SO.. BUSH WAS AN IDIOT??

[loramin]

Originally Posted by Glenzig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

https://uwaterloo.ca/news/news/globa...ide-study-says

http://www.skepticalscience.com/lu-2013-cfcs.html

[loramin]

BTW, do you guys believe cigarette smoke is caused by cancer? Because you wouldn't have back in the day when the cigarette companies doing the same thing the oil and gas companies are doing now.

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

BTW, do you guys believe cigarette smoke is caused by cancer? Because you wouldn't have back in the day when the cigarette companies doing the same thing the oil and gas companies are doing now.

No I 100% believe that cigarette smoke is caused by cigarettes.

[loramin]

Originally Posted by Glenzig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No I 100% believe that cigarette smoke is caused by cigarettes.

20 years ago there was clear evidence that lung cancer and smoking were linked, just as there is clear evidence that global warming is man-made now. Yet back then there were also screwball scientists saying there was no link, and the tobacco industry did everything they could support those scientists and hide the link between cigarettes and cancer (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2600597/). Try and look at the mistakes people made back then and connect them to what's happening now.

Originally Posted by Glenzig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yeah I read that one too. Dr. Lu's findings seem to make much more sense though. I mean CFC's are not naturally occurring, so you would assume that they would be much more damaging than C02, which is completely natural. But obviously since someone whose job it is to "debunk" findings like his has a counterargument, then I guess we'll just have to dismiss it completely.

"Seemed to make much more sense". Forgive me if I think we should take the word of thousands of people who devote their lives to the study of climate and not the one scientist who "makes sense" to you.

If you want to talk about "what makes sense", I say trust the scientific community. You do that with everything else right? When you go to the hospital you trust the research behind your treatment, you don't say "well there's this one dude in Glasgow who believes infection is caused by lack of exposure to ducks; fuck your antibiotics I'm gonna go rub some ducks on this wound!" When you build a building you don't say "fuck those seismic engineers, I'm using a single pillar to support my building; there's a guy in Mexico who says it will work!"

Just because the duck growers society pays for a study saying ducks work as antibiotics doesn't mean you should start rubbing ducks on your wounds. And just because a few lone scientists want to get money and or fame by claiming something crazy doesn't mean you should listen to them instead of the thousands of other people who are really experts and who don't have oil and gas companies buying their word.

[Swifty]

Merica

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

20 years ago there was clear evidence that lung cancer and smoking were linked, just as there is clear evidence that global warming is man-made now. Yet back then there were also screwball scientists saying there was no link, and the tobacco industry did everything they could support those scientists and hide the link between cigarettes and cancer (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2600597/). Try and look at the mistakes people made back then and connect them to what's happening now.



"Seemed to make much more sense". Forgive me if I think we should take the word of thousands of people who devote their lives to the study of climate and not the one scientist who "makes sense" to you.

If you want to talk about "what makes sense", I say trust the scientific community. You do that with everything else right? When you go to the hospital you trust the research behind your treatment, you don't say "well there's this one dude in Glasgow who believes infection is caused by lack of exposure to ducks; fuck your antibiotics I'm gonna go rub some ducks on this wound!" When you build a building you don't say "fuck those seismic engineers, I'm using a single pillar to support my building; there's a guy in Mexico who says it will work!"

Just because the duck growers society pays for a study saying ducks work as antibiotics doesn't mean you should start rubbing ducks on your wounds. And just because a few lone scientists want to get money and or fame by claiming something crazy doesn't mean you should listen to them instead of the thousands of other people who are really experts and who don't have oil and gas companies buying their word.

Well it was peer reviewed. And I do believe he is actually a scientist. I'm not sure why you're comparing cigarettes to global warming, but really this evidence would put more onus on the industries than it would on anyone else. I mean I don't remember ever manufacturing CFC's in my back yard. The blame shift of the C02 theory is why it continues to gain acceptance despite valid counter evidence. I mean when you can tell someone that grilling a steak, or burning some brush in your back yard is contributing to climate change, and at the same time ignore the massive amount of damage that mass produced chemicals are having, there would seem to be some bias on the part of the C02 global warming theorists. That and the fact that their concrete evidence that they had 5 years ago about what the median temperature of the earth would be, and the state of the ice caps has turned out to be completely false, might just make a logical person think that at least a good chunk of that data was garbage.

[loramin]

Originally Posted by Glenzig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Oh and there is this.
http://www.populartechnology.net/201...ience.html?m=1

My mistake; I Googled your story and picked the first reasonable-looking site (bad choice [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.])

Originally Posted by Glenzig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Well it was peer reviewed. And I do believe he is actually a scientist.

Peer review (sadly) means squat nowadays. And I believe he is too, but when you have a hundred scientists saying one thing and one scientist saying something different ...

Originally Posted by Glenzig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'm not sure why you're comparing cigarettes to global warming

Both are cases where the scientific community has a clear consensus, but industry has spent tons of money confusing the issue, so to an outside observer like yourself there appears to be a controversy when there isn't.

Originally Posted by Glenzig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

but really this evidence would put more onus on the industries than it would on anyone else. I mean I don't remember ever manufacturing CFC's in my back yard. The blame shift of the C02 theory is why it continues to gain acceptance despite valid counter evidence. I mean when you can tell someone that grilling a steak, or burning some brush in your back yard is contributing to climate change, and at the same time ignore the massive amount of damage that mass produced chemicals are having, there would seem to be some bias on the part of the C02 global warming theorists. That and the fact that their concrete evidence that they had 5 years ago about what the median temperature of the earth would be, and the state of the ice caps has turned out to be completely false, might just make a logical person think that at least a good chunk of that data was garbage.

Look, I don't claim to be a climate scientist, and I don't think I'm going to convince you by citing global warming research. When you've already fortified your mind against all evidence to the contrary, more evidence won't help. All I can say is, look at peoples' motivations.

The scientists are motivated to find the truth and make you believe the truth; that's just the kind of people they are (you don't study climate science for the babes). In contrast the coal and oil industry stands to literally save billions if they can just delay regulation a few years more. So you can either follow the money and the conflict of interest, or you can buy what the coal industry is selling.

[phacemeltar]

fracking is good, y'hear?

[Glenzig]

Yeah I read that one too. Dr. Lu's findings seem to make much more sense though. I mean CFC's are not naturally occurring, so you would assume that they would be much more damaging than C02, which is completely natural. But obviously since someone whose job it is to "debunk" findings like his has a counterargument, then I guess we'll just have to dismiss it completely.

[Glenzig]

Oh and there is this.
http://www.populartechnology.net/201...ience.html?m=1