Another Global Warming claim Down the Drain

[elder999]

All of this can be found here:

In the May 27, 1950 issue of JAMA, Morton Levin publishes first major study definitively linking smoking to lung cancer. •In the same issue, "Tobacco Smoking as a Possible Etiologic Factor in Bronchiogenic Carcinoma: A Study of 684 Proved Cases," by Ernst L. Wynder and Evarts A. Graham of the United States, found that 96.5% of lung cancer patients interviewed were moderate heavy-to-chain-smokers. •In the Sept. 30, 1950 British Medical Journal, a study by Richard Doll and Bradford Hill found that heavy smokers were fifty times as likely as nonsmokers to contract lung cancer.

1953: Dr. Ernst L. Wynder's landmark report finds that painting cigarette tar on the backs of mice creates tumors--the first definitive biological link between smoking and cancer.

1953-12-15: Tobacco executives meet (for first time since price-fixing scandal of 1939) to find a way to deal with recent scientific data pointing to the health hazards of cigarettes. Participants included John Hill of Hill & Knowlton, and the following tobacco company presidents: Paul D. Hahn (ATC), O. Parker McComas (PM), Joseph F. Cullman

1954-01-04: Tobacco Industry Research Committee (TIRC) announced in a nationwide 2-page ad, A Frank Statement to Cigarette Smokers The ads were placed in 448 newspapers across the nation, reaching a circulation of 43,245,000 in 258 cities.
TIRC's first scientific director noted cancer scientist Dr. Clarence Cook Little, former head of the National Cancer Institute (soon to become the American Cancer Society). Little's life work lay in the genetic origins of cancer; he tended to disregard environmental factors.

1954-04: TIRC releases A Scientific Perspective on the Cigarette Controversy, a booklet quoting 36 scientists questioning smoking's link to health problems.
(The booklet) was sent to 176,800 doctors, general practitioners and specialists . . . (plus) deans of medical and dental colleges . . . a press distribution of 15,000 . . . 114 key publishers and media heads . . . . days in advance, key press, network, wire services and columnist contacts were alerted by phone and in person . . . and . . . hand-delivered (with) special placement to media in Los Angeles, Chicago, Cleveland, Pittsburgh and Washington, D.C. The story was carried by hundreds of papers and radio stations throughout the country . . . . staff-written stories (were) developed with the help of Hill & Knowlton, Inc. field offices. (Hill & Knowlton memo, May 3, 1954.)

1964-02-07: The American Medical Assn accepts a $10 million grant for tobacco research from six cigarette companies.

1964-02-28: The American Medical Assn supports the tobacco industry's objection to labeling cigarettes as a health hazard, writes in a letter to the Federal Trade Commission, "More than 90 million persons in the United States use tobacco in some form, and, of these 72 million use cigarettes... the economic lives of tobacco growers, processors, and merchants are entwined in the industry; and local, state, and the federal governments are recipients of and dependent upon many millions of dollars of tax revenue."

...

 

[tellner]

Absolutely beautiful example, Elder.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

That's all well and good, but let's look at the AMA's current policy on tobacco labeling:

http://www.ama-assn.org/apps/pf_new/pf_online?f_n=browse&doc=policyfiles/HnE/H-495.989.HTM

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif](1) supports working toward more explicit and effective health warnings regarding the use of tobacco (and alcohol) products, including the extension of labeling requirements of ingredients to tobacco products sold in the United States; [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif](2) supports legislation or regulations that require (a) tobacco companies to accurately label their products indicating nicotine content in easily understandable and meaningful terms that have plausible biological significance; (b) picture-based warning labels on tobacco products produced in, sold in, or exported from the United States; (c) an increase in the size of warning labels to include the statement that smoking is ADDICTIVE and may result in DEATH; and (d) all advertisements for cigarettes and each pack of cigarettes to carry a legible, boxed warning such as: "Warning: Cigarette Smoking causes CANCER OF THE MOUTH, LARYNX, AND LUNG, is a major cause of HEART DISEASE AND EMPHYSEMA, is ADDICTIVE, and may result in DEATH. Infants and children living with smokers have an increased risk of respiratory infections and cancer;" and (3) urges the Congress to require that: (a) warning labels on cigarette packs should appear on the front and the back and occupy twenty-five percent of the total surface area on each side and be set out in black-and-white block; (b) in the case of cigarette advertisements, warning labels of cigarette packs should be moved to the top of the ad and should be enlarged to twenty-five percent of total ad space; and (c) warning labels following these specifications should be included on cigarette packs of U.S. companies being distributed for sale in foreign markets. (CSA Rep. 3, A-04) [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]So where does that place your theory now, I wonder.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]If you want to make the claim that all sides of an argument can be bought, I'm down with that. But that includes those on the man-made global warming side of the issue.[/FONT]

