Why do people deny science?

[Trajan]

Skooks-

Shit.....even the EU gave a huge kick to the balls on green energy last week = they're all in on coal and nautral gas

Wind, Solar, & Natural Gas Up In Europe — Coal & Nuclear Down

Wind, Solar, & Natural Gas Up In Europe -- Coal & Nuclear Down | CleanTechnica

the eu has just dumped their carbon credit scheme....hello

 

[Dot Com]

Global warming is a hoax. To real scientists there are no absolutes and everything must be questioned. When science becomes absolute it moves from science to faith.

link?

Katzy thinks she's USMB's female Moses in that no sourcing is req'd for her blanket statements lol.

 

[westwall]

Fraud!

Just kidding. I actually don't doubt your claim.

The point is, however, that given you and some others make of habit of attacking the credentials of others, they'd certainly be justified in tossing that kind of sleaze tactic back at you. Yet we don't.

Why? Because when you can intelligently discuss the ideas, you don't need to attack the person. And because we don't like to stoop to such depths.

when I joined this MB, just before the climategate emails were released, attacking the character and credibility of anyone who questioned any aspect of AGW was the standard operating procedure by the warmist crowd. concensus and all that. the skeptics were more interested in pointing out the distortions, misdirections and outright mistakes in climate science.

unfortunately since then, as the skeptical side has become more widespread and the CAGW arguements fall to tatters, many anti-AGWers have become just as bad mannered and dismissive as the warmists. ideas and evidence seem to matter less and less each day, while wild rhetoric and insults are the norm. it pisses me off that 'my side' is just as bad as the other side now, at least here on the message board.

Herein lies your problem Ian...'Climategate' was a trumped-up scandal and multiple inquiries, while calling for more openness in data sharing, found no evidence of scientific misconduct on the part of the involved scientists. And new scientific assessments and studies have re-affirmed the Earth is warming and human activities play a key role.

And in the supposed liberal media, 'Climategate' Debunking Gets Less Coverage Than Original Trumped-Up Scandal

CLIMATEGATE exposed the AGW crowd for what it was...an anti-science political quasi religious movement who's main goals were redistribution of wealth. If it were a "scam" the carbon trading schemes would be in full swing, carbon taxes would be levied worldwide, and you would be sitting in a dark room for a good bit of your day.

The fact that none of that has happened shows us that CLIMATEGATE was real and it exposed rampant corruption within the AGW funded academic world.

 

[Saigon]

Oh, and though it may be a contributing factor to contracting the disease, tobacco use still doesn't cause cancer.

I'm sure your local community college offers an ISL course.

Priceless.

When you see things like this, you realise how difficult it is for scientists to get the message through. There are still people out there who live in 1955.

 

[Saigon]

the eu has just dumped their carbon credit scheme....hello

Yes - because the shift to renewable energy has taken place without the need for it. Hello.

 

[westwall]

Oddball -

Can you explain why you think political organisations are a better source of scientific information than scientific organisations?

Because to me that is simply laughable, and explains very clearly where Denialism went wrong.

Personally, I'd rather get information from NASA, the American Physical Society and the British Academy of Sciences than the Heartland Society!

Irrelevant.

You claim your funding sources to be pure as the wind-driven snow, while anyone and everyone else who funds any skeptical source as one step removed from Beelzebub himself....It's how hackery works.

Oh, and that you prefer the people who were actively involved in the coverup and whitewashing of the East Anglia scandal says far more about you than anything else.

Hey Jethro, maybe if these same think tanks and 'scientists' hadn't previously taken tobacco money to deny smoking causes cancer, they might have some credibility. They are hired guns for any and all polluters and murderers. The tobacco industry knew way back in the 1950's that smoking causes cancer.

But in your world, money ALWAYS trumps human life.

Really? How about allowing DDT to be used to combat malaria then? Over 100 million people have died since environmentalists banned its use. Those deaths are on you bucko...

 

[westwall]

Oh, and though it may be a contributing factor to contracting the disease, tobacco use still doesn't cause cancer.

I'm sure your local community college offers an ISL course.

Priceless.

When you see things like this, you realise how difficult it is for scientists to get the message through. There are still people out there who live in 1955.

Maybe because technically Oddball is correct. Tobacco use doesn't cause cancer...if it did anyone who ever used it and those who breathed secondhand smoke would all generate cancer from the exposure. What tobacco use does do is almost guarantee that anyone with a genetic predisposition to cancer will get one of several types that are exposed to that tobacco use.

