Oh About Those 32,000 "Leading Scientists" Against Global Climate Change.

page: 10
31
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Deny Arrogance
 


Ok so great - so it's all a scam so Al Gore can make money for his secret oil interests by making them obsolete...makes sense...yeeeah.




posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stewie
It all ties together, but you have to use your head.


Then it all comes undone, but you have to really use your head:

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by daddymax
 


LOL so now you're gonna attack me based on Star Wars? That's the best strawman I've seen yet.

And as for the MYTH that all the planets are warming up - I don't need you to look anything up for me thanks. I've already done my homework - something maybe you should try as well (for the sake of at least practicing what you preach).

The propaganda over the "whole solar system" warming is based on select articles such as these:

Global Warming on Pluto Puzzles Scientists

MIT researcher finds evidence of global warming on Neptune's largest moon

One problem though - in all the euphoric giggling over exposing Al Gore's big bad fraud, global warming deniers tend to forget little details...like actually reading the article instead of just the headline.

If any of you had bothered to actually open one up you would see amazing supplementary information like:


The increasing temperatures are more likely explained by two simple facts: Pluto's highly elliptical orbit significantly changes the planet's distance from the Sun during its long "year," which lasts 248 Earth years; and unlike most of the planets, Pluto's axis is nearly in line with the orbital plane, tipped 122 degrees. Earth's axis is tilted 23.5 degrees.

Though Pluto was closest to the Sun in 1989, a warming trend 13 years later does not surprise David Tholen, a University of Hawaii astronomer involved in the discovery.

"It takes time for materials to warm up and cool off, which is why the hottest part of the day on Earth is usually around 2 or 3 p.m. rather than local noon," Tholen said. "This warming trend on Pluto could easily last for another 13 years."


or


The moon is approaching an extreme southern summer, a season that occurs every few hundred years. During this special time, the moon's southern hemisphere receives more direct sunlight. The equivalent on Earth would be having the sun directly overhead at noon north of Lake Superior during a northern summer.



Beyond that we have evidence maybe 3 or 4 other planetary bodies in our solar system are heating up (out of the 100 or so that exist). And as melatonin has already shown you there is also simultaneous evidence other planets are cooling down. They all have mostly mundane explanations for either/or - except in my opinion one:

In case you want to bring up Mars - I can show you how warming on Mars provides implicit evidence of warming on Earth AND that the warming here is in fact man-made.

All you have to do is ask - but I doubt you would bother actually looking for anything that might shatter your I don't have to take responsibility for my actions, it's all Al Gore's fault view.



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 05:01 PM
link   
I did not even look at video!
When a post starts off with name calling it has already failed!



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
reply to post by mc_squared
 


I am calm.

I'm sick of the BS.

I didn't cherry pick - I took a complete set of data, and chose locations at random. After the 7th site of seeing the same general trend I was getting bored. It was only confirming what I already thought.

I'm not out to convince others. Bash away.

[edit on 12-1-2010 by mirageofdeceit]


Yeah well I'm not here to bash others, just add some perspective that is sorely lacking.

But it's impossible because it's like trying to walk into a creationist forum with some fossils.

They all start calling you brainwashed and denouncing science and throwing stuff from the bible at you as if it's fact. The worst part is the more you make sense the more angry and defensive they get. Seriously - if you don't believe me, take a walk back through this thread, have a look at all the parallels and then come back and tell me I'm wrong.

Anyway, if you're gonna make a statement like "I'm sick of the BS" I really think you should triple-check to make sure you're not being hypocritical.

And yeah - sorry to tell you, but if you're only considering data over one decade - you ARE cherry picking. Did you watch the video I linked? Of course not. If you had at least watched the part starting at 4:35 you would've seen it's like they were speaking directly to you.



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox

Originally posted by bigyin
Man has no effect on nature.


And the award for most ignorant and uninformed statement made on ATS outside a religion-based thread goes toooooo...



Before you go making a complete fool of yourself try reading some unbiased opinion such as this very recent example for which I'm indebted to Rense for bringing to my attention

Hole in the AGWzone Layer



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by mc_squared
And yeah - sorry to tell you, but if you're only considering data over one decade - you ARE cherry picking.

How very ironic. How large is the time period you are using to come to the conclusion that man made global warming is real/happening?

