Thread: second hand smoke. the real scoop.

Originally Posted by Wildtim

I will argue about mans role and ability to either have caused or to fix this.

Please read this refutation.

Originally Posted by Wildtim

There is to much to study for anyone to be concluding anything at this point. I think all the panic-mongering is as irresponsible as shouting fire in a theater.

Anyone except the consensus of the international scientific community you mean. The vast majority of the worlds scientists (not a minor sub-group) agree that Climate Change is a real issue and that we are responsible. ie,. We can see the smoke!

X

Originally Posted by xman

Please read this refutation.

Interesting refutation but it doesn't allow for the natural causes of the co2 and blames their entire increase on man. This being their whole argument against the natural cause theory. This theory is also supported only on ice samples that say this has never happened before. Aren't these the same pieces of ice they say will disappear if we keep on as we have? Thus if this is a natural cycle the ice couldn't show it because the ice wasn't there during the hottest part of the cycle.

Originally Posted by xman

Anyone except the consensus of the international scientific community you mean. The vast majority of the worlds scientists (not a minor sub-group) agree that Climate Change is a real issue and that we are responsible. ie,. We can see the smoke!

X

Is this the same scientific community that was once in consensus about the flatness of the earth? Not to blame the scientists at that time they were under tremendous political pressure to support that theory. The community view didn't change there until the political wind shifted to allow more open ideas. The similarities between then and now are just amazing.


What a fun subject for us laymen to argue!! What is really at the heart of my annoyance about this issue is how it has become such a political hobby horse. Every politician must have their say and new laws must be written, bureaucracy must grow, taxes must rise, to deal with something they have no need to worry about. It seems to me all of the causes stated for global warming cost me money. gas, electricity, throw-away goods. Once the marketplace doesn't have to worry about over-regulation they will respond faster with the products we want; more fuel efficient cars, cheaper home energy generators, If you look there are already products that last so avoiding throw-aways is no chore.

Originally Posted by Wildtim

Is this the same scientific community that was once in consensus about the flatness of the earth? Not to blame the scientists at that time they were under tremendous political pressure to support that theory. The community view didn't change there until the political wind shifted to allow more open ideas. The similarities between then and now are just amazing.

.

I also don't necessarily fnd any comfort in that supposedly the majority of scientist believe global warming to be true and be linked to human kind. I've seen packs of dog tear a cat limb form limb while individually the dogs would never do such an act --humans aren't much different. People --no matter how educated ---can fall prey to the group mind set. Peer pressure, fighting for rearch funding, not wanting to rock the boat and lose a good job --- at the core of everything done and created by humans is the fallible human who needs to belong to the pack -- the individuals who stand out are rare.

Mark Twain: "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. "

Justin

Originally Posted by Wildtim

Is this the same scientific community that was once in consensus about the flatness of the earth? Not to blame the scientists at that time they were under tremendous political pressure to support that theory.

Clearly you are aware of the religious domination of the issue. Science then wasn't what it is now. It's hardly comparable since noone is threatening to try scientists for speaking the truth today, at least not in the west.

Originally Posted by Wildtim

What is really at the heart of my annoyance about this issue is how it has become such a political hobby horse. Every politician must have their say and new laws must be written, bureaucracy must grow, taxes must rise, to deal with something they have no need to worry about. It seems to me all of the causes stated for global warming cost me money. gas, electricity, throw-away goods. Once the marketplace doesn't have to worry about over-regulation they will respond faster with the products we want; more fuel efficient cars, cheaper home energy generators, If you look there are already products that last so avoiding throw-aways is no chore.

Relatively nothing compared to what you're paying in taxes to keep the military industrial complex war machine humming along for causes like Iraq. But that's profitable for a few, the few that gets the contracts, certainly not for the taxpayer.

You know it's funny how short sighted people can get. Ten years ago there was a huge debate about implementing the internationally recognised Kyoto Protocol and the Liberal Canadian government at the time paid great lip service to doing so. The Conservative Opposition was dead set against it. Now the Conservatives are in power and blaming the previous administration for not implementing Kyoto soon enough. They can't implement Kyoto themselves because they'd be easily pegged as hypocrites. Their "made in Canada solution" to sidestep the impending recession which would (according to them) occur from late implementation? A whole new lip service paid to a plan designed to do nothing except make people feel better. I wonder if it'll work. The Environment has topped Health Care for the first time ever as the issue Canadians are most concerned about and we could end up having an election on it any time now.

X

Good job fellas on all fronts.

I think it's kind of funny how Dennis started this thread ---dropping a bomb ---and left us to war and toil over it.


Justin

I think the study provides a good argument for banning smoking in places where there are nonsmokers, because it is difficult to avoid smoke in a building or room. But as far as banning smoking outright for entire places (like cities, university campuses), well, you'd have to ask yourself if the ban is more effective at keeping people healthy or infringing upon people's rights.
And for that I have no good answer.

I enjoy some of Mr. Williams articles. He has a way of talking about our erosion of civil liberties if the form of economics or social upheaval. I don't agree with everything he says, but don't think anyone should get upset by anyone elses opion, or take it for fact without researching it for yourself. Being a bladesmith I had to sort through all sorts of myth's and known facts about metallurgy for cutlery. In the end the only way to do it was to try it myself and test it and draw my own conclusions. Some facts turned out to be completely untrue and some myths happened to be the way to go. The same can be said for second hand smoke and global warming. There are good arguments for both sides, but truly all the science for and against can be traced to people or parties with vast polictical connections wanting to impose there will on others or corporations looking for a profit at your and my expense. I work in an industry that really makes me have to bite my tounge on the global warming issue. I have to roll my eyes everytime I hear someone tell me about buying green power, or solar and wind will save the planet. There are technologies allready in use by the military that could ween us off oil and not have to use nuclear technology at all. But where is the money in that. Well most have seen al gores picture an inconvient truth, that's one opion. Here's a link to another opion and shows where some of the facts and the ideas of man made global warming came from. http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...+swindle&hl=en