You would think that a "journalist" who I would expect to keep up with basic current events would be familiar with Angelina Jolie and her decision to have a double mastectomy because of a certain GENE she carries that gave her an 85% chance of developing breast cancer. Now she has a 15% chance of it.

You see saggy it's the genes that cause cancer....tobacco and all the other carcinogens out there are merely the trigger. And, most importantly, you could go through your entire life and never smoke, never be exposed to smoke and STILL get lung cancer and die.

Why is that? Oh yeah,.... genes....

 

[westwall]

the eu has just dumped their carbon credit scheme....hello

Yes - because the shift to renewable energy has taken place without the need for it. Hello.

No, because people figured out it was a scam and abandoned it....do try and keep up.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Oddball -

Can you explain why you think political organisations are a better source of scientific information than scientific organisations?

Because to me that is simply laughable, and explains very clearly where Denialism went wrong.

Personally, I'd rather get information from NASA, the American Physical Society and the British Academy of Sciences than the Heartland Society!

Irrelevant.

You claim your funding sources to be pure as the wind-driven snow, while anyone and everyone else who funds any skeptical source as one step removed from Beelzebub himself....It's how hackery works.

Oh, and that you prefer the people who were actively involved in the coverup and whitewashing of the East Anglia scandal says far more about you than anything else.

Hey Jethro, maybe if these same think tanks and 'scientists' hadn't previously taken tobacco money to deny smoking causes cancer, they might have some credibility. They are hired guns for any and all polluters and murderers. The tobacco industry knew way back in the 1950's that smoking causes cancer.

But in your world, money ALWAYS trumps human life.

Life isn't fair as corporations are going to fight for their bottom line. We also live within a nation that values someone's right to do stupid things...Now my dad died from cancer from smoking so I hate it with a passion. Polluters aren't good for society or anything but our liberty does get in the way of using the government to "force" all people to do what one considers right.


We always have to be mindful of ones rights when enforcing anything.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Tobacco causes Global Warming

 

[Bfgrn]

Irrelevant.

You claim your funding sources to be pure as the wind-driven snow, while anyone and everyone else who funds any skeptical source as one step removed from Beelzebub himself....It's how hackery works.

Oh, and that you prefer the people who were actively involved in the coverup and whitewashing of the East Anglia scandal says far more about you than anything else.

Hey Jethro, maybe if these same think tanks and 'scientists' hadn't previously taken tobacco money to deny smoking causes cancer, they might have some credibility. They are hired guns for any and all polluters and murderers. The tobacco industry knew way back in the 1950's that smoking causes cancer.

But in your world, money ALWAYS trumps human life.

Really? How about allowing DDT to be used to combat malaria then? Over 100 million people have died since environmentalists banned its use. Those deaths are on you bucko...

Every time you open your pie hole, your "I have a PhD in geology" sounds more and more like bullshit.

The DDT Global Ban Myth

On February 10th, 1970, almost a year before he founded the EPA, President Nixon announced, “we have taken action to phase out the use of DDT and other hard pesticides.” It therefore seems highly likely that the DDT ban was decided by Nixon long in advance of the EPA hearings, which is probably why Ruckelshaus, who Nixon put at the head of the agency he founded “over-ruled his own agency”. Nixon seemed to expect nothing less than absolute loyalty from those he put in high positions. In what became called “The Saturday Night Massacre,” Ruckelshaus and his boss, Elliot Richardson, famously quit their jobs at the Justice Department rather than obey an order from Nixon to fire the prosecutor investigating Watergate.

The conservative myth is that the ban was worldwide. While the ban did affect the price and popularity of DDT donated to poorer countries like Africa, Ruckelshaus’ decision was based on whether the ban was good for America, which it was and still is. We had alternatives that were just as good and the decision is cited by scientists as a major factor in stopping the bald eagle from going extinct. But the ban was a terrible decision for Africa because it caused a very poor country to adopt more expensive chemicals, causing a large number of unnecessary human deaths. This definitely should have been considered by Nixon and Ruckelshaus before they decided to institute the ban, but even today Ruckelshaus doesn’t see the link between his decision and how the DDT ban affected poorer countries.

While foregoing the ban would have saved countless lives, it also goes against one of the prime tenants of medicine: “Don’t make the patient any worse.” DDT is hardly a harmless miracle cure demonized by overzealous environmentalists. A 2006 study says found many children exposed to DDT as fetuses (found in trace amounts in the umbilical cord) had decreased attention and cognitive skills. Studies done in poorer regions that use DDT have found unhealthy levels of it in breast milk. Another study of Chinese textile workers found DDT and early pregnancy loss. A case-control study in Japan supported by several other studies concluded that in utero DDT exposure may affect thyroid hormone levels and be a factor in cretinism.