P.S. if a scientist says the earth is warming due to man's activities, yet the data they are using shows a cooling trend for the last decade, that is called a lie.
Perhaps Mirageofdeceit could post the data he obtained and others could verify the claim and use as many locations as they desire.



posted on Mar, 5 2010 @ 04:13 AM
link   
About a week ago my son made a remark well worth mentioning, CO2 is slightly less than %0.004 of the atmosphere, and that amount is supposed to
be heating the planet, Mars atmosphere is %75.00 CO2, so why isn't Mars boiling right now?



posted on Mar, 5 2010 @ 05:04 AM
link   
Here is a thought for you guys. If it was indeed warming because of man. TPTB wouldn't make a policy to stop it by making the lower classes use less energy while the higher ones would still get to use as much as possible. That by definition is there greatest thought. Cap and Trade. Call me when it actually is an emergency and they do what every emergency calls for....rationing. You guys are being suckered into the latest cult.



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 12:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Marid Audran
recent research shows that the planet is doing a pretty fair job of regulating the atmospheric carbon. I kind of think that the MMGW is all a big scam. ...

www.sciencedaily.com...


This is not reason to think that everything is just a scam. 2007 IPCC report said about statistically insignificant trend:

"The 2007 IPCC verdict on the airborne fraction was "There is yet no statistically significant trend in the CO2 growth rate since 1958 .... This 'airborne fraction' has shown little variation over this period." (IPCC AR4)"

www.skepticalscience.com...


[edit on 13-4-2010 by sergejsh]



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by pikestaff
About a week ago my son made a remark well worth mentioning, CO2 is slightly less than %0.004 of the atmosphere, and that amount is supposed to
be heating the planet

As much as I understand not only CO2 heating the planet.

Here is info about gases: en.wikipedia.org...


Mars atmosphere is %75.00 CO2, so why isn't Mars boiling right now?

Maybe article in Wikipedia explains that?

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigyin
unbiased opinion such as this very recent example for which I'm indebted to Rense for bringing to my attention

Hole in the AGWzone Layer


This is too big article to comment on everything what is there. What are the most convincing arguments you found there?



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 04:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by sergejsh

Originally posted by bigyin
unbiased opinion such as this very recent example for which I'm indebted to Rense for bringing to my attention

Hole in the AGWzone Layer


This is too big article to comment on everything what is there. What are the most convincing arguments you found there?



Personally I didn't think the article was so big. It takes me a few mins to read it.

However the main thrust is that global temperatures have been cycling up and down since forever, which shows that human activity is not required to cause temperature change. We also know that global temp has in the past been much higher than it is now .... so whats new ?



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 05:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
Reply to post by AllexxisF1
 


Might wish to deny the ignorance inherent in your own statement sir or ma'am. The temps we are seeing down here especially in Florida is NOT normal or indicative of warming, unless you can come up for with a convoluted excuse as to why it's getting so cold this close to the EQUATOR that somehow affirms MMGW. But then again your obviously not here for reasoned discusion so much as preaching rhetoric and self glorifying riticule against those who disagree with the party lines.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 




Whatever you do, DO NOT LOOK INTO THE JETSTREAM.

Even more importantly, do not pay attention to the fact that while it is cold in one part of the planet, it is quite hot in another and Florida does not really represent the entire globe.

Interesting how Americans seem to think that America being cold means the Earth is cold.

Stay ignorant!



posted on Nov, 12 2010 @ 10:42 AM
link   
This video is completely discredited,

Rebuttal to "Crock of the Week - 32000 Scientists"

Peter Sinclair AKA "Greenman" a cartoonist and Al Gore disciple has been hard at work creating YouTube videos that smear skeptics and their arguments. The following is a complete rebuttal to his "Crock of the Week - 3200 Scientists" video challenging the petition of 31,486 scientists who reject global warming alarm.


