# Health Lies



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

*.*

.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

The same kind of science was used to deny "Global Warming/Climate Change" not wishing to "poke the bear" but some citizens of Ehmacland believe the denying "science" more than the creditable science even though the denying "science" just like the tobacco "science" was bought and paid for by the vested industry interests.

God Bless those that believe what they believe they are free and entitled to believe the "science" of their choice.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

BigDL said:


> The same kind of science was used to deny "Global Warming/Climate Change" not wishing to "poke the bear" but some citizens of Ehmacland believe the denying "science" more than the creditable science even though the denying "science" just like the tobacco "science" was bought and paid for by the vested industry interests.
> 
> God Bless those that believe what they believe they are free and entitled to believe the "science" of their choice.


Rather the same type of science is being used to promote Global Warming panic in order line Al Gore's wallet with our dollars. 

The concept that climate is or even should be static borders on insanity. With roughly 400 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere, man increasing the parts per million of CO2 that he contributes from 39 to 40 over the next 30 years cannot and will not have any significant impact on the climate. He has had a huge impact via wholesale deforestation especially of old growth forests and rain forests. His impact by flooding air, sea and landfill with all sorts of poisons is also far more dramatic. Going after those areas where mans impact is so obviously devastating would do much more to improve the planets and our own health than can be accomplished by shipping trainloads of cash to Al Gore.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Ooops. Not wanting to derail this thread, but I found this recently in a book about ...

... the first underground railway, the Metropolitan, which of course used steam trains. The atmosphere in the tunnels would have been appalling. In 1867, three people died from the fumes; the Metropolitan, brilliant at PR, claimed that their line was "a health resort for those with asthma".

Those PR crazy, laissez-faire Victorians.


----------



## chuckster (Nov 30, 2003)

And on to 1976 and President Ford.
YouTube - The SWINE FLU Vaccination for the new pandemic


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

eMacMan said:


> The concept that climate is or even should be static borders on insanity.


Yep. Which is why you won't find any credible scientist making such a claim.



> With roughly 400 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere, man increasing the parts per million of CO2 that he contributes from 39 to 40 over the next 30 years cannot and will not have any significant impact on the climate.


I had no idea you were a professional climatologist with the decades of research experience necessary to make such a claim eMacMan! Please, do elaborate on the empirical evidence that supports this prediction.

Or, is this just another uninformed opinion from someone with no training and no basis for making any judgement on the matter?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc, it's sad to poke myhead in here and demand, once again, that anybody discussing climate research needs to be climatologist "With decades of esperience." Scientists are just scientists--they're no more special than bus drivers or carpenters.

Mazter: Arthur Godfrey lived to age 80.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Yep. Which is why you won't find any credible scientist making such a claim.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nope based on the fact that the earths atmosphere has been measured at roughly 400ppm. The climate alarmists claim man is responsible for just under 10% of that hence the 39ppm estimate. As to how long it will take man to increase his contribution that's based on guesses by Soviet climatologists. Same guys who claim we are entering a period of global cooling. Funny thing is, unlike the Gore Gang, the Soviet scientists accurately predicted the slight cooling that occurred in 2008 and 2009.

For me the main reason I refuse to hop on the Global warming panic wagon is this. The quickest and surest way to reduce CO2 emissions is to eradicate 3/4 of the planets population. Add the justification of CO2 hysteria to the religious lunacy that goes along these lines; "He's not (fill in your religion here) and therefore it's legitimate for me to kill him." Sooner or later it will lead to a nuclear or biological holocaust. Don't believe me? look at Iraq, Afghanistan and in the near future Iran. That's where buying into fear mongering will certainly lead us.

Sort of the same approach that has gone into peddling the H1N1 vaccine.

There are times that fear is an appropriate response however H1N1, the Taliban and Global Warming do not fall into that category.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Well, MCB, want to declare this thread derailed? Or is it still breathing? If so it's probably because it's smoked Chesterfields for several decades ... :lmao:


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Macfury said:


> bryanc, it's sad to poke myhead in here and demand, once again, that anybody discussing climate research needs to be climatologist "With decades of esperience." Scientists are just scientists--they're no more special than bus drivers or carpenters.
> 
> Mazter: Arthur Godfrey lived to age 80.


Yes... And when the time comes for some home renovations, I won't be calling scientist to finish my basement, or a scientist to drive my city bus. 

