Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index
 The RulesThe Rules FAQFAQ
   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   CalendarCalendar   SearchSearch 
Log inLog in RegisterRegister
 
Climate change

Users browsing this topic:0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 0 Guests
Registered Users: None

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index -> Victoria Park Tavern
 
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 49, 50, 51  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Skids Cancer

Quitting drinking will be one of the best choices you make in your life.


Joined: 11 Sep 2007
Location: Joined 3/6/02 . Member #175

PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2017 5:41 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Pies4shaw wrote:
No, there can be no rational debate because it is not capable of rational dispute by people who aren't climate-scientists. They can debate it amongst themselves. Charles Darwin, eg, wasn't a professional journalist peddling an angle out of self-interest.


There are many climate scientists who do not agree with the media driven diatribe.

It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/#47b47ed0171b

_________________
Don't count the days, make the days count.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail  
Pies4shaw Leo

pies4shaw


Joined: 08 Oct 2007


PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2017 5:50 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, there are some. They don't improve their case by arguing it in the media because it's actually an issue incapable of being decided by public opinion. If they are correct, they'll eventually persuade the scientific community.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
stui magpie Gemini

Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.


Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto

PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2017 6:39 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Pies4shaw wrote:
Well, there are some. They don't improve their case by arguing it in the media because it's actually an issue incapable of being decided by public opinion. If they are correct, they'll eventually persuade the scientific community.


^

Yet it is the public who believe whichever set of climate scientists they choose and, while these people actually have NFI themselves, they believe what that believe passionately, refuse to even knowledge that the science is a moving feast and isn't fixed.

The pro camp needs to take a GHL in the mirror and realise that.

_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Pies4shaw Leo

pies4shaw


Joined: 08 Oct 2007


PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2017 7:49 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

^^^ That's actually perverse. Almost everyone who could, speaking relevantly, read and write and count in the particular field tells us that human-activity-induced climate change is likely happening, so you'd expect the public, on the whole, to accept that those scientists are likely correct. You don't have to accept it as an article of religious faith and you can be open to scientific (as distinct from polemical) argument to the contrary but nor do you have to give air to <snip - sheesh!>s who think that they can pull apart the considered work of a myriad of scientists from behind their desk because - despite the obvious evidence implicit in the H2B they got for their literature degree - they are secretly much, much smarter and know more of the "truth" about climate change than all of the scientists who study the field.

Next is the obvious problem for the stupid dipshits who would have us think there is some "conspiracy": if the whole of climate science turns out to have been a mistake, no-one will actually have been harmed, in fact, by dedicated efforts to move, eg, towards sustainable energy policies and away from fossil-fuel intensive industries and transport. On the other hand, if the climate scientists are, on the whole, correct, the consequences of not "doing the right things" could be, to put it gently, a little bracing.

Thus, one says, we'd better all act on the basis that human-impact climate change is real and try to do what we can about it or we're all likely to end up worse off - That's the so-called "precautionary principle" in action. Really, it isn't a bad way to go.

There are probably still some researchers out there who think that smoking doesn't cause lung cancer. I'm happy for them to keep investigating that question (provided they do so honestly and fairly and genuinely, as scientists) and, if they turn out to be correct, that'll be fine with me. In the meantime, you try to do what you can to prevent smoking because little obvious good comes of it and, on balance, it seems likely that a fair bit of bad does.

It is important to separate the "four legs good, two legs better" pig-squealing from the people with trendy haircuts and bones through their noses who pick up on ideas like climate change as if it were a fashion accessory from the underlying merit of the idea itself.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
stui magpie Gemini

Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.


Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto

PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2017 8:16 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

^

Smoking doesn't "cause" lung cancer, genes cause cancer. Smoking may be a contributing factor in some cases.

hence the rest of your case falls apart. What is considered true because of repetition, isn't necessarily true.

_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Pies4shaw Leo

pies4shaw


Joined: 08 Oct 2007


PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2017 8:23 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

And you say "genes cause cancer" why? Is this your own independent view reached after 40 years of careful research and cutting up cadavers or is this just a piece of received scientific wisdom that you're content to adopt as correct?
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
David Libra

I dare you to try


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda

PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2017 8:27 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

I really don't understand when people say "x doesn't cause y" (where x is clearly a contributing factor). If you mean "cause" as in "is the sole factor", then that statement is true; but I can't think of a single social phenomenon (or, indeed, anything at all) that has one single cause and no other. And at any rate, you just said that "genes cause cancer" when clearly having gene x doesn't determine anything without other variables.

