c. So the warming trend may be as high as .7c and as low as .3c. I can see this, but add to this that the temperature measurements have a posted error correction of +/- .7c we now have a problem. The global warming that may be happening is within the error rate of the temperature measurement. If Microsoft tried to use numbers like this we would tare them apart but the global warming crowd uses them and they are ok?
This is fine, as long as there are lots of measurements. Uncertainties add in quadrature, so we pin down a more narrow confidence level with a great number of measurements.
To those how would point to the chart that shows us warming, they all seem to start around 1880. This is odd as this marks the end of the little ice age, to say that we are warmer now than we were during the little ice age is, well, duh!
The point isn't just that we're warmer now than we've been since the 1880's, but the CO2 levels are the highest they've been in the last 800,000 years, at least. And we've broken through the 200-300 ppm envelope the levels have been in only the last 100 years, so it's the *rate* of increase that is particularly worrisome.
I am sorry, the science seems off and with out solid science to back it up I just can not believe the hype.
Again, and I don't mean any offense, but these seem like simplistic arguments. We might want to be humble enough to assume that these people, most of whom are really smart, and spend their whole professional lives studying just this phenomena, have already considered these things. I'm not advocating a blind appeal to authority, but it's only curteous to assume that the experts in the field carry *some* authoritative weight.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There's already enough hard proof that its beyond doubt that cigarette smoke, both first and second-hand, is carcinogenic.