 

[Xue Sheng]

WOW I forgot about this post

The problem is, they really don't know. They make predictions, and then things start to happen a lot faster than they thought possible and they have to revise their predictions. I've heard some predictions, based on observed and measured events, that suggest we will see some real effects within our lifetimes. I wouldn't be surprised if that gets shortened down to a decade or two...

True. As I have used as an example before "the Younger Dryas". Things happened scary fast and possibly decimated human populations in areas like the East Coast of North America. And this was likely due to a rather LARGE influx of fresh water into the Atlantic

I still think an ice age is coming so where does that leave me :lol:?

There has ALWAY got to be at least ONE realist to mess up the chaos.. doen't there

 

[newGuy12]

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/china_celebrates_its_status_as

 

[elder999]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]So where does that place your theory now, I wonder.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]If you want to make the claim that all sides of an argument can be bought, I'm down with that. But that includes those on the man-made global warming side of the issue.[/FONT]

Well, it makes my point, doesn't it? I mean, it is't about buying sides, it's about belief in what's evident. All the mounting evidence betwen the Depression and 1960 said that smoking cigarettes caused cancer. In spite of this, it was fought-until the evidence was insurmountable. Of course, in the case of global warming, the evidence will also prove to be insurmountable-when it's far too late to do anything about it, if it isn't already.

And yeah, a look at the papers and memos of the tobacco industry demonstrate pretty conclusively that they knew they were fighting the truth for more than twenty years, and bought off everyone they could....

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Well, it makes my point, doesn't it? I mean, it is't about buying sides, it's about belief in what's evident. All the mounting evidence betwen the Depression and 1960 said that smoking cigarettes caused cancer. In spite of this, it was fought-until the evidence was insurmountable. Of course, in the case of global warming, the evidence will also prove to be insurmountable-when it's far too late to do anything about it, if it isn't already.

And yeah, a look at the papers and memos of the tobacco industry demonstrate pretty conclusively that they knew they were fighting the truth for more than twenty years, and bought off everyone they could....

It absolutely does. Then the question becomes, since there are those that believe that the anti- man-made global warming crowd is apparently biased by money, why don't we find out who pays the man-made global warming crowd.

Unfortunately, I think that it will be difficult to show. All on that side probably do have a "good moral agenda". They probably really believe what they say, especially in academia. But even professors have been shown to be biased, at least politically. Also, those in academia who fight the man-made issue don't get funded. So there is an economic bias to it on their side.

I guess we will have to wait till the evidence is "insurmountable." However, I still see it as inherantly difficult to prove such a thing in a large open system as the environment.

 

[tellner]

Bumping.

The White House finally released its global warming report. It was four years late, and the only reason it ever saw the light of day was a Court order. The Administration fought like hell to keep its own conclusions away from the public.

I'm not surprised. The paper reluctantly admits that it's real, it's growing (at least 4-7 degrees this century, which is on the fast side), it's having significant bad effects right now, and it's probably human caused.

In other words, the scientists were right. The right wing lie machine was wrong. And the Administration knew it and did everything it could to make sure we didn't know the truth.

Choke on it, True Believers.

 

[Empty Hands]

The paper reluctantly admits that it's real, it's growing (at least 4-7 degrees this century, which is on the fast side), it's having significant bad effects right now, and it's probably human caused.

What else do you expect from a bunch of LIEbruls?