There a very powerful lobby groups in the energy field spending a lot of money to distract people from real scientific evidence now just as there were powerful lobby groups in the tobacco industry to distract people of the scientific evidence of smoking. 

I still hear some real common-folk today tell me that smoking isn't that bad based on the anecdotal evidence of a uncle who has smoked all their life and isn't dead. 

I predict 50 years from now, people will be mocking the ignorance to global warming and climate change like we mock the ignorance to the harmful effects of smoking now. Except in this case, it won't be as funny.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

To paraphrase me I didn’t want to poke the bear to start the discussion where no one changes their point of view. To quote me “if your not a scientist and can’t do the math any opinion expressed is largely just a matter of faith.” That is to say I find this guys opinion more compelling than the other guys statement.

In the 1970’s on CBC’s Quirks and Quarks radio program I heard if we didn’t stop burning fossil fuels that conservatively by the middle of this century we would have significant melting of the polar glaciers. Well we have that about 40 years sooner than predicted. Why? I can’t say for sure. Was buddy on the radio wrong? No! Just too conservative. He said it would be due to a greenhouse effect. 

Is the science wrong on H1N1? I don’t know if that the real issue for discussion in this thread. Perhaps is the current public policy the correct action to be taken, might be the correct discussion for we Ehacians.

Is the media alarmist? In my opinion absolutely. 

Have terms like pandemic been properly explained in the media? In my opinion absolutely NOT! 

Is the government public policy response been adequate? I have not made up my mind thus far.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Scientists are just scientists--they're no more special than bus drivers or carpenters.


Of course they're not. But if you want an informed opinion on the merits of various busses, or how to frame a doorway, I'd hope you'd take the opinions of bus drivers and carpenters more seriously than some guy on the internet who's opinions are diametrically opposed to the vast majority of bus drivers and/or carpenters.

There are topics about which any reasonably informed intelligent adult can formulate a reasonable opinion. Climatology is not one of them.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

The fun of the internet is trying to establish the thread of truth.

With H1N1, I have tended to be skeptical of all views. You have drug companies that have been pounding the drums of hysteria. The opposing view tends to exaggerate the risks simply because they have been personally impacted in the past. 

So you have Big Pharma claiming 1:100,000 for severe side effects. They talk mostly about anaphylactic shock and pretty much ignore kidney damage, encephalitis and GBS even though over a period of time the latter are possibly??? more common. Meanwhile Formaldehyde/Formalin reactions are quite common maybe as high as 1:10 though generally mild. Big Pharma will claim that Mercury levels are minimal, forgetting that this poison accumulates. One shot is probably fine but kids nowadays have scores and even hundreds of vaccinations during their youth. 

Squalene tests are on going. H1N1 vaccine recipients are the guinea pigs. What little information we do have says this adjuvant is probably much safer than Aluminum Hydroxide but still better stuies are certainly needed.

In this case there is no question that the severity, and transmissibility of this strain of flu have been exaggerated, the goal being to sell vaccine. 

Bottom line even if the worst claims prove true, perhaps 25% of the non-vaccinated public will get this strain of flu. Past experience indicates that 5-10% of the vaccinated populace will suffer a similar fate. So getting the vaccine means you reduce your chances of contracting the flu by 50-80%. Those are really just guesses, pick a set of numbers and work out the odds however you want to.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

eMacMan said:


> The fun of the internet is trying to establish the thread of truth.


Okay, fair enough. But there's a difference between taking the position "I don't believe..." or "I don't understand..." regarding some scientific issue (especially when you are able to bolster your position with some reasonable and well-founded questions as you have WRT the H1N1 vaccination issue), and then consider and open-mindedly debate the evidence on each side, and proclaiming something



> cannot and will not have any significant impact on the climate.


especially when the most sophisticated experts on that topic are so emphatic about the degree of uncertainty in our best models of global climate.



> Those are really just guesses, pick a set of numbers and work out the odds however you want to.


This is where we part company. If all you have to offer is guesses, I don't see much value in discussing them.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> bryanc, it's sad to poke myhead in here and demand, once again, that anybody discussing climate research needs to be climatologist "With decades of esperience." Scientists are just scientists--they're no more special than bus drivers or carpenters.
> 
> Mazter: Arthur Godfrey lived to age 80.