Smoking is a cause of lung cancer; therefore, smoking causes lung cancer.

_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
stui magpie Gemini

Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.


Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto

PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2017 8:49 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

FFS, plenty of people smoke and never get lung cancer, hence the causation part is incorrect.

Do people who smoke have a higher chance of getting lung cancer, yes. Can non smokers still get lung cancer because of their genetic make up? Yes.

There are tests you can do to determine your genetic proclivity to different cancers. I'm not making this stuff up, this is science.

Correlation does not equal causation.

_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Pies4shaw Leo

pies4shaw


Joined: 08 Oct 2007


PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2017 9:06 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

If thing A occurring increases the likelihood of thing B occurring, the rest of humanity tends to call thing A a cause of thing B. It may not be the only cause of thing B - but it's still a cause.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
stui magpie Gemini

Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.


Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto

PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2017 9:09 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

^

So cycling causes death on your logic and therefore should be banned.

I repeat, Correlation does not equal causation.

_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
David Libra

I dare you to try


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda

PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2017 9:27 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

There is, however, a quite clear causal (not merely correlative) relationship between cycling on busy roads and cyclists being hit by cars. Many everyday actions can cause death: cooking with gas, driving a car and chopping vegetables with kitchen knives. The reason we don't ban them is because we judge their utility to outweigh the risk.

I really think you're labouring under an incorrect assumption here regarding what the word "cause" means. Genetic proclivity simply means that your genes increase your risk of getting cancer. They therefore require a combination of other factors; one of which, incidentally, is smoking cigarettes. So genes and cigarettes are each partial causal factors – I'm not sure why you recognise one as causal and not the other.

_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
stui magpie Gemini

Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.


Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto

PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2017 9:48 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

I've seen people who smoke not get lung cancer and people who don't die from it. The principal cause of cancer is basically shit luck.
http://www.cancer.net/navigating-cancer-care/cancer-basics/genetics/genetics-cancer


In regard to the definition of the word "cause", that's a rabitthole that ends no where good. I can post this http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/cause

But again it's open to interpretation depending on your own filters.

Is leaving the house the cause of multiple means of death such as driving, pedestrian, assault and other incidents?

Is staying at home the cause of people dying at home?

The tenuous link to the OP is that P4S considered that mas made climate change and smokes causing lung cancer were equally proven facts.

I'd agree that they're equally proven, as contributing factors, not causes.

_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Pies4shaw Leo

pies4shaw


Joined: 08 Oct 2007


PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2017 9:58 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

stui magpie wrote:
I've seen people who smoke not get lung cancer and people who don't die from it. The principal cause of cancer is basically shit luck.
http://www.cancer.net/navigating-cancer-care/cancer-basics/genetics/genetics-cancer


In regard to the definition of the word "cause", that's a rabitthole that ends no where good. I can post this http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/cause

But again it's open to interpretation depending on your own filters.

Is leaving the house the cause of multiple means of death such as driving, pedestrian, assault and other incidents?

Is staying at home the cause of people dying at home?

The tenuous link to the OP is that P4S considered that mas made climate change and smokes causing lung cancer were equally proven facts.

I'd agree that they're equally proven, as contributing factors, not causes.

So, smoking is a contributing factor to lung cancer the way a coward-punch is a contributing factor to someone dying from hitting their head on the ground? Not all people die from coward-punches and plenty of people die from head injuries that aren't caused by coward-punches. Are you seriously asking us to entertain that as an argument or are you just taking the piss?
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
stui magpie Gemini

Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.


Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto

PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2017 10:04 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

methinks your suffering a tad of cognitive dissonance there old son. Cool
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Mugwump 



Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne

PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2017 10:26 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm prepared to agree with anyone who can change the heading to say "furphy". It is giving me a headache... can you change it David ?

Stui, Cigarettes cause cancer in the sense that the chemicals in tobacco smoke (esp benzene and polonium 210) smash up DNA structures and a very small proportion of these damaged cells grow and multiply uncontrollably via an observable mechanism. Other chemicals in cig smoke hinder the cell repair or isolation process. Some people seem more prone to that kind of DNA damage and associated mutation than others, and ageing makes it all worse, but the mechanism is surely causal in the sense that we use that word.

You can push 20 people out a first storey window and only kill half of them, but that does not mean that shit luck caused the deaths of 10.

_________________
Two more flags before I die!
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index -> Victoria Park Tavern All times are GMT + 11 Hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 49, 50, 51  Next
Page 3 of 51   

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum



Privacy Policy

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group