* Environment * Climate change scepticism Climate sceptics are recycled critics of contro

* Environment * Climate change scepticism Climate sceptics are recycled critics of controls on tobacco and acid rain

www.guardian.co.uk

Today's campaigners against action on climate change are in many cases backed by the same lobbies, individuals, and organisations that sided with the tobacco industry to discredit the science linking smoking and lung cancer. Later, they fought the scientific evidence that sulphur oxides from coal-fired power plants were causing "acid rain." Then, when it was discovered that certain chemicals called chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were causing the depletion of ozone in the atmosphere, the same groups launched a nasty campaign to discredit that science, too.

Later still, the group defended the

(visit the link for the full news article)

Being a proponent of the official scientific arguments on this one, I often find the same information as what the above article outlines whenever I research many of the quotes and research posted on here criticizing the official theory. That is - that most of the criticism comes from the same people (not all) who criticized tobacco harm, acid rain, and ozone layer depletion.

I'd like to hear the opinions of both the proponents and skeptics on this.

For the proponents, is it okay to argue against their criticism on their character?
Does the fact that they did argue against the other points make their current criticisms less important?
Is it possible that they aren't lobbying and sometimes are just scientists who try and research against the consensus? In which case how is being wrong before any sort of scientific argument against their latest case?

And the skeptics, do you agree that much of the criticism comes from these guys?
If so, do you agree with their previous arguments?
Do you think that people like this hurt the case, or help it?



www.guardian.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

Hmmmm. Well, considering that in 50 years of pumping cigarette smoke into cancer-prone rats and mice, they have not been able to induce cancer in these animals, and considering the fact that a scapegoat was needed after the Trinity explosion (when people began in great numbers to get skin and lung cancer - so cigs and sun were named), and considering that many tumors have pieces of fiberglass filter in them...

Maybe the "campaigners" know of what they speak...

[shrug]

(For info on the above, see: www.abovetopsecret.com... )

Is this the best theycould come up with? really? After the emails were leaked about them shifting the numbers to back up their claim of global warming, instead of making up more evidence for the case now they resort to ad hominem attacks? If the GFL were to come here and say that watter is wet it would not matter how many times they spew lies they would be right this time. Global warming has become almost a religion, a viciously held belief system with no science backing it up.

reply to post by countercounterculture


This is something many of the "quieter" not so terribly vocal people on sites such as this already know.

When you have lobby's formed expressly to KEEP dangerous chemicals in use, after studies have found them to be hazardous, lobbyists paid to discredit those studies and hide the truth - It becomes difficult to believe anyone or take anyone's word for anything.
It is easy to believe the climate change people may have had it wrong. We would like to think the earth is not warming but would that be right?

We had better be correct on the answer because this is like trusting someone to pack your parachute. Now who are you gonna believe?
The professional spinners making money right now, telling you it's all good news and everything you want to believe or the old naysayer with the bad news? It is up to you.