Thursday, June 28, 2012

Are Global Warming deniers also the same people who dont believe cigarettes cause lung cancer


Are Global Warming deniers also the same people who dont believe cigarettes cause lung cancer?
Same type of argument. Overwhelming scientic consensus (on global warming, on cancer/tobacco link) and one side focuses in on the small number of scientists who disagree. Yes, you could find vehement tobacco/cancer link deniers in the 80s. The parallel is almost the same as with Evolution. I wonder how many GW deniers dont believe in Evolution.
Politics - 24 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
yes
2 :
G W is a myth
3 :
straw man argument...you lose again
4 :
There is indisputable proof that smoking causes ling cancer. Can you say the same about the proof of that global warming is man made? How about the NASA report that the increase in temps lately are caused by... THE SUN... and that all planets in our solar system are being effected. Oh... but let's dismiss NASA.... they don't know what they are talking about and are just a right wing extremist group.
5 :
they also believe that we never went to the moon
6 :
How does sending jobs to countries that don't have environmental regulations we already have help the global environment? We are already getting China's emissions plume. Better for the environment to keep the jobs here. Better for the economy, as well.
7 :
And those who believe leisure suits cause cancer.
8 :
Most folks believe that MGW is real, but an argument exists as to whether it is a crisis. Al Gore and the believers advance the theory that MGW is a crisis. Their theory is based on computer models that predict what the atmosphere will do. Al Gore's PowerPoint has scientifically flawed statements, but Gore refuses to discuss them. All climate scientists agree that they do not understand all of the interactions of the atmosphere, and that the IPCC computer models must have assumptions entered for a number of atmospheric interactions. Many of these assumptions involve “feedback systems”, where a process either intensifies (positive feedback) or reduces (negative feedback) CO2 and temperature. Once all the known inputs and assumed "feedbacks" are entered, the model provides a computed CO2 level and temperature. The sensitivity of the 21 IPCC model results disagree by a factor of 10 among the group. Recent peer-reviewed published data shows that some of these assumptions are incorrect, making the models too sensitive to CO2 levels, and if the computer models were reprogrammed with the data from these observations, MGW would lie within normal temperature variations. As this evidence mounts, believing the MGW crisis argument becomes more difficult.
9 :
G W is the new religion. The fact that climate change exists is moot. The weather does what the weather does. The fact that humans can affect the weather is the part where people are told to "believe". This is the same crowd that said the said the world was going to end in Y2K.
10 :
yap
11 :
Grasping for straws I see. I'm pretty sure 100% of Smokers (me included0 are well aware of the health risks involved with smoking.
12 :
Who stands to gain the most power if global warming induced legislation is passed? Governments and government like institutions (UN) Who controls the purse strings of grants and research subsidies.....? And I think that if you watched a little less of the "chicken little" media's coverage of global warming, you might be quite a bit less convinced of the "overwhelming" aspect of your scientific consensus.
13 :
I believe that they are the same as those who believe that it is acceptable to provide information showing that "cigarettes cause lung cancer", but then let each individual decide if they want to smoke.
14 :
The scientists who believe in global warming are the "small number". Please don't try to mislead people.
15 :
Gee I don't know maybe you could do a study and find out.
16 :
So tell me about this overwhelming scientific consensus. What percentage of climate scientists believe vs. non-believe? How credible are they? Or are you just parroting the line that people like Gore have given you that the science is settled and about the scientific consensus. Oh by the way, in times past, the scientific consensus was that the earth was flat, and that the sun orbited around the earth.
17 :
It's worse than that: As late as 1994, they were testifying before Congress saying, "I believe that nicotine is not addictive." Seven of them with the exact same words -- as if they were reading talking points off a teleprompter. By saying "I believe," they were protecting themselves against perjury: Like George Costanza said, "Jerry, it's not a lie if you believe it." Instead, they looked like liars anyway, and looked like idiots.
18 :
check your premise: don't be a sheep. the first thing you need to do is to understand the difference between GW and AGW. the second thing you need to do is understand how just saying something doesn't make it true. not for Al Gore, not for you. the third thing is to overcome fear of knowledge that doesn't support your uninformed opinion.
19 :
There is ample evidence smoking causes lung cancer. Trying to link it to global warming has a major flaw. Before man ever appeared on this planet the climate changed many times, there is plenty of proof of that. Ice ages came and went many times over, and man and his internal combustion engine and burning of fossil fuels were no where to be found. Explain that.
20 :
My neighbor is 92 and has smoked a pack a day since she was 15.. Whats your point?
21 :
I don't believe in the Easter Bunny either. Moreover...I don't believe a Liberal possesses the intelligence to discuss anything with facts, logic or common sense. They should stick to what they do best...picking on the children of Sarah Palin. http://www.heartland.org/publications/environment%20climate/article/25508/Economic_Studie_Support_Leak http://www.heartland.org/publications/environment%20climate/article/25527/2009_July_Environment_Climate_News_CO2_Regulation_Will_Be_Costly_Staffer_Warns.html http://www.heartland.org/publications/environment%20climate/article/25520/A_Primer_on_Global_Warming_Dispelling_CO2_Myths.html http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/23563/CO2_Science_DVD_Debunks_Global_Warming_Myths.html http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57605 http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2009/03/03/what-obamas-cap-and-trade-plan-will-cost-you.html Finally...if you do nothing else...you MUST see this! This is from page 12 of the report on the last link: Impact on Employment - The assumptions driving the price of carbon allowances also affect employment. A higher predicted carbon allowance price gives producers a tighter margin and they are forced to shed jobs to maintain profit levels. The estimates of job losses range from hundreds of thousands to millions. http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/636.pdf Yep! This will be change you can believe in!
22 :
Consensus is not part of the scientific method. The scientific consensus use to be that the world was flat. In case you hadn't heard, the earth has been COOLING for years now. That is why even the radical nut-cases are calling it "climate change". Read the memos I'm sure are piling-up on your desk in your mom's basement.
23 :
The issue is not global warming per se. The issue is how and to what extent mankind's activities are contributing to it and what we need to do to slow it down and stop it. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the acrid smoke billowing out of an industrial smokestack isn't doing the environment any good. It also doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that when we destroy thousands of acres of rain forests every day, we are reducing the earth's ability to absorb carbon dioxide and provide oxygen. The time for the debate is over. It's now time for action (it's actually past time).
24 :
Probably. They're also probably the folks who STILL think that Saddam had a hand in 9/11.




Read more discussions :
Posted by lung cancer at 4:52 AM