1. Sinclair claims the late Dr. Frederick Seitz was a distinguished scientist who somehow lost all credibility when his work involved the private sector. As if working with the private sector automatically discredits you on any issue. The truth is Dr. Seitz was always a reputable scientist. His credentials are impeccable,

Frederick Seitz, A.B. Mathematics, Stanford University (1932), Ph.D. Physics, Princeton University (1934), Proctor Fellow, Princeton University (1934–1935), Instructor in Physics, University of Rochester (1935–1936), Assistant Professor of Physics, University of Rochester (1936–1937), Research Physicist, General Electric Company (1937–1939), Assistant Professor of Physics, University of Pennsylvania (1939–1941), Associate Professor of Physics, University of Pennsylvania (1941-1942), Professor of Physics, Carnegie Institute of Technology (1942-1949), Research Professor of Physics, University of Illinois (1949-1965), Chairman, American Institute of Physics (1954-1960), President Emeritus, American Physical Society (1961), President Emeritus, National Academy of Sciences (1962-1969), Graduate College Dean, University of Illinois (1964-1965), President Emeritus, Rockefeller University (1968-1978), Franklin Medal (1965), American Institute of Physics Compton Medal (1970), National Medal of Science (1973), (Died: March 2, 2008)

His obvious credibility is likely why alarmists feel the need to desperately try and smear him. It is clear they cannot have someone with Dr. Seitz's impeccable credentials doubting their call for global warming alarm.


2. Sinclair attempts to smear Dr. Seitz about his involvement with the tobacco industry. The truth is much different,

"To find out if the startling claim was true -- that Seitz "directed a 45M tobacco industry effort to hide health impacts of smoking" -- I called him at his apartment in Manhattan. Unless there is more to the story, the accusation appears to be a willful distortion, if not an outright lie.

"That's ridiculous, completely wrong," Seitz told me. "The money was all spent on basic science, medical science," he said.

According to Seitz, the CEO of RJ Reynolds -- the tobacco company -- was on the board of Rockefeller University while Seitz was a full-time employee there. "He was not a scientist," Seitz said of the executive, but he believed in supporting the University's dedication to basic research -- in a little over a century, Rockefeller University has had 23 Nobel Prize winners affiliated with it, in fields of medicine and chemistry. RJ Reynolds allocated $5 million a year to Seitz to direct basic research.

To figure out how to distribute the money, Seitz says he assembled some top folks in different fields of scientific research -- such as James Shannon, the director of the National Institutes of Health for 13 years, and Maclyn McCarty, the legendary geneticist -- to help direct the funds.

What kind of research did they support? Seitz mentioned the work of Stanley Prusiner, who won the Nobel prize for his research into prions (Prusiner even thanks Seitz and RJ Reynolds in his Nobel Prize acceptance speech which you can read here).

When I asked Seitz if he ever spent money to try to debunk a link between smoking and ill-health, he said no. When I asked him if he himself had ever denied a link between smoking and cancer, Seitz (who, remember, is almost 100 years old) again said no and told me "my father was a 19th century man, and even he told me from when I was young that there was a connection between smoking and cancer" and that "we often talked about the hazards of smoking." In other words, Seitz was aware of the ill-effects of smoking for a very long time, and has never tried to deny that.
"


3. Sinclair ironically uses a memo from a tobacco industry executive to try and discredit Dr. Seitz as incompetent. Apparently what the tobacco industry says is only truthful when it attacks a scientist Sinclair disagrees with. So which is it Sinclair, are we supposed to believe the tobacco industry or not?


4. Sinclair lies that Dr. Seitz's 1996 editorial in the Wall Street Journal about the IPCC deleting key sections from the final report is not true. The fact is Ben Santer who was the IPCC lead author in question recently admitted to deleting information from the final report.


5. Sinclair attempts to discredit the creator of the Oregon petition, Dr. Arthur B. Robinson for being an independent scientist who advocates for homeschooling and suggests nuclear war is survivable, a position also held by Manhattan Project member and developer of the hydrogen bomb, Nobel Prize winner Dr. Edward Teller. The irony is Dr. Robinson's "homeschooled" children got accepted into colleges such as MIT, Caltech, Iowa State University and Southern Oregon University. With his son Noah E. Robinson receiving his Ph.D. in Chemistry from the California Institute of Technology. Dr. Robinson himself is a credentialed scientist,

Arthur B. Robinson, B.S. Chemistry, Caltech (1963), Ph.D. BioChemistry, University of California, San Diego (1968), Assistant Professor of Chemistry, University of California, San Diego (1968-1972), Founder, Linus Pauling Institute of Science and Medicine (1973), Research Scientist, Linus Pauling Institute of Science and Medicine (1973-1978), President and Research Scientist, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (1981-Present)