Amen to that:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC: Do you remember all of the scientific claptrap that used to praise the use of margarine over butter? My parents trusted the scientists and stuffed us full of transfats.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Of course they're not. But if you want an informed opinion on the merits of various busses, or how to frame a doorway, I'd hope you'd take the opinions of bus drivers and carpenters more seriously than some guy on the internet who's opinions are diametrically opposed to the vast majority of bus drivers and/or carpenters.
> 
> There are topics about which any reasonably informed intelligent adult can formulate a reasonable opinion. Climatology is not one of them.


At some point, climatologists--or anyone with specialized knowledge--must interface with, and express their ideas to, others. It is at that point that we decide which "expert" we believe. Climatologists don't speak an unknown language or work on projects so esoteric that the ideas behind them can't be expressed in English.

The idea of the genius so advanced that he/she is incapable of expressing his/her deep thoughts is amusing, though._ Pinky and the Brain_ stuff.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## whatiwant (Feb 21, 2008)

ehMax said:


> I still hear some real common-folk today tell me that smoking isn't that bad based on the anecdotal evidence of a uncle who has smoked all their life and isn't dead.


which is funny because I quit smoking around 2.5 months ago. Before I quit I was down to an average of 3-5 per day... I told my doctor this, and he said... "well I don't want to discourage you, because quitting smoking is a good thing... But 3-5 a day isn't really bad at all"

I was flabbergasted to say the least.


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

Macfury said:


> bryanc, it's sad to poke myhead in here and demand, once again, that anybody discussing climate research needs to be climatologist "With decades of esperience." Scientists are just scientists--they're no more special than bus drivers or carpenters.
> 
> Mazter: Arthur Godfrey lived to age 80.





Macfury said:


> At some point, climatologists--or anyone with specialized knowledge--must interface with, and express their ideas to, others. It is at that point that we decide which "expert" we believe. Climatologists don't speak an unknown language or work on projects so esoteric that the ideas behind them can't be expressed in English.
> 
> The idea of the genius so advanced that he/she is incapable of expressing his/her deep thoughts is amusing, though._ Pinky and the Brain_ stuff.



But according to your first post, we are not qualified to deliver such opinions, as we are not climatologists, so we are not qualified to determine which climatologists to beleive. The idea that one cannot express an opinion because they are not the expert in that field makes no sense, as that means that people would be unable to operate without consulting with an expert on every issue, of remote significance. Often people are expressing their opinions regarding climate change on these boards, including those by yourself, do not have the necessary background to post their comments but do so anyways.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

ertman said:


> The idea that one cannot express an opinion because they are not the expert in that field makes no sense, as that means that people would be unable to operate without consulting with an expert on every issue


Firstly, you're overgeneralizing. Just because it takes years of training to become sufficiently well-versed in the complexities of some subjects does not mean that it requires similar training to develop a reasonable understanding of all issues. Just like most of us can probably get out and enjoy a bike ride on a Sunday afternoon, but wouldn't consider competing in the Tour de France, there are issues that are generally understandable and issues that are much more complex. The global climate is very complex. Unless you have spent a significant amount of time becoming well-versed in climatology (and that does not necessarily mean having a university degree in the subject, but it almost certainly means having invested a comparable effort), your opinions on the subject are not particularly relevant.

Secondly, I'm not objecting to people having an opinion, or choosing between experts (although, wrt the latter point, when 99% of the experts on an issue are in agreement, deciding to listen to the 1% that disagree is a curious sort of irrationality), what I'm objecting to is people with no expertise on the subject making unsupported claims that are in direct contradiction to the available data.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Secondly, I'm not objecting to people having an opinion, or choosing between experts (although, wrt the latter point, when 99% of the experts on an issue are in agreement, deciding to listen to the 1% that disagree is a curious sort of irrationality), what I'm objecting to is people with no expertise on the subject making unsupported claims that are in direct contradiction to the available data.


Sorry old chap, the numbers nowhere near favour your position here. And reality--which has kicked a considerable number of short-term projections in the ass--has already made a [collective] monkey of many of them.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Sorry old chap, the numbers nowhere near favour your position here.


I think you may be mistaking my position. In this case, my position is that, on issues of science, the opinions of the lay public (which includes scientists in other fields) are less relevant than the opinions of scientists working in the field.

With respect to the validity of the opinion, regardless of who's, nature is the ultimate and only arbiter.

