It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Cigarette scientist say smoking is safe. Government scientist say climate change

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2016 @ 08:12 AM
link   
When big tobacco says smoking is safe so give big tobacco your money. Did you believe it?

Yet

When big government says, climate change is dangerous, give us your money. Do you believe it?

I thin it's common knowledge that the Clintins are the mist corrupt politicians of our time. Do you really think they would have picked Al Gore as a VP if he was a choir boy?




posted on May, 14 2016 @ 08:26 AM
link   
So this thread is about the dangers of smoking, climate change, the Clinton's corruption, poor old All Gore and where to make charitable donations?. Pick one and we can discuss. This, ...is just noisey.
edit on 5142016 by Sillyolme because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 08:27 AM
link   
Your comparison would have been better if you used vaccines and climate change.

Cigarette "scientists" are a very small minority.



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 08:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
Your comparison would have been better if you used vaccines and climate change.

Cigarette "scientists" are a very small minority.

just like the scientists that deny climate change



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 08:35 AM
link   
a reply to: thinline

That hurt my head to read.



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 09:07 AM
link   
a reply to: thinline

No scientist anywhere in the world said that smoking was "safe". What the tobacco company said was that smoking has its risks and its benefits. Like everything else that people do in the world.

The fact that AGW supporters twist the words of tobacco companies and try to compare the people who don't believe in climate change to a twisted version of what tobacco companies said tells me that AGW supporters do not have the scientific evidence to refute the climate change deniers.

This is marketing. Straight up Madison Avenue hype. They tried to compare climate change deniers to holocaust deniers first as a marketing ploy to "sell" the AGW theory but it didn't go over too well so they switched to tobacco companies.

Now they are trying to use RICO laws (set up to combat crime gangs) to shut climate deniers up.

When you have to work that hard and corruptly twist the laws to convince the public of something - then the chances are very very very good that it was all a lie in the first place.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 10:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: thinline
When big tobacco says smoking is safe so give big tobacco your money. Did you believe it?

Yet

When big government says, climate change is dangerous, give us your money. Do you believe it?

I thin it's common knowledge that the Clintins are the mist corrupt politicians of our time. Do you really think they would have picked Al Gore as a VP if he was a choir boy?

Government-sponsored scientists also say lava is dangerous. Would you hop on flowing lava?

Which big government is wanting our money for climate change?
I haven't seen it yet. Private companies on the other hand, like my web host that charges a bunch of money for wind power on top of monthly fees...

Common knowledge isn't necessarily accurate.



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 10:03 AM
link   
Since the change on attitude of smoking...
The banning of smoking in public places...

Climate change is out of control!!

Coincidence? Hell No! We should all start smoking again.




posted on May, 14 2016 @ 10:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Greven

Even a broken clock is right at least twice per day

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 10:45 AM
link   
So wait, does this mean I don't need to quit smoking after all?? Cause I would sure like one...



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 10:47 AM
link   
Manbearpig wants what you're smoking.




posted on May, 14 2016 @ 11:08 AM
link   
Gee, I wonder why nobody likes to make new topics around here anymore.

Can't even get a discussion started before people started berating the OPs posting skills.

edit on 14-5-2016 by Chickensalad because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 11:11 AM
link   
F scientists. And F the governments. And F me for having to listen to their lies. Now where is my tax return



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 11:15 AM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

One thing that should be noted about people comparing climate change deniers to the tobacco companies is that among the most vocal of the climate change denying scientists are the very same people that downplayed the harms of smoking.

Check out Merchants of Doubt, either the book or the documentary. It goes into detail about those specific people.



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 12:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Roxxo

And you should read Velvet Glove/Iron Fist.

The current status of affairs is that no one can debate smoking/tobacco. No one is allowed to speak if they are not parroting the party line. No debate, no criticism, no discussion...Its a global truth like the sun always rises in the East.

One side is controlling "Truth" and "Truth" is whatever they say it is.

Did it work for marijuana? What was that the government said...smoking marijuanna turns you into a murderous zombie?
Put people in jail for possession of even just 1 seed of marijuana, didn't they?
They were telling the "Truth" right. This is your brain on drugs. Any evidence to the contrary is a LIE, right? Its a global truth like the sun always rises in the East.