6. Sinclair lies that Dr. Seitz's letter included with the Petition was intended to represent the position of the National Academy of Sciences, when it states no such thing. The only reference to the National Academy of Sciences is Dr. Seitz being a past president. Apparently Dr. Seitz is not allowed to use his actual credentials when signing a letter,

Frederick Seitz, A.B. Mathematics, Stanford University (1932), Ph.D. Physics, Princeton University (1934), Proctor Fellow, Princeton University (1934–1935), Instructor in Physics, University of Rochester (1935–1936), Assistant Professor of Physics, University of Rochester (1936–1937), Research Physicist, General Electric Company (1937–1939), Assistant Professor of Physics, University of Pennsylvania (1939–1941), Associate Professor of Physics, University of Pennsylvania (1941-1942), Professor of Physics, Carnegie Institute of Technology (1942-1949), Research Professor of Physics, University of Illinois (1949-1965), Chairman, American Institute of Physics (1954-1960), President Emeritus, American Physical Society (1961), President Emeritus, National Academy of Sciences (1962-1969), Graduate College Dean, University of Illinois (1964-1965), President Emeritus, Rockefeller University (1968-1978), Franklin Medal (1965), American Institute of Physics Compton Medal (1970), National Medal of Science (1973)


7. Sinclair lies that the original version of the petition's included scientific paper "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" which explicitly said "Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine" and "The Marshall Institute" (ironically highlighted by Sinclair) was intended to look like it was from the NAS. This claim was refuted by Dr. Robinson,

"Robinson admits it is no coincidence that the article, which he designed on his computer, looks like one published by the academy. 'I used the Proceedings as a model.' he says, 'but only to put the information in a format that scientists like to read, not to fool people into thinking it is from a journal."

"The Malakoff Science article also includes a picture of the first page of our 8-page article. The photo clearly shows no journal name, no submission date, no submitting scientist (required by the Proceedings), and "January 1998'' printed in a format never used by a journal. The article is also twice as long as permitted in the Proceedings (in which I have published several papers) and has other textual and format differences that I introduced to make it easier to read. It actually never occurred to me that this format complaint would be made - probably because I actually expected more.
"

further refutation by Dr. Robinson,

"The review article sent with the petition could not possibly have been mistaken for a PNAS reprint. I have published many research papers in PNAS. I am very familiar with reprint formats.

The PNAS claim originated because Frederick Seitz - past president of the National Academy and past president of Rockefeller University signed a letter that was circulated with the petition. (Dr. Seitz, like everyone else who has actively opposed the "enviro warmers" has been smeared with many false claims.) Also, the first signers of the petition were several rather famous members of the National Academy.
"

The paper in question was later peer-reviewed and published,

Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 13, Number 2, pp. 149–164, October 1999)
- Willie H. Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas, Arthur B. Robinson, Zachary W. Robinson



8. Sinclair lies that various fake names were submitted to the petition. This claim was refuted by Dr. Robinson,

"Only one false name has ever appeared on the petition. It was put there by Ozone Action (now Greenpeace USA) and removed immediately thereafter. ...No one has been listed who did not actually sign - except the Ozone Action signature, which they sent with false credentials, a false address, and a false signature."

The other names Sinclair mentions are legitimate scientists,

"In a group of more than 30,000 people, there are many individuals with names similar or identical to other signatories, or to non-signatories – real or fictional. Opponents of the petition project sometimes use this statistical fact in efforts to discredit the project. For examples, Perry Mason and Michael Fox are scientists who have signed the petition – who happen also to have names identical to fictional or real non-scientists."


9. Sinclair lies that only 39 scientists on the petition claim to be "climate scientists". What Sinclair apparently does not know is that very few scientists have an actual degree in climatology and the petition is simply counting the number of degrees each scientist has. Climate science is a field that includes scientists with varied credentials not explicitly "climatology". Some of the most prominent alarmist scientists do not have a degree in climatology,

