Re: global sea ice levels now same as levels in 1979

On 2 jan, 20:35, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian <n...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 09:09:42 -0800, bulegoge wrote:
On Jan 2, 11:59 am, Richard Henry <pomer...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 1, 10:09 am, buleg...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

I wonder how long until the shameless "scientific" community starts
coming up with a new political reason for "global cooling" - (backed
by science, of course)

http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834

Are we supposed to be surprised that the Arctic Ocean freezes in the
winter?

No.  I am surprised that political policy is rammed down our throats with
junk science.

They've been doing it _at least_ since the upsurge in the religion of
antismokerism. Interestingly, the antismokerists are really laying it on
thick these days - I surmise that they're in fear of being displaced by
warmingism as the national religion.

Pity about that Rich. Smoking is still bad for you, and global warming
is still real.

You might not know enough about either subject to know that both
conclusions are based on sound scientific research - you don't
understand any of it, so it might as well be relgious mumbo-jumbo to
you - but it still happens to be true.

My father was sceptical about the dangers of smoking, and didn't give
up until his cardiologist refused to treat him as long as he continued
to smoke. Because he lived in Australia, at a time when air pollution
wasn't too bad, he didn't die of lung cancer as such - Australian
smokers were about twenty times more likely to die of lung cancer than
Australian non-smokers, but the clean air meant that smoking and
living in Australia gave you about the same risk of lung cancer as not
smoking and living in the U.K.

He did die of cancer secondaries on the outside of his lungs that
eventually compressed the lungs enough to overload his failing heart,
and the primary cancer was on his kidney. Kidney cancer is only about
twice as likely in heavy smokers than it is in non-smokers, so there
is still an even chance that his smoking didn't kill him. He was 82
when he died, so something else would probably have got him before too
long even if he'd never smoked in his life.

But then again, he might have missed the claudication of the arteries
in his legs - 80% of patients who suffer from this disease are smokers
or ex-smokers.

http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/181_03_020804/nor10045_fm.html

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
.

Relevant Pages

  • 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)
  • Re: Who Will Save Us From The Bushes?
    ... > both science and the way science is done. ... smoke irritants in the pathogenesis of both lung cancer and COPD. ... 155-160,000 of those deaths will be due to smoking. ... you consume cigarettes as they are intended to be consumed, ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: Social Darwinism
    ... >>smoking is bad for me, science is telling me not to smoke. ... probability of lung cancer. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Second Hand Reality By "The Man" Who Started It All
    ... For half a century eminent scientist Sir Richard Doll has followed ... smoking and lung cancer. ... They revealed that smoking can cause lung cancer. ...
    (alt.smokers.pipes)
  • Re: WTHOTDSOTMOT:Hot of the Press
    ... Second-hand smoke is annoying and sets off allegies in some people. ... similar studies both in Europe and elsewhere: passive smoking causes ... The study found that there was an estimated 16% increased risk of lung ... whether or not there is an increase in lung cancer. ...
    (rec.arts.mystery)