Michael Crichton on Environmentalism

EvilYeti said:




source:http://www.accuracy.org/articles/cato.htm

Hey Luke, why bother quitting smoking? The tobacco industry says it doesn't cause cancer. And go ahead and exhale on the twins, it won't hurt 'em. Uncle Cato says so!

The Second-Hand Smoke Charade

Who needs science when you have biased corporate propaganda?

Way to be a creduloid, Luke.

Also, while I see how it matters who funded the study and how it can lead to bias, tell me, did the study use any flawed data, did any of the scientists start their research with an already esteblished conclusion? Or are you just disregarding their finding on the basis they were funded by "evil oil corporations"?
 
Grammatron said:

Woah, slow down there buddy. We are talking global warming here not second hand smoke. However, since you chose to bring it up do you believe it(Second Hand Smoke) is harmful, if so where's your evidence?

So you are agreeing that its perfectly fine to blow tobacco smoke on infants? Hear that Luke, Cato AND Grammatron say its ok! You might as well double your habit!
 
Grammatron said:

Also, while I see how it matters who funded the study and how it can lead to bias, tell me, did the study use any flawed data, did any of the scientists start their research with an already esteblished conclusion? Or are you just disregarding their finding on the basis they were funded by "evil oil corporations"?

It's not a study. I don't know what it is. The authors aren't even named. I don't trust anonymous propaganda.

The "study" didn't so much as use flawed data, rather it's a collection of earth science howlers. Apparently the authors never heard of the "carbon cycle" for example. Not only could this garbage never get published, it wouldn't even get credit for an undergrad research paper. It's nothing but junk science.

And I am very suspicious of propaganda from private organizations paid to produce propaganda by other private organizations. Sorry, its that whole skepticism thing again.
 
Woah, slow down there buddy. We are talking global warming here not second hand smoke. However, since you chose to bring it up do you believe it(Second Hand Smoke) is harmful, if so where's your evidence?
So you are agreeing that its perfectly fine to blow tobacco smoke on infants? Hear that Luke, Cato AND Grammatron say its ok! You might as well double your habit!
Sorry, just had to save this as a beautiful example of a strawman.

Not going to get involved with YAGWT (Yet Another Global Warming Thread), just thought this vastly amusing. :D
 
Luke T. said:
I also agree with Crichton about dire predicitons not coming true. All my life, there have been doom and gloom predictions from environmentalists and psychics. It is hard to tell the difference between the two. They both have about the same hit rate. So any more "the sky is falling" predictions are a real hard sell to me.

I think there's a real "boy who cried wolf" aspect to the predictions of environmentalists. In the 60's and 70's, they shot their wad, and if they were right, we'd all be dead by now.

Instead, things are better than they've been in a long time The Thames river and Lake Erie have fish in them, and they have the normal number of eyeballs. This was not true when I was a kid.

Of course, it could be argued that some of the improvement has been due to the pressures of environmentalists, and there has certainly been some of that, mostly to the good (with a few exceptions like wildfires due to overzealous prevention of forest fires).

Yet a the same time, I think that due to ignorance or stupidity, environmentalists have largely voluntarily given up their credibility, by having no sense of when they should shriek at the top of their lungs and when they should not. Which is quite dangerous, because there are certainly environmental considerations that do need to be dealt with, but there's no way to distinguish them from the rest by the shrieking. When you shriek at the top of your lungs, people tend to tune it out.

A low point in public perception of environmentalism came when Carl Sagan, an otherwise mostly sane individual, elected to play press-release science about the Iraqi oil well fires using a 30-cell, one-dimensional atmospheric transport model that completely ignored convection. This bugged me, because at the time I was working at one of the leading centers for atmospheric and oceanic transport models. We were the first to demonstrate that spiky updrafts did occur in thunderstorms and that oil spills posed a significant threat not only to the surface but to fairly deep coral reefs, and we were the only group correctly to predict the direction of travel of an oil spill off Tampa Bay while it was happening. But nobody, including environmentalists, seemed to care at all.
 
EvilYeti said:


So you are agreeing that its perfectly fine to blow tobacco smoke on infants? Hear that Luke, Cato AND Grammatron say its ok! You might as well double your habit!

Really, did I say that? Oh no I didn't. That means you are lying, which would make you a liar. Please do not make a habit of putting word into my mouth.

Now, is it ok to blow smoke on infants? I don't know I'm not a scientist and I don't have any raw data that I can put into a yes or a no answer. What I do know, is that based on current studies it's perfectly ok for adults to be around smokers.
 
Grammatron said:

Really, did I say that? Oh no I didn't. That means you are lying, which would make you a liar. Please do not make a habit of putting word into my mouth.