Did it work for dietary fats? What was that the government said...cut down on dietary fats and we will win the war on heart disease and everyone will live forever. Any evidence to the contrary is a LIE, right? Billions spent reformulating food to sell low fat versions. Pigs bred so that the meat is so dry its barely edible. People watching every mouthful for fear of bad fats. No discussion, no debate, no questioning the dogma. Any evidence to the contrary is a LIE, right. Its global TRUTH like the sun always rises in the East.

Except no fats are harmless, sugar is toxic, marijuana has benefits and risks

WOW - its amazing how malleable TRUTH is!!!!


And those who will not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 12:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Roxxo

Exactly! Some of the same "Scientists" (I put this in quotes, because real scientists make conclusions from evidence, while these guys tried to find evidence to fit a conclusion) that denied cigarettes were addicting, and that they weren't really "that" dangerous, are the same ones that are saying climate change is bunk. They've made careers out of obfuscating facts and continuing controversies for companies that don't want the status quo to change.


OP, You know it's not "The government" that's saying man-made climate change is real, it's the scientific community at large. You know who's saying it's not real? Corporations and the oil industry.



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 12:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Slanter

Slanter

These are the facts. The only way in which cigarettes are "addicting" is through a change in the definition of the word addicting that was made by the Surgeon General C. Everett Koop in 1988.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

The word "addition" is an english word whose definition as changed from time to time to support policies of the government.




To sum up, “addiction” or “dependence” are malleable concepts situated in specific social, political, and scientific contexts, but the parties involved in litigation spoke more as if they were universal scientific truths to be unveiled or denied. At the same time, expert witnesses for each side used different definitions. Experts appearing for the defendants favored the 1964 SGAC report's conclusion that tobacco smoking was a habituation rather than an addiction, a definition taken from the WHO's 1957 report, which in turn was influenced by concerns about international drug control policy, not just “scientific” inquiry. Despite the alternative understandings of addiction in scientific currency at the time, the use of the WHO definitions was largely encouraged by Maurice Seevers, who had links with the tobacco industry. Whether or not the 1964 SGAC report's conclusion that tobacco was habit-forming rather than addictive was the result of the tobacco industry's influence is difficult to determine. The plaintiffs’ experts used the 1988 surgeon general's report definition, which was based on criteria from the American Psychiatric Association, the National Institute for Drug Abuse, and the revised 1964 WHO definition. Clearly, to the scientist, whether or not tobacco is addictive depends on the definition used and how it is applied. Although using different definitions, all the expert witnesses argued from a positivist framework and used the same source as an authority: the US surgeon general.


In order to include cigarettes as "addictive", the word addictive became so broad that everything is now addictive. Sex, shopping, exercise, cheese etc.

I will say only that if everything "addictive", then, in fact, nothing is addictive.

As a matter of practical fact, anything, any substance, any activity that stimulates feelings of pleasure in human beings and causes the release of seratonin in the brain is now ADDICTIVE. So everyone is an addict because everyone has something that gives them pleasure.


Fifty million ammericans quit smoking, cold turkey, with no help from Big Pharma or the government, simply because they were worried about the health risks of smoking. This occurred from the 1960 and into the 1970s. These "addicts" quit smoking the same way that people may decide to quit drinking coffee or tea to avoid the health effects of caffeine.

So if the medical definition of addiction can become so broad and if language can be changed at will, then the TRUTH is whateever you decide it should be.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 12:49 PM
link   
........This post just gave me cancer....

I really dont understand what the title means, and the body of the post doesnt have much direction

want to clarify more?



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 12:59 PM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

The government has been comparing people who question anything in regard to the theory that emissions of CO2 from the human activity of burning fossil fuels are the same as the people who question that smoking is as risky as the government says.

Its a PR campaign to get critics to shut up.

It started as comparing global warming deniers as the same as holocaust deniers but that didn't go over very well so they switched the comparison to tobacco companies.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks




No scientist anywhere in the world said that smoking was "safe".


Oh yeah..you reckon?



Plenty did...not so much after the cancer and heart disease lawsuits came a rollin' in by the lorry load.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join