Gavin Schmidt, Ph.D. Applied Mathematics (NASA GISS, RealClimate)
James Hansen, Ph.D. Physics (NASA GISS)
James Lovelock, Ph.D. Medicine
Joe Romm, Ph.D. Physics (Climate Progress)
John Holden, Ph.D. Theoretical Plasma Physics
Joshua B. Halpern, Ph.D. Physics (Rabett Run)
Kerry Emanuel, Ph.D. Meteorology
Lonnie Thompson, Ph.D. Geological Science
Michael Mann, Ph.D. Geology (RealClimate)
Michael Oppenheimer, Ph.D. Chemical Physics
Michael Tobis, Ph.D. Atmospheric and Oceanic Science
Rajendra Pachauri, Ph.D. Industrial Engineering, (IPCC Chairman, 2007-Present)
Richard Alley, Ph.D. Geology
Richard C. J. Somerville, Ph.D. Meteorology
Robert Watson, Ph.D. Chemistry (IPCC Chairman, 1997-2002)
Stefan Rahmstorf, Ph.D. Oceanography
Steven Schneider, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering and Plasma Physics
Susan Solomon, Ph.D. Chemistry
Tom Chalko, Ph.D. Laser Holography


10. Sinclair attempts to imply that because the petition explicitly categorizes the qualifications of signers by their degree field this is somehow a problem. The medical science field he criticizes is clearly separate and includes 3,046 signers. After criticizing the petition for including MDs he then asks if you would ask someone with a BA degree to diagnose you for lung cancer? The petition has nothing to do with lung cancer and I believe most people would ask the MDs on the list that he ironically criticizes for their inclusion.


11. Sinclair then brings up a claim of a hypothetical lawsuit against Al Gore. The reason for this is Peter Sinclair AKA "Greenman" was trained by Al Gore,

"Sinclair studied with Al Gore in dealing with the issue of global warming and is an award-winning animator, illustrator and syndicated cartoonist."


12. Sinclair finally just flat out lies and says "there are no 30,000 scientists" after failing to prove this or any of his other bogus claims. Instead he chooses to just use propaganda clips related to smoking throughout his video, which has nothing to do with global warming or the petition. Maybe Peter should stick to what he is really interested in, campaigning against smoking.


References:
A Major Deception on Global Warming (Wall Street Journal, June 12, 1996)
A Scientist Finds Independence (American Spectator, February 2001)
Art Robinson Reponds to Petition Slander (Global Warming Debunking News and Views)
Exclusive: Lead Author Admits Deleting Inconvenient Opinions From IPCC Report (Prison Planet, December 17, 2009)
Frederick Seitz 1911-2008 (University of Illinois, March 4, 2008)
Past NAS President Frederick Seitz Dies at 96 (National Academy of Sciences, March 7, 2008)
President Emeritus Frederick Seitz dies at 96 (Rockerfeller University, March 4, 2008)
Vanity Scare (TCS Daily, April 14, 2006)



posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 07:57 AM
link   
lol, what happened to my replies to PT's thread based on the above post?

I'll give a summary. Seitz is a shill, and the research he was involved in had the aim of obscuring the science showing tobacco caused various degenerative conditions. He has also been involved in industry efforts to attack science and potential regulations against passive smoking (along with pesticides, asbestos, CFCs, and global warming).

I haz the evidence, but along with the thread PT posted appears to have been deleted.

That's rather wyrd...

lol

Does anyone want me to post it again? Sorry it sort of just magically went 'poof!'.
edit on 13-11-2010 by melatonin because: I still coulda been a contender!



posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by mc_squared
 

Beyond that we have evidence maybe 3 or 4 other planetary bodies in our solar system are heating up (out of the 100 or so that exist). And as melatonin has already shown you there is also simultaneous evidence other planets are cooling down.

The idea that the global warming of recent decades could have been a solar-induced phenomenon that happened throughout the solar system was suggested by signs of it being observed on 5 planets; Mars, Uranus, Jupiter, Triton and Pluto as well our planet (all prior to 2007). Please see: seoblackhat.com... The atmospheres of these different bodies (as well as our own planet) all have different chemistries so it would be hard to explain their undergoing global warming at the same time on the basis of separate internal mechanisms that all just happen to be synchronised together across hundreds of millions of miles of space. Such a well-choreographed dance calls for a central conductor to co-ordinate it and the Sun is the obvious prime candidate for this role.


And as melatonin has already shown you there is also simultaneous evidence other planets are cooling down.

Even if some planets are cooling at present, surely that is just what we would expect during a time of reduced solar activity if the Sun is the principal driver of climate changes on the planets? It depends on when the alleged cooling was observed and what state the Sun's activity was at the time.


