Global warming: Man-made or Natural
-
It makes you a Dem with fine critical thinking skills !
I hope our young trees in our orchard do well next spring.
McIntosh apples are excellent. But the ancient orchard out in our woods?
Big banana kind of apples, and some other heirlooms that taste excellent,
cept for the sour cooking apples, which are terrific after they are cooked and sweetened.
I wish I knew why Dad's big transparent apple tree only has apples every other year.
I've tried to research it, to no avail.
Need about 3 more apple trees, preferably semi-dwarf, but hopefully more like 3-4 years old, if I can find em...
-
Cal Singer is only new to maybe some on this board. I dont know if he is to you but evidently you feel you hit the homerun because of his credentials.
As a interesting note Singer also does not believe that second hand smoke can cause lung cancer........ O and he also believer that is no significant loss to the Ozone layer.... He must have missed all the Cancer statistics and the HUGE satellite images of the Ozone hole growing over Australia.
The Heartland institure released and published a document Nature, Not Human Activity Rules the Climate which Mr Singer was the general editor and is the copyright owner.
We all know the Heartland insitute is a financiially funded by oil and gas along with utility companies and the right wing.
Singer was accused of fabricating facts by Scientists from Nasa/Stanford and Princeton.
Singer also has financial links with tobacco and oil grants. He has not published any actual peer reviewed studies to bolster his positions. He just lectures and speaks. Anyone can make any claim they want it is a matter of what sort of data they can use to further there argument.
Dr Singer has been well documented on his links with Tobacco and OIl along with Right wing PR think tanks. Those lobbying groups always find some impressive credentials to use as confusing protagonists but never actually release peer reviewed studies. Its a common tactic.
He is linked to the independent insitute, American council of science and health, frontiers of freedom, the marshall institure, national center for policy analysis etc. All funded by large drug, oil, industrialists, utilities, tobacco etc.
He has a impressive resume which he has used to get paid by various organizations who parade his resume and link his name but produce no data or studies, it just looks impressive but without any meat.
It was a nice attempt Cal.
-
Oh, but he has the education, apparently that's all that matters.
I'm good.
Man made global warming is a crock - the global warming occured BEFORE there were people.I wonder how much of a carbon footprint the dinasaurs made with methane.
The article was outstanding - it agreed with me !
-
crock....yes....
its only to incite a carbon tax.....
typical lib....attack the man, not the material.
typical lib....attack the man, not the material.
As a interesting note Singer also does not believe that second hand smoke can cause lung cancer........ O and he also believer that is no significant loss to the Ozone layer.... He must have missed all the Cancer statistics and the HUGE satellite images of the Ozone hole growing over Australia.
This looks like material to me.
-
so osusev posts some shit and thats material?
i can make claims too....
small words like "significant" and "correlation" must not be in you vocabs, because i smell and see bullshit.
accused? proven? global warming activists have been making up facts this entire time.....just see the IPCC. they knowingly falsify their reports as well, so then who's right?
-
<H2 class=storyheadline>Perhaps some explanation is in order:
********************************
Guest opinion: Jeffrey Singer -- It's a secondhand smoke screen </H2>Tucson, Arizona | Published: 11.03.2006Some public policy activists engage in "advocacy science," manipulating data to create the appearance of a scientific basis for the policies they advocate. Their allies in the scientific community attempt to make the findings of their research fit a predetermined conclusion.
Many public-policy debates have become immersed in advocacy science. Whether it's global warming, endangered species or silicone breast implants, either side of the debate has its own cadre of advocacy scientists to bolster its arguments. This makes it difficult for the discerning citizen to separate truth from half-truth. And when a particular viewpoint is politically correct, journalists tend to be less skeptical of the scientific claims supporting it.
A case in point is the argument against secondhand smoke.
In 1993, the Environmental Protection Agency deemed secondhand smoke a cancer risk. But in 1998, a U.S. District Court ruling nullified the EPA report. It turns out the EPA cherry-picked its data and manipulated scientific procedure and scientific norms to rationalize the agency's predetermined position.
When asked by reporters for a response, an EPA spokesperson said the EPA had acted for a worthy cause. But lying is never acceptable, even for a worthy cause. To this day we have heard scant mention of this incident in the press. Nor has there been much mention of the May 2003 British Medical Journal report by UCLA School of Public Health researchers Enstrom and Kabat, whose research "did not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco-related mortality." It concluded, "The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary artery disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed."
Nor has the press mentioned that the latest U.S. Surgeon General's report, based on a review of existing literature, stated, "Although the data are sparse on specific elements linking secondhand-smoke exposure and tumor induction in humans via exposure to tobacco smoke carcinogens, substantial data from active smokers support this framework of biological steps towards cancer."
The fact is, either side in this debate can bring out its team of scientists to shoot holes in the other's data and bolster its own case. I'd like to get away from this and resort to common sense.
It is undisputed that risk of lung cancer and other smoking-related diseases is directly related to the amount of cigarettes smoked per year and the amount of years one smokes. The more smoke inhaled into the lungs, and the longer the sustained period of time this continues, the greater the risk. When it comes to lung cancer, there is a roughly 20-year lag time between the onset of smoking and the development of lung cancer.
