Quote:
Originally Posted by Thor
This is what tobacco did, they found 'experts' to muddy up the debate on whether smoking firstly was bad for you, and later on to convince the public smoking didn't cause cancer.
Ironically many of the same PR firms and people hired by the tobacco lobby in the past to create confusion in the public perception of tobacco is now working to create confusion in the global warming issue.
They don't care about anything other than just making people think that there is a huge debate amongst scientists, when in reality its a vast majority supporting the data/conclusions while the small handful of global warming critics go on CNN playing the 'all the facts are not in' type debate.
I mean don't kid yourselves, there are hundreds of billions of dollars riding on how governments react.
If people over do it, it could be a disaster on its own, if we do nothing and sit around arguing we may reach a tipping point that will devastate us anyhow.
I'm a skeptic by heart, so I take all the science with a grain of salt, but when such an overwhelming majority of various science fields are saying the same thing, I listen carefully.
I just wish the debate was now on: "What do we do next?"
Since obviously we don't want to make drastic immediate changes, we need to start forming some kind of plan to make smarter choices, invest in new technologies and put our brightest minds on finding solutions. Not waste our brightest mind on a debate that in most scientists mind is not a debate anymore.
An example is why does north america have some of the lowest emission standards in the western world? 
Collectively with our focus on making the world a cleaner and less polluted place we can reverse our impact while not hurting our economies, jobs, etc..
Surely thats more useful than what we are doing now. |
See this a perfect example of half truths for the masses. If smoking is the sole reason for causing cancer, than why didn't the oldest person on record to ever live get cancer after smoking well into her 110's? Why didn't my grandmother get cancer after 50 years of smoking? Why did her husband get cancer after 50 years of smoking? Smoking isn't good for you and there is no doubt that it is a contributing factor to cancer, but why did my grandmother live into her 90's after a life of smoking without cancer and her husband only lived to his 70's after a life of smoking to only die from throat cancer....What is the difference here, you certainly can't conclude from that small sample size that smoking caused cancer, there is more too it, diet (which you would think between the two should be the same) neither were obese....but on thing that is different..genetics...its only part of the story....you can certainly say the smoking conributed to my grandfathers cancer, but we will never no if he never smoked what would of happened. Why did Lance Armstrong get cancer in his 30's...healthy, fit, you have to think he ate well, he certainly exercised, did all the right things, but guess what he was genetically programmed...and there prob wasnt anything he could of done..although his healty certianly helped him beat the odds...
Why did a question your statement? Pretty ubsurd isnt it? Mel taking you to task on smoking causes cancer? Well cause in my own life i have seen two people do the samething for a long time only to end up with different results...Why can't i question these things? To me there is more too it...than just blanket statements fed to the masses
That is the point to the global warming debate, (if there is no debate it isnt science)...there is more too it, there are things we yet don't understand, there are things we can't forsee.....