But, since we cannot know what the future will be, and we have good reason to be concerned, the precautionary principle dictates we prepare for the worst-case scenario that can be well-supported by the evidence. "Hope for the best, prepare for the worst." If it turns out that the consensus of the experts in the field is wrong, we'll have converted our energy systems from fossil-fuel dependence to renewable ones ahead of schedule. If it turns out they're right, we may have circumvented a catastrophe. From a risk-management POV, this is a no-brainer.

Cheers


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Macfury said:


> Sorry old chap, the numbers nowhere near favour your position here. And reality--which has kicked a considerable number of short-term projections in the ass--has already made a [collective] monkey of many of them.


*Surveyed scientists agree global warming is real*

"Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?

About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.

*The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.*"

climatology |ˌklīməˈtäləjē|
noun
the scientific study of climate.

Yes, science has been trying to find better ways to lower bad cholesterol and has also revealed the negative effects of smoking. Bad scientists!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

If you surveyed non-scientists I suppose you might get about a 50-50 split asking the same questions.

Thing is, neither survey proves diddly squat. They are simply opinions at that point.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

SINC said:


> If you surveyed non-scientists I suppose you might get about a 50-50 split asking the same questions.
> 
> Thing is, neither survey proves diddly squat. They are simply opinions at that point.


If a poll of a hundreds of scientists who studied cancer came back and said 97% of us have the opinion you have cancer, their opinion would not mean diddly squat to me. 

When 97% of all scientist surveyed who study climate say their findings suggest that global warming is real and it is caused by man's influence, how can it be logical to totally discredit them?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I'm not discrediting them at all. I'm simply saying that's their _opinion_ and they're entitled to it.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

ehMax said:


> If a poll of a hundreds of scientists who studied cancer came back and said 97% of us have the opinion you have cancer, their opinion would not mean diddly squat to me.
> 
> When 97% of all scientist surveyed who study climate say their findings suggest that global warming is real and it is caused by man's influence, how can it be logical to totally discredit them?


If I can buy an opinion, with hard earned money, it must be worth more than the considered views of a bunch of geeks who have dedicated their lives to the study of something as mundane as climate. 

If people are going to invest that much interest and effort in what amounts to as a bunch of weather are bound to be wrong 97% of the time. 

Look my hired expert trained in other subjects so they must be more interesting, better informed and more exciting and must be correct 99.997%. You betcha!


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

MazterCBlazter said:


> Scientists don't know Jack


Why haven't the introductions started if that is important?


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Scientists are so often full of themselves and far removed from reality in their ivory towers. There is too much truth to B.Sc = BS, M.Sc = more of the same, and Ph.D = BS piled high and deep. If they would stop over rating themselves immensely with their elitist attitudes and admit where they are wrong and admit they don't know everything they would get more respect from me." 

MCB, I guess I am a social scientist rather than a full-fledged scientist, but I have many of the degrees you mention. However, I don't consider myself an "elitist", nor do I live in "the ivory tower". Your comments about scientists are far too simplistic. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

> The point is that I mentioned earlier, Scientists and doctors told the public that he (Jack Lalanne) was a quack, crackpot, and and a fraud. The same scientific professional community of "experts" were advocating the consumption of margarine and backing big tobacco and big pharma with BS and outright lies among other falsehoods.


So vested interests are not to be trusted. Should we include Jack in the vested interest selling something?


> They said that the exercises, nutrition supplements, breathing and other health practices were especially harmful to women and people were best off to avoid them.
> 
> Those that listened to Jack and followed his advice lived long and healthy lives.
> 
> Those that listened to those that discredited him didn't live as long or as well.


Is there empirical data or is this a “you can trust me on this” fact?



> I recall statistics ands articles I've read before the internet days that show how doctors have worse health and shorter lifespans than the average person, as do restauranteurs. So those that are supposed to feed us and take care of us can't even take care of themselves properly.
> 
> Scientists are so often full of themselves and far removed from reality in their ivory towers. There is too much truth to B.Sc = BS, M.Sc = more of the same, and Ph.D = BS piled high and deep. If they would stop over rating themselves immensely with their elitist attitudes and admit where they are wrong and admit they don't know everything they would get more respect from me.


Then why do people in society keep electing individuals to represent us in parliament /legislatures that are business people or with an alphabet behind their names especially the letters LLB?