As for “Silent Spring,” Carson never advocated banning DDT, not in America and certainly not worldwide. She only advocated limiting it because its overuse would cause insects to evolve defense mechanisms against it, and she was right about that. She certainly didn’t manipulate data as that article claims. Her science was vindicated by President Kennedy’s Science Advisory Committee and Discover Magazine calls it one of the one of the 25 greatest science books of all time. The conservative claim repeated in “the Green Death” that scientific studies have proved that DDT had no effect on the thinning of eagle and falcon shells is actually technically true: it is a metabolite of DDT, called DDE, that actually causes the thinning of the shells.

more

 

[Oddball]

Oh, and though it may be a contributing factor to contracting the disease, tobacco use still doesn't cause cancer.

I'm sure your local community college offers an ISL course.

Game, set, match...Bfgrn in straight sets...

I knew when I read the line 'A three year old could figure this one out' that you were in over your head...

Maybe we could scare up a three-year old to explain to you what the word "causes" means...Seems none of the adults in the room can pull it off.

 

[Bfgrn]

Oh, and though it may be a contributing factor to contracting the disease, tobacco use still doesn't cause cancer.

I'm sure your local community college offers an ISL course.

Game, set, match...Bfgrn in straight sets...

I knew when I read the line 'A three year old could figure this one out' that you were in over your head...

Maybe we could scare up a three-year old to explain to you what the word "causes" means...Seems none of the adults in the room can pull it off.

The word 'causes' huh? That certainly is a toxic word for any corporate lawyer isn't it? It encompasses a whole bunch of responsibility and guilt. So THAT is your threshold?

Tobacco Use & Health

• Cigarette smoking is a leading cause of preventable deaths in the United States.

• Cigarette smoking significantly increases the risk of developing lung cancer, heart disease, chronic bronchitis, emphysema and other serious diseases and adverse health conditions.

• The risk for serious diseases is significantly affected by the type of tobacco product and the frequency, duration and manner of use.

• No tobacco product has been shown to be safe and without risks. The health risks associated with cigarettes are significantly greater than those associated with the use of smoke-free tobacco and nicotine products.

• Nicotine in tobacco products is addictive but is not considered a significant threat to health.

• It is the smoke inhaled from burning tobacco which poses the most significant risk of serious diseases.

Tobacco Consumers

• Individuals should consider the conclusions of the U.S. Surgeon General, the Centers for Disease Control and other public health and medical officials when making decisions regarding smoking.

• The best course of action for tobacco consumers concerned about their health is to quit. Adults who continue to use tobacco products should consider the reductions of risks for serious diseases associated with moving from cigarettes to the use of smoke-free tobacco or nicotine products.

• Minors should never use tobacco products and adults who do not use or have quit using tobacco products should not start.

• Adults who smoke should avoid exposing minors to secondhand smoke, and adult smokers should comply with rules and regulations designed to respect the rights of other adults.

 

[Oddball]

Couldn't care lass....Your source is wrong....Tobacco use does not cause cancer....If it did, even casual smokers would be succumbing to the affliction.

That smoking increases the risk ≠ a causal pathogen.

The shitty use/abuse of the English language by your sources and yourself is your problem, Bubba.

 

[Bfgrn]

Couldn't care lass....Your source is wrong....Tobacco use does not cause cancer....If it did, even casual smokers would be succumbing to the affliction.

That smoking increases the risk ≠ a causal pathogen.

The shitty use/abuse of the English language by your sources and yourself is your problem, Bubba.

My source?

About Us

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company is the second largest tobacco company in the United States. The company manufactures and markets cigarettes and modern, smoke-free tobacco products for adult tobacco consumers. Our Guiding Principles and Beliefs seek to reflect the interest consumers, employees and other stakeholders. R.J. Reynolds is committed to addressing the issues regarding the use of and harm associated with tobacco products in an open and objective manner.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here what you need to do immediately...have the butler race you to the nearest gas station. Find one of these...

Set it at max pressure. Now, that valve in the side of your head...hook the end of the hose to the valve and let it run for an hour...

This is an EMERGENCY...

 

[flacaltenn]

Couldn't care lass....Your source is wrong....Tobacco use does not cause cancer....If it did, even casual smokers would be succumbing to the affliction.

That smoking increases the risk ≠ a causal pathogen.

The shitty use/abuse of the English language by your sources and yourself is your problem, Bubba.