You said:
However, since you chose to bring it up do you believe it(Second Hand Smoke) is harmful, if so where's your evidence?

Meaning you don't believe second hand smoke to be harmful. Otherwise, why ask for evidence that it is?

If its not harmful, why could it possibly matter if Luke smoked around his kids?

Now, is it ok to blow smoke on infants? I don't know I'm not a scientist and I don't have any raw data that I can put into a yes or a no answer. What I do know, is that based on current studies it's perfectly ok for adults to be around smokers.

Is it harmful or isn't it? If it doesn't hurt adults why should we assume it hurts children? They are just small versions of adults, anyway.

Seems hypocritical of me to say secondhand smoke is ok for adults and not children, yet provide no evidence to support either assertion.
 
epepke said:

But nobody, including environmentalists, seemed to care at all.

Here's a tip, nobody except other scientists care about science. Sad, but true.
 
EvilYeti said:


Meaning you don't believe second hand smoke to be harmful. Otherwise, why ask for evidence that it is?

If its not harmful, why could it possibly matter if Luke smoked around his kids?

Now, is it ok to blow smoke on infants? I don't know I'm not a scientist and I don't have any raw data that I can put into a yes or a no answer. What I do know, is that based on current studies it's perfectly ok for adults to be around smokers.


Is it harmful or isn't it? If it doesn't hurt adults why should we assume it hurts children? They are just small versions of adults, anyway.

Seems hypocritical of me to say secondhand smoke is ok for adults and not children, yet provide no evidence to support either assertion.
[/QUOTE]

Of course, that is why medication dose for children is exactly the same as it is for adults. Surely someone as educated as you would know that, right?
 
Grammatron said:

Of course, that is why medication dose for children is exactly the same as it is for adults. Surely someone as educated as you would know that, right?

Now thats a strawman to bring home to mama!
 
EvilYeti said:


Now thats a strawman to bring home to mama!

Don't like the taste of your own medicine? This is how you talk to people on this forum, exaggerate their arguments, switch conversations, and call them stupid when they run you in to a corner.

No matter what you want to call my response you need to tell me of a study that proofs -- and this is important -- that second hand smoke kills. It's not enough that it inconveniences you, killing is what is important.
 
Grammatron said:

No matter what you want to call my response you need to tell me of a study that proofs -- and this is important -- that second hand smoke kills. It's not enough that it inconveniences you, killing is what is important.

Then how is it a lie to infer that you endorse smoking around infants as a safe activity? If second hand smoke poses no health risk, whats the big deal?
 
EvilYeti said:


Then how is it a lie to infer that you endorse smoking around infants as a safe activity? If second hand smoke poses no health risk, whats the big deal?

Show me where I endorsed smoking around infants....I'll wait.

Edited to add:

You can also include evidence of second-hand smoke health risk while you at it.
 
Grammatron said:


Show me where I endorsed smoking around infants....I'll wait.

Edited to add:

You can also include evidence of second-hand smoke health risk while you at it.

If there is no danger inherent to second-hand smoke, why would there be any problem at all smoking around infants? Its just the same as air, right?

If you don't endorse smoking around infants as a harmless activity, how have you come to that conclusion?
 
EvilYeti said:


If there is no danger inherent to second-hand smoke, why would there be any problem at all smoking around infants? Its just the same as air, right?

If you don't endorse smoking around infants as a harmless activity, how have you come to that conclusion?

If you are not going to answer my question I can only assume you have no answer or the answer will prove your wrong.

Once you answer my question I will comment on the your infants question.
 
Grammatron said:

If you are not going to answer my question I can only assume you have no answer or the answer will prove your wrong.

Once you answer my question I will comment on the your infants question.

Quit dodging and answer mine first. You say second-hand smoke is harmless, now explain why it would matter to expose infants to a harmless substance.

Edit:

Anyone can read back to the example I gave regarding second hand smoke was with regards to children. Thats what Grammatron responded to demanding evidence that it was harmful. Unless he's looking for me to tell him something he already knows, the implication is clear that he feels there are no health risks to exposing children to second-hand smoke.
 
EvilYeti said:


Quit dodging and answer mine first. You say second-hand smoke is harmless, now explain why it would matter to expose infants to a harmless substance.

Actually I asked a question and you made the first dodge. I will answer your question because unlike you I am not afraid to give out my answers instead of strawman and insults.

I don't think it's harmful to smoke around infants; it might be harmful to continuously blow smoke in infant's face for a simple reason that they can't adequately escape that environment or complain that it's bothering them.

Now, can you please provide evidence that prooves second-hand smoke is harmful?
 
I'm a bit late to this thread, but is this the same Michael Crichton who thought that American business was going to be completely conquered by the relentless Japanese?
 

Back
Top Bottom