Re: Climate modelling

Martin Brown wrote:

And even today you can still purchase US scientists
to testify on oath that "there is no proof that smoking causes cancer"
using a form of words crafted by some of the best legal brains on the
planet.

Well, as any respectable scientist will tell you, it is accepted as scientific fact that smoking tobacco drastically increases the risk of the smoker suffering from cancer (among other things) and especially from lung cancer.

The reason that you can still find one that will say there is no proof smoking causes cancer is because it is equally accepted as scientific fact that it does not, and you will be able to find any number of scientists happy to say so. There would be no need for any legal brains to be involved for that.

But as I said, it does increase the risk to the point where smoking might reasonably equate to having a death wish.

It might be interesting to note that at a certain age, it was suggested to me that I might benefit from smoking in moderation ... by a doctor. This used to be quite commonplace in the past, in most western countries anyway. In my case, I refer to the mid sixties. I do not smoke.


MY point here is that there are good, altruistic, scientists, and there are
those who take the money and do the work ... familiar with what happened to
scientists in America in the fifties and early sixties?

Of course there are people including scientists who are like that. But
they are in a minority. The vast majority of scientists want to find
out about *NATURE* and natural phenomena and will report what they
find warts and all.


Mmmm, but I was referring to the period mentioned, when the US government funded a massive expansion of MIT (for example) and where students earning appropriate degrees were offered employment as research scientists. The research work was entirely on 'defence' systems, specifically the pursuit of nuclear weapons technology and related delivery systems. Publication of discoveries was of course forbidden under state secrecy laws.

When pressed about this situation in the sixties, graduates were known to express the view that they were only researching into the secrets of the universe and the application of their work was nothing to do with them.

This was not a minority. This was mainstream scientific research. I cannot be bothered to mention the additional chemical and biological weapons research ... oops I have. It should not be assumed that these areas of endeavour have gone away, although they are certainly no longer on the same scale as during the 'cold war'.


And to make the point that British climate scientists are just as
concerned about misrepresentation by the AGW lobby overstating their
case and making sensationalist headline grabbing claims that are
unsubstatiated by the facts.

Indeed, at least two of them are. This is not disputed.


The AAAS has problems communicating with the public in a country where
40% of the population deny science in favour of a YEC literal
interpretation of the Bible (Earth .6000years old, Grand Canyon cut by
Noahs flood etc.).


Indeed, anyone might have a problem with communicating with the educationally and emotionally subnormal. But in a discussion about the representation of NCC and AGW in the UK (or the USA) it hardly matters - those you refer to would not understand either. Having said that, they are probably correct in one view they hold, albeit for entirely the wrong reasons.


--
Gianna

http://www.buchan-meteo.org.uk
* * * * * * *
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Climate modelling
    ... fact that smoking tobacco drastically increases the risk of the smoker suffering ... from cancer and especially from lung cancer. ... Doctors and scientists can be wrong. ... interests of nuclear powers to keep their trade secrets secret). ...
    (uk.sci.weather)
  • Re: A letter to a statistician. Emailed and airmailed and no reply
    ... that smoking indeed is the cause of many cancers came from ... The "proof" that smoking causes cancer and other diseases comes ... from trials of the kind Fisher had condemned - uncontrolled, ... On "Smoking and Lung Cancer" ...
    (sci.stat.math)
  • *Article: Why smoking is bad for you
    ... Smoking causes cancer, heart disease and chronic lung disease. ... Passive smoking is responsible for several hundred deaths in the UK each year. ... It causes nine out of ten cases of lung cancer, the most common cause of cancer death in the UK. ...
    (alt.support.stop-smoking)
  • *Article: Smoking & Health Risks
    ... The message that 'smoking is bad for you' is an old one, so not everyone gives it their full attention. ... Most people know that smoking can cause lung cancer, but it can also cause many other cancers and illnesses. ... *Of the 300 people who die every day in the UK as a result of smoking, many are comparatively young smokers. ... blood clots are likely to form. ...
    (alt.support.stop-smoking)
  • Re: Why Do Researchers Tell Lies About Smoking and Health?
    ... Scientists like to have new ideas and results.That is how science ... They must be compatible with orthodox science. ... that smoking is overall harmful to health. ... not cause lung cancer or, far worse, that it prevents lung cancer, is ...
    (sci.stat.math)