Pathogen, carginogen or Toxin?? If it's a toxin -- it's a shitty one if you have to smoke for 20 years before an illness erupts.. The RISK of illness indeed DOES increase. But if it's a toxin then the Smoking Nazi scientists are violating protocol by declaring that exposure to this "toxin" is DOSE INDEPENDENT. Meaning tthat whether you smoke 60 unfiltered Camels a day or just 4 low tar filtered cigarettes -- you are at HORRIBLE risk levels..

In fact the accepted definition of a smoker is anyone who uses a tobacco product more than 4 times a week for 6 months. Hell --- that's living in Newark kind of exposures..

Seems to me that every other toxin on the planet is given a rating and dose limit.. Is one cigar a day enough to CAUSE anything?

You want to talk about DENYING SCIENCE?? Why is it that one cigarette is as bad as 60 a day? Where's the science on that one American Lung Association?

 

[freedombecki]

Fascinating, how all the denialists now spout the "it's just a trace" stupidity. No one with a 3-digit IQ would say something that stupid, but pretty much all of them now repeat it. It's obviously yet another of their herd-identity things, because if there's one thing the denialists here do well, it's displaying their absolute unquestioning devotion to their herd. Once any idea takes root with a few of them, they will all start babbling it, no matter how dumb it is, because disagreeing with a fellow herd member is strictly forbidden.

Arguing man's interference with nature is questionable at best, imho. Ozone, that famous culprit greenhouse gas, traps heat. Even so, as the ozone layer gets smaller, some try to say that man is villain in it all. That's silly, because Ozone traps heat that would otherwise dissipate into space if it weren't there. When Ozone holes enlarge, less heat is trapped. So argument that man's influence is heating the earth is not exactly true. I mean, really, it is either true or it is not true.

According to science, the earth is 6 billion years old
Human pollution as we know it began 500 years ago.

Temperature changes have been constant for millions of years.

Science has taken a sinister turn in the last 50 years to ignore the most important data of all: earthly water vapor, produced solely by nature and not by any anthropogenic sources to speak of.

And recent scientific studies have put man's contribution to air pollution at less than one one-thousandth of a percent when water vapor is taken into account. The devious foundation-money-procurement angle of omitting water vapor from the data predicting "global warming" has been busted for several years now.

Yet, people cling to the studies that ignore 95% that nature's own (and not anthropogenic pollution) is the only supplier. Only 5% of other aspects come from mainly volcanos and terrestrial sources, solar flares (extraterrestrial), and other phenomena such as the vast area in Canada that emits plumes of sulphur gases into the atmosphere.

By far, it seems to me that things anthropogenic pollution is being blamed for as high as 25% of all pollutants are minimal when the impact of only one volcano can dwarf all of man's pollutants for the past 200 years. Only one. This earth has 50 or more volcanic eruptions per annum, and always has had.

If we wish to eliminate the anthropogenic pollution in an area the size of California, the best way would be to reduce the size of human population to around 700,000, which would be quite a drop from the 25 millions or more who currently occupy the area. I don't think we want to exactly go there, but I will grant that the high density of population and number of exhaust pipes responsible for getting people to and from work to home and recreational excursions is not a pretty sight and causes countless people to suffer from allergenic annoyances which vary from person to person.

It's a big world, and we could take better care of it, no less. But instead of doing that, we compound the insult when we follow scientists who blame it all on us for foundation grants to continue earning a living from "science," which should be about truth, and not about making a living by twisting data to suit a comfortable existence based on improperly-gathered data that troubles others instead of affirm the fickle finger of mother nature, who is responsible for 99.9996 of all of it, and not mankind.

 

[freedombecki]

Oh, it just occurred to me that there is something California could do about pollution if it had the courage of its convictions. It could go through a 2-generation phase of reorganization of living areas and work areas so that people in 2-generations' time of about 50 years would own residences within walking distance or cycling distance of their job. That would get rid of most of the smog in the LA basin area that tends to have no winds to remove automobile gas pipe pollutants.

As people age and die off, their properties could be sold in an area to make way for a business or industrial center in small areas with people living within 2 miles of the central business/work areas. Those in the furthest areas could cycle, while those bordering the business areas could walk. Cars or even mass transit could get people back and forth to Big-Bear or Beach resort areas, shopping centers, downtown LA, or other areas the remapping would accommodate. This would not tax individual families if a fair market price applied equally over the area were decided upon amicably ahead of time. Also, any changes would have to come from within the areas affected by change, and not by people like me from outside the state's borders.

Change is what an individual state decides to do about internal issues, based on support of the majority of citizens to follow one path of action or another.

 

[IanC]

Couldn't care lass....Your source is wrong....Tobacco use does not cause cancer....If it did, even casual smokers would be succumbing to the affliction.