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Then why do people in society keep electing individuals to represent us in parliament /legislatures that are business people or with an alphabet behind their names especially the letters LLB?" I think that this is an overgeneralization, and there is no way to answer this question if one does not accept the premise.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Dr.G. I have never once seen you ever display any of the elitist or ivory tower attitudes. You have always been nothing short of a saint here." MCB, I am not saint, but I do value my education. I don't wave my four university degrees around, but as a result of the 10+ years of university study to earn those degrees, I have gained knowledge that has helped me to help others in my field. This is what I feel that many scientists do with their academic and professional lives. 

I just don't like it when academics and scientists are lumped together and blasted for the views of some, just like I would not lump all politicians, doctors, lawyers, plumbers, carpenters, taxi drivers, et al, together and view them as a whole group based on my experience with some in the group. 

As a teacher, I tell my students that when they teach their students, it is important to look upon this diverse population of children as a collection of individuals. I do this with my students, and I hope that the example will influence my students to do the same with there students.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> "Then why do people in society keep electing individuals to represent us in parliament /legislatures that are business people or with an alphabet behind their names especially the letters LLB?" I think that this is an overgeneralization, and there is no way to answer this question if one does not accept the premise.


My generalization was to point out that we in society look to the leadership of the learned to represent us. Whether learned through the school of hard knocks or the academic route or any combination thereof. 



> Jack is 95, still going strong, working out every day, still sharp and strong as an Ox. His original detractors died out a long time ago.


How much of this fact is due to genetics, how much is due to life style? How old would his detractors be if they lived until today?

I knew a man who thought his genetics plus his healthy lifestyle would allow him a healthy and spry old age. He died in his 40’s driving bicycle at night hit by a drunk driver. True story. 

How many of Jack’s detractors had circumstances that cut their life short?

Your point about Jack Lalanne may be very meaningful to you but is not very significant to other. 

MCB I am glad your choices are working well for you. “May you live long and prosper”


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"I predict 50 years from now, people will be mocking the ignorance to global warming and climate change like we mock the ignorance to the harmful effects of smoking now. Except in this case, it won't be as funny. " All too true, Mr. Mayor. Sad, but all too true.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

MazterCBlazter said:


> I like and agree with your approach. Always have.
> 
> What gets me quite angry is the attitude that certain scientists have that they can do no wrong when they are clearly not right and have a "how dare you question me and my opinion which is clearly far superior to yours", and "the world owes me a great debt for being a scientist".
> 
> ...


MCB, in all fairness, I too have met some scientists and academics that have taken that "holier than thou" and "superior" view of themselves. 

I also have great respect for the garbage men and janitors who I have met. I thank the garbage men each week as I go out to retrieve my seagull/crow net. One actually asked me why I was thanking him, and I replied "I appreciate what you are doing." 

I also know all of the janitors in the Faculty of Education here at Memorial by their first names, and they call me by my first name. A few profs have told me that it was "unseemly" that I was letting them refer to me by my first name. I just skoff at this attitude since I find these janitors hard-working and dedicated workers.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

MazterCBlazter said:


> Jacks brother didn't follow his way of living. I think he died in this 60's.


Norman Lalanne did indeed die young by ignoring his brother's advice, dying at the age of 97.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ehMax said:


> *The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.*


Do you know how many climatologists are listed in that directory? There were 79.

The first question is academic.

The second question asks if humans effect temperature--we certainly do: heat island effect, deforestation, water course diversion. What does this have to do with global warming and fears about carbon?

Wonder why they chose not to reveal the nature of the other 7 questions.

And by the way:



> On May 1 2009, the American Physical Society (APS) Council decided to review its current climate statement via a high-level subcommittee of respected senior scientists. The decision was prompted after a group of 54 prominent physicists petitioned the APS revise its global warming position. The 54 physicists wrote to APS governing board: ‘Measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th – 21st century changes are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today.’
> 
> The petition signed by the prominent physicists, led by Princeton University’s Dr. Will Happer, who has conducted 200 peer-reviewed scientific studies. The peer-reviewed journal Nature published a July 22, 2009 letter by the physicists persuading the APS to review its statement. In 2008, an American Physical Society editor conceded that a ‘considerable presence’ of scientific skeptics exists.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Macfury said:


> Do you know how many climatologists are listed in that directory? There were 79.
> 
> The first question is academic.
> 
> ...