In case you want to bring up Mars - I can show you how warming on Mars provides implicit evidence of warming on Earth AND that the warming here is in fact man-made.

How can you be so certain when the warming we have experienced over the last 30 years has been well-within natural variation?
edit on 13-11-2010 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
Does anyone want me to post it again? Sorry it sort of just magically went 'poof!'.


*raises hand in favour* Aye!

second line to say I second that motion.



posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by mc_squared

Originally posted by melatonin
Does anyone want me to post it again? Sorry it sort of just magically went 'poof!'.


*raises hand in favour* Aye!

second line to say I second that motion.


Sure, it will be a bit different as I wasn't expecting my last posts to disappear in a puff of smoke. I was actually expecting poptech to ask for the evidence, he was sooooo keen to defend Maid Seitz's honour and see it in the thread that got deleted.

I wonder why the posts and thread were deleted...? It's like an enigma wrapped up in a riddle with a side-order of mystery.

Anywayz....so, yeah, Fred Seitz spent much of the latter part of his life shilling for various industrial causes, so Sinclair is right on the money on that point (and most of his others).


Originally posted by Poptech

Sinclair attempts to smear Dr. Seitz about his involvement with the tobacco industry. The truth is much different,

"To find out if the startling claim was true -- that Seitz "directed a 45M tobacco industry effort to hide health impacts of smoking" -- I called him at his apartment in Manhattan. Unless there is more to the story, the accusation appears to be a willful distortion, if not an outright lie.

"That's ridiculous, completely wrong," Seitz told me. "The money was all spent on basic science, medical science," he said.


RJ Reynolds (RJR) employed Seitz to run one arm of the medical research they funded. He was paid $60,000-odd per year (quite a sum I would guess in those days), with estimates of around $800,000 passing between tobacco companies and Seitz.

Another arm was the Center for Tobacco Research that most of the tobacco companies funded. The particular purpose of CTR was to fund research (and cast doubt) on the direct links between tobacco use and health. Thus, their aim was to show that tobacco put hair on the chest of men and made women alluring to all, and was merely an innocuous vice being persecuted by stick-up-butt doctors and pesky scientists.

The biomedical research which Seitz ran for RJ Reynolds had a slightly different purpose but a similar aim. I'll let RJR speak for themselves: here's excerpts from a speech by an RJR executive in 1979....




RJR documents

These clearly show what RJR were aiming for with this arm of their medical research...

1. "respond directly to fundamental attacks on our business", "refute the criticisms against cigarettes".

2. "Science really knows little about the causes and development mechanisms of chronic degenerative diseases imputed to cigarettes"

3. "The purpose of the RJR industries biomedical research program is to focus on the support of basic and applied scientific research regarding human, degenerative diseases."

Inferring that the aim of this research was to cast doubt on links between tobacco and degenerative diseases does not require one to be a rocket surgeon.

And if anyone want to claim that Seitz was entirely oblivious to RJR's stated purpose of the research, the excerpts come from an introduction to one of his presentations to tobacco peeps.

Much like we see with Climate Science denial, along with attacking the link between CO2 and climate change the denial strategy is to throw other potential causes at the wall and hope they stick (whereby negating/minimising the CO2-warming link). The ultimate aim is to cast doubt in the minds of the public and political class by attacking a scientific consensus.

It's a well-worn strategy that was originally formed during the tobacco wars ("doubt is our product"), and is being utilised by the ideologues behind climate science denial. Indeed, many of the same faces have been involved in both of these areas of ideologically-motivated and industry-funded denialism (and many others).

Included Frederick Seitz.

I didn't know he was dead. Commiserations to his family and the many (thousands, millions?) who would have taken up and continued smoking, suffering at the alter of the corporate $ as a result of not being able to make a clear informed decision about the health risk.

Do you want more? I also showed poptech how this wasn't a one off and how Seitz was as recently as the mid-90s shilling for the tobacco industry (and others). Again, the post was deleted, along with poptech's thread.

I'm sure he/she is as devastated and confused as I am about what happened to them. And I also presume he'll be as keen as you are to see these posts again.
edit on 13-11-2010 by melatonin because: Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
Do you want more?


Hell yes.

Although I think all this information calls for it's own thread. If anything it would make for an interesting experiment to make sure it doesn't all just mysteriously disappear again





top topics
 
31
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join