That smoking increases the risk ≠ a causal pathogen.

The shitty use/abuse of the English language by your sources and yourself is your problem, Bubba.

its been a long time since I looked into tobacco/illness. there were several long term, high number studies that showed very peculiar results. one showed worse mortality for people that quit. these were not tobacco funded studies, they were govt studies that had every reason to find smoking (heh) gun results. it didnt stop them from making extravegant claims though, for our own good of course. second hand smoke danger is a complete fabrication and that is where people like Lindzen came in, to dispute the science not to support smoking in any way.

kinda sounds like AGW doesnt it? if it sounds good, lets run with it even if it isnt scientifically valid.

 

[Bfgrn]

Couldn't care lass....Your source is wrong....Tobacco use does not cause cancer....If it did, even casual smokers would be succumbing to the affliction.

That smoking increases the risk ≠ a causal pathogen.

The shitty use/abuse of the English language by your sources and yourself is your problem, Bubba.

its been a long time since I looked into tobacco/illness. there were several long term, high number studies that showed very peculiar results. one showed worse mortality for people that quit. these were not tobacco funded studies, they were govt studies that had every reason to find smoking (heh) gun results. it didnt stop them from making extravegant claims though, for our own good of course. second hand smoke danger is a complete fabrication and that is where people like Lindzen came in, to dispute the science not to support smoking in any way.

kinda sounds like AGW doesnt it? if it sounds good, lets run with it even if it isnt scientifically valid.

Like I've said many times before, forget AGW, you right wingers don't even believe pollution that contains carcinogens, toxins and poisons are deadly to human, fish and foul. You people are environmental terrorists.

It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.
Albert Camus

Secondhand Smoke

Secondhand smoke causes cancer

Secondhand smoke is classified as a “known human carcinogen” (cancer-causing agent) by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the US National Toxicology Program, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a branch of the World Health Organization.

Tobacco smoke contains more than 7,000 chemical compounds. More than 250 of these chemicals are known to be harmful, and at least 69 are known to cause cancer.

SHS has been linked to lung cancer. There is also some evidence suggesting it may be linked with childhood leukemia and cancers of the larynx (voice box), pharynx (throat), brain, bladder, rectum, stomach, and breast.

Secondhand smoke causes other kinds of diseases and deaths

Secondhand smoke can cause harm in many ways. Each year in the United States alone, it is responsible for:

• An estimated 46,000 deaths from heart disease in people who are current non-smokers

• About 3,400 nonsmoking adults die of lung cancer as a result of breathing SHS

• Worse asthma and asthma -related problems in up to 1 million asthmatic children

• Between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections in children under 18 months of age, and lung infections resulting in 7,500 to 15,000 hospitalizations each year

Surgeon General’s reports: Findings on smoking, secondhand smoke, and health

Since 1964, 30 separate US Surgeon General’s reports have been written to make the public aware of the health issues linked to tobacco and SHS. The ongoing research used in these reports continues to support the fact that tobacco and SHS are linked to serious health problems that could be prevented. The reports have highlighted many important findings on SHS, such as:

• SHS kills children and adults who don’t smoke.

• SHS causes disease in children and in adults who don’t smoke.

• Exposure to SHS while pregnant increases the chance that a woman will have a spontaneous abortion, still-born birth, low birth- weight baby, and other pregnancy and delivery problems.

• Chemicals in tobacco smoke damage sperm which might reduce fertility and harm fetal development. SHS is known to damage sperm in animals, but more studies are needed to find out its effects in humans.

• Babies and children exposed to SHS are at an increased risk of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), acute respiratory infections, ear infections, and more severe and frequent asthma attacks.

• Smoking by parents can cause wheezing, coughing, bronchitis, and pneumonia, and slow lung growth in their children.

• SHS immediately affects the heart, blood vessels, and blood circulation in a harmful way. Over time it can cause heart disease, strokes, and heart attacks.

• SHS causes lung cancer in people who have never smoked. Even brief exposure can damage cells in ways that set the cancer process in motion.

• There is no safe level of exposure to SHS. Any exposure is harmful.

• Many millions of Americans, both children and adults, are still exposed to SHS in their homes and workplaces despite a great deal of progress in tobacco control.

• On average, children are exposed to more SHS than non-smoking adults.

• The only way to fully protect non-smokers from exposure to SHS indoors is to prevent all smoking in that indoor space or building. Separating smokers from non-smokers, cleaning the air, and ventilating buildings cannot keep non-smokers from being exposed to SHS.

Secondhand Smoke