Therefore, I reason, if high doses of smoke must be inhaled over a sustained period of several years to increase the risk of lung cancer, then occasional, partially inhaled smoke, say from a distant table in a restaurant, cannot possibly be considered a major health risk.
Thankfully, our political system is not a "scientocracy." Otherwise, we would have no freedom to make any choices other than those scientists deem good for us. When it comes to public policy, our constitutionally guaranteed rights should have final say in any debate.
Restaurants, bars, nightclubs, and offices are all privately owned entities whose owners seek to do business with the public. As such, the owners have the right to decide whether they want to allow or prohibit smoking on their premises. Naturally, the profit motive will make them strongly take their customers' desires into consideration. And no potential customer is forced to patronize any particular business.
Any law that prohibits smoking in privately owned places is a violation of the property rights of the owner. Regardless of any potential risk associated with secondhand smoke, the only place the public has a right to ban smoking is in a place the public owns.
It is a sad irony that many of the same people who rightly see the abuses of eminent domain laws by state and local governments as an assault on our property rights are happy to see their consistency go up in smoke when the subject turns to secondhand smoke.
As a doctor, I am very concerned about the harmful effects of tobacco. I counsel my patients to stay away from cigarettes. But as much as I care about their health, I respect their rights as adults to make their own personal choices. A statewide ban on smoking in privately owned places would continue the erosion of liberty that threatens the foundations on which our nation is based.
Jeffrey A. Singer is a Phoenix-area surgeon who writes and lectures on regional and national public policy. He is a Goldwater Institute board member and contributor to Arizona Medicine, the journal of the Arizona Medical Association.
-
Have I recently mentioned my theory that most liberals cherry pick their info, because they do not think
critically, they react and assert EMOTIONALLY?
They are inherently biased toward proving their emotionally tied into stances.
-
CAl Dr Singer gets paid by Oil, drug, utlity and other thru right wing pr organizations. He gets paid because of his resume. Post a peer reviewed study Singer has published in the last 20 years that prove his claims.
You cant because he has not. I dont mind having people who are accomplished like he is having a different opinion. He used his resume to get paid which again is not a problem. That does not translate into evidence.
Second hand smoke, and ozone depletion were examples of who he was paid by to lecture and speak for a counter to studies and data. NOTICE NO published peer reviewed studies or data just opinions backed by his resume.
-
Cal Singer is only new to maybe some on this board. I dont know if he is to you but evidently you feel you hit the homerun because of his credentials.
As a interesting note Singer also does not believe that second hand smoke can cause lung cancer........ O and he also believer that is no significant loss to the Ozone layer.... He must have missed all the Cancer statistics and the HUGE satellite images of the Ozone hole growing over Australia.
The Heartland institure released and published a document Nature, Not Human Activity Rules the Climate which Mr Singer was the general editor and is the copyright owner.
We all know the Heartland insitute is a financiially funded by oil and gas along with utility companies and the right wing.
Singer was accused of fabricating facts by Scientists from Nasa/Stanford and Princeton.
Singer also has financial links with tobacco and oil grants. He has not published any actual peer reviewed studies to bolster his positions. He just lectures and speaks. Anyone can make any claim they want it is a matter of what sort of data they can use to further there argument.
Dr Singer has been well documented on his links with Tobacco and OIl along with Right wing PR think tanks. Those lobbying groups always find some impressive credentials to use as confusing protagonists but never actually release peer reviewed studies. Its a common tactic.
He is linked to the independent insitute, American council of science and health, frontiers of freedom, the marshall institure, national center for policy analysis etc. All funded by large drug, oil, industrialists, utilities, tobacco etc.
He has a impressive resume which he has used to get paid by various organizations who parade his resume and link his name but produce no data or studies, it just looks impressive but without any meat.
It was a nice attempt Cal.
Cal Singer is only new to maybe some on this board. I dont know if he is to you but evidently you feel you hit the homerun because of his credentials.
As a interesting note Singer also does not believe that second hand smoke can cause lung cancer........ O and he also believer that is no significant loss to the Ozone layer.... He must have missed all the Cancer statistics and the HUGE satellite images of the Ozone hole growing over Australia.
Technically, smoking and second hand smoke has never been proven to cause cancer. It has been proven to increase the risk of cancer. Everyone has the gene for cancer. Smoking and second hand smoke has only been shown at times to activate that gene.
As to the ozone, I gues you missed this being debunked years ago. It was found that they were wrong and the hole in the ozone grows and shrinks regularly.
-
CAl Dr Singer gets paid by Oil, drug, utlity and other thru right wing pr organizations. He gets paid because of his resume. Post a peer reviewed study Singer has published in the last 20 years that prove his claims.
You cant because he has not. I dont mind having people who are accomplished like he is having a different opinion. He used his resume to get paid which again is not a problem. That does not translate into evidence.