79 Is a lot of climatologists coming to a pretty much unanimous opinion.

"They're the ones who study and publish on climate science. So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you're likely to believe in global warming and humankind's contribution to it.

"The debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes" 

And no... Carbon Dioxide has nothing to do with climate. Just like the chemicals in smoke are not harmful to your health. 

You think the first question is academic? You'd be surprised. I'm surprised you think that based on even the posts here on ehMac.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"I know the fellow that negotiated the Hibernia oil deal for Newfoundland. He is born British and got an excellent engineering education there. He says that it is just the luck of the draw in the game of life that he was so fortunate. Not everyone has the intellectual capacity to get that degree. Not everyone has excellent health. Not everyone is born into wealth and privilege. Not everyone has supportive positive family that help them accomplish things in life that are important to them and their success. Not everyone will win the lottery, or the lottery of life." Very true, MCB. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

If you can't believe the honesty of the Soda Pop Board of America, who can you believe???


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> If you can't believe the honesty of the Soda Pop Board of America, who can you believe???


Only the highly paid copy writers err scientist behind their horned rim glasses and in their white lab coats.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MazterCBlazter said:


> too many of the people in lab coats that have proven they cannot be trusted.


Actually, I'm inclined to agree with you here. The only people I see wearing lab coats are MDs and undergraduate students. I don't even own a lab coat.

Cheers


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Timely information on the climate change debate here at the CBC Radio program The Current Thursday Nov 19/09 the report is here with the podcast PT 3: Climate Cover-Up (If you listen to PT1. could spark a debate on Afghanistan.)

The report looks at “the debate” and the view of scientists at CBC Radio | The Current



cbc the current said:


> And we had more letters in response to last Friday's program, which was hosted by David Suzuki. The program looked at climate change and the prospects for the upcoming United Nation's climate change conference in Copenhagen. The program elicited a lot of reaction, much of it scathing.
> 
> We read a sample of some of the responses we received to David Suzuki hosting a special edition of the Current devoted to climate change. As well, The National Post's website received angry emails, referring to climate change as a religion, a scam and a fraud. Only a small minority of scientists who work in this area argue that climate change is not happening or that it is not caused by human activity.


Three interviews as follows:



CBC The Current said:


> But according to James Hoggan, people with vested interests in the debate are using their work to deliberately skew the conversation. James Hoggan is the author of Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming. He's also the President of the Public Relations firm James Hoggan and Associates. And, we should make it very clear that he is also the chair of the David Suzuki Foundation. James Hoggan was in Toronto.
> 
> Jim Prall devotes a lot of time and energy to keeping tabs on climate skeptics and climate scientists. He is a computer network manager at the University of Toronto. And he keeps a huge database of scientists who subscribe to -- and dissent from -- the view that climate change is both dangerous and caused by humans. He tracks how much they publish, where they publish and what their research is actually about. So we asked him to walk us through his database and his methods.
> 
> ...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Yep, the great carbon credit scam and fear mongering continues and those who believe are lap puppying it up.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

James Hoggan answered the questions put him. The question in my mind as an associate of David Suzuki was Hoggan being lobbed softball questions to knock out of the park. The information was useful in understanding science and spin.

Jim Prall gave the most honest information IMO. Scientists 601 believers to 14 sceptics in human caused climate change. Nice fact.

Lawrence Soloman cripts what a spin doctor. I wonder who’s payroll he is on?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

BigDL said:


> Lawrence Soloman cripts what a spin doctor. I wonder who’s payroll he is on?


It IS after all, the CBC. 'Nuff said.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

WRT my off-the-cuff remark about 99% of scientists accepting AGW



Macfury said:


> Sorry old chap, the numbers nowhere near favour your position here.


It seems you were right, it's only 97.7% of qualified scientists. Mea culpa.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

chasMac said:


> Norman Lalanne did indeed die young by ignoring his brother's advice, dying at the age of 97.


But dammit, he could-a-been a hundred!


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

I think the problem here is that people often erroneously conflate scientific process with self-proclaimed "scientists". We can all learn to be more effective if we applied the former. Scientists are like everyone else and if they need to fall back on that moniker, their argument is usually weakened. Some are an asset to their profession, some are a$$es. Science is a philosophy and should not be contaminated by prejudice. Everyone has an opinion. How much weight one gives to a particular opinion should depend on the merits and evidence upon which their opinion is based - not on it's volume.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------