Second hand smoke, and ozone depletion were examples of who he was paid by to lecture and speak for a counter to studies and data. NOTICE NO published peer reviewed studies or data just opinions backed by his resume.
-
In 1993, the Environmental Protection Agency deemed secondhand smoke a cancer risk.
But in 1998, a U.S. District Court ruling nullified the EPA report. It turns out the EPA cherry-picked its data and manipulated scientific procedure and scientific norms to rationalize the agency's predetermined position.
*************************************************
It's the U.S. District Court that ruled that the EPA report was invalid, - they cherry picked their information to say what they wanted it to say.
I don't like second hand smoke. But peer review seems too much a political control of differering opinions to me.
I thought it was the education that decreed legitmacy of a stance.
Apparently, it's only a valid stance,.... if it agrees with popular opinion. His education is beyond dissing.
It's always something.
Man made global warming is a crock.
Except for the destruction of bijillions of acres of virgin rainforest. And no man made goober warning enthusiasts want to talk about that.
-
cal lets go ahead for the sake of argument say that man does not contributre enough to alter the earths weather in any meaningful way.
Whats the harm in moving away from oil (smog is not good for humans), whats the harm in learning to live within a sustainable pattern? Living within reasonable sustainable means is something we need to do and dont. Easter island is not something I would like to see happen to the entire earth. Overuse/improper non sustainable use of our envirement is not a good idea regardless of where you fall on the science.
I did not miss anything on cfc's and the ozone along with all major chemical companies in the world have acknowledged that cfc's are directly related to ozone damage.
You really are not going to try to defend second hand smoke and health hazards are you to try to defend your posts obvious money connections?
-
mz. said:
I'm not sure a guy like cal sees the HUGE difference between a peer-reviewed study and something published in People.mz the pussy is such an intelligent, articulate FAG.
-
Absolutely nothing wrong with working to eliminate pollution in our environment.
Coal gives us ... was it 1/3 or 1/2 of our U.S. electricity?
The work to have a better source of energy is well worth it.
But to diss coal prematurely, as in, decades prematurely, in the least, doesn't make sense to me.
I'm all for bettering our environment.
but with commen sense, and at least, cost-effectively. But it's two different issues,
man made global warming is a crock, ... of course we should work to develop better sources
of energy that are healthier for us in the long run.
-
Cal,
Interesting article.
It most certainly is a combination of the two or man made and natural climate change... not one or the other.
To say that pumping megatons of C02 intot the environment without thinking it has a detrimental effect is extremely short sighted, just because we don't have a formula saying X amount of C02 produces and X amount increase in earth's temperature
Sustainability is key when discussing energy alternatives, and current practices are unsustainable.
We DO need to develop alternatives now, because the R&D behind it will take long periods of time, as will implementation of any accessible alternative energy source.
The other issue is subsidies, and alternative energy will be required to be subsidized....until full scale implementation, why? because it goes beyond cost effectiveness, it's about sustainability. There is many macro economic issues into why alternative energy sources can not be economically attractive, including the fact it costs around 2-10 dollars to produce a barrel of oil.
Until fusion is harnassed nothing will be cost effective vs. oil
-
Thanks, Lam !
It's true about coal furnishing a HUGE amount of our electricity in our U.s.
To rail against coal, lean on that industry because of alleged man-made global warming,
will turn people to wood burner stoves.
Even old ones are selling like hotcakes at auctions.
Which, doesn't help us pollution wise, because that's less and less trees, which is exactly
what we DON'T need.
But developing new sources of energy is extremely important. I just don't want to see
war declared on our current sources just because of what I see, that being man made global warming
as a rally cry whose ulterior motive is political and economic power.
-
The other issue is subsidies, and alternative energy will be required to be subsidized....until full scale implementation, why? because it goes beyond cost effectiveness, it's about sustainability. There is many macro economic issues into why alternative energy sources can not be economically attractive, including the fact it costs around 2-10 dollars to produce a barrel of oil. Lam
***********************************************************
This is a very excellent point ! Never thought of it...
-
Ya, personally I don't agree with how the politicians are attacking the global warming issue. How the true scientists attack the warming issue and how the politicians do are two seperate things. Carbon credits is nothing but a money grab and does not solve anything...It's pretty simple to see that if a carbon tax comes into effect, companies are going to increase the cost of goods by the amount of the carbon tax, and it comes back to the end user.. in the ultimate end you me and the neighbor next door.
The cost of the tax can't be so extreme that it runs people out of business..and if it is it will be a detriment to our economy which is already in recession, but cost of implementation of a "green system" goes way beyond capital budgets of anyone but the largest firms.
Most of the public seems to think coal is bad, oil sands are bad, windpower/solar is good. I'll agree from an environmental propective but reality is everyone doesn't want to pay more and you can't run the country off windpower and solar. The economy is the base of which the first world is operated by..If we don't increase our bottom line we are not doing enough to survive in our society.
I personally have yet to see a solar / wind power alternative that is economically feasible for a company to implement..(3 year payback,10+% ROR) and have done a couple feasibility estimates both for our home residence and on site.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login