Jump to content

Bad science; global warming, smoking and animal rights


Guest touchofsable
 Share

Recommended Posts

This IS fur related; bear with it and you will see how.

 

Last night a UK tv programme totally lifted the lid on the idea of global warming.

carbon emissions have NOTHING to do with it. It is the sun. Something; although I have even been caught up in the idea myself, I did say when I first joined the den. I asked Josh who is an Astro-phyisicist. It seemed to me that as the martian polar ice caps are shhrinking at a similar rate to earhs then something else muct be accounting for it.

 

Turns out glabl temperatures were FOUR degress higher than now in the middle ages. That was followed by a mini ice age.

 

 

SoWHY doe sthe media, politicians everyone believe this poor science?

 

Well its to do partly with the way funding is achieved for scientific research . especially from the state, and NEW businesses anticipating future markets.

 

IF you want to study squirrels in suffolk for example, as one scientist put it, you will be UNLIKELY to get ANY funding unless you say that you want o find out about the impact of climate change on them.

 

Now the programmee showed how media and bureaucrats and alternative ebergy inteests are able to propgate this myth to an absurd level, while the vast bulk of TOP scientific opinion struggles for a voice to tell the truth.

 

So then I got thinking how that is EAXCATLY the sam scenario surrounding health and animal welfare issues.

 

IF you want to work as a scientist you need funding. SO if you approach a ncotine gum company, the NHS or senior health organisations eager to find health risks with smoking for political end, then you will get funding for it.

 

So they find out that smoking is bad for you with dreadful science; all circumstantial. In the meantime, little advance is made in the treatment of cnacer, and some are way up when they wer expecting a drop as the amount of smokers has halved in 40 years.

They paint it as th key to fighting cancer from a preventative method.

 

However today it was announced that a major treatment for lung cancer has been dropped by the NHS as its too expensive. This drug is proven to lentgtehn people lives and limit their suffering for at least a year in 48% of cases. YET they can splash out on a multi million pound advertising campaign condemning passive smoking. Completely without scientific foundation. It is NOT something that CAN be scientifiaclly proven while other fatcors; social class ethnicity , geographical location etc are looked at. Studies that DO this have shown NO link whatsoever. The classic example is that the ethnic group in the US with the highest smoking consumption also hav the LOWEST lung cancer rates (first nations). Ther is in fact very little evidence that smoking is bad for you. STILL doctors perpetuate the myth that cervicl and stomach cancer is caused by smoking; something that is absolutely proven incorrect. Waht IS scientifically proven however, is that smoking massivly reduces your chances of Alzheimers, parkinsons, prostrate cancer and other diseases. PROVEN. Coveneiently ignored by media politicians and doctors.

 

Yet the myth is perpetuated by a media hungry for advertisng revenue, a poor journalistic standard and political end. Prevention is EASIER than cure.

 

Now animal rights. The same. IF you are a scientist and you want funding to prove that fish suffer at the hands of anglerrs, the government and PETA will throw money at you.

So waht happens when the worlds top welfare scientists take the money and then CANNOT find evidence of animal cruelty?

This: (follow ultravixens link)

http://thefurden.com/bbden/viewtopic.php?t=4419&highlight=ultravixen

 

And this:

http://www.vet-wildlifemanagement.org.uk/pdf/burns_comment.pdf

 

And in BOTH cases, the findings have been surpressed by politicians for political end and the media for financial end.

Having spent fortunes on advertising against Hunting while simultaneously euthanising 100 000 animals a year needlessly, the RSPCA will shortly emabark on an anti fur campaign. The papers must b rubbing their hands together with glee at the prospect. So they will NOT question it, eager to get the RSPCA money.

 

 

So in ALL these things we see:

 

1. Bad science commissioned for political reasons and industries in whose interest it is to attack for their ow finacial and bureaucratic end. Gravy trains based on myth. MILLIONS of peopel are employed and making money based on these three UTTER myths.

2. Conspiracy at top level to condemn , sabotage and hush up findings that prove otherwise.

3. Media conspiracy to gain advertising revenue from conflict industries and alternative ones, and government departments.

4. Dissent from scientific community surpressed and funding only available to those who tow the line; therefore neutering the bulk of commissioned science, and silencing the non commissioned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is strange how the animal rights group think that they have the right to change things according to what THEY believe and disregard proper science, research, etc. as you have noted TOS.

 

Believe it or not, they invaded this group just a short time ago and are posting here right now disguised as legitimate members. (As you know we just let them do it and ban them instantly as soon as they show their colours. Thus instantly, the first anti fur post they make becomes a boost for the fur community when it is factually refuted. The exact opposite to what they think will happen. It usually takes our mods less than 10 minutes to find their first anti fur message and they are fully banned shortly after. )

 

Anyhow the closest description you can have is that they are like little preschool kids holding on to the rope as they walk along. They only hold on to that rope and never think for themselves. They believe that 20 year old science is new because they are told this and brainwashed to not think. They believe that staged videos by PETA are real because the rich heads of PETA have them trained to never think for themselves so that they keep the money flowing to the "Top". They believe that poor science is real because they are brainwashed to keep feeding money to their head leaders. It is this brainwashing that allows them to not see the significance for instance of their people killing dogs that could have had a home. Or letting animals loose from barns to face horrible slow deaths. etc... etc...... etc............ etc........................

 

And above all, they so dumb as to believe that we do not know who they are!

 

Gotta go.

 

W

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TOS, I didn't see the program, but I for one have considered a few issues over the last 12 months.

Indeed, it is disappointing to see less snow in Europe this year, but as always we have good and bad years.

What is evident from history is that the Earth is not a stable envirinment. A single volcanic explosion can have fairly huge impacts on world climates, and so I think we are having an impact, but I think the Earth is having its own

cycle, and I'm not sure if orbital mirrors are going to make a scrap of difference.

However, if one does elicit a sort of mini ice-age, bring it on I say.........

 

Auzmink

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This may be very true but still no excuse for uncontrolled use and consumption of petroleum fuel powered cars.

 

The main issue is not the Global effects of such pollution but the locallized effects. Also the unintended side effects such as leaded gas polluting the waterways from fuel powered vehicles. The sulphur emissions from poorly refined deisel fuels.

 

Another 'side effect' are the other pollutants that are part of the manufacturing package such as mercury pollution of the waterways from Ship construction and other manufacturing that supports such industries like ships and cars.

 

"Mad as a Hatter" was mercury poisoning created from the Beaver Fur Felt hat industry on its workers, Mercury was used in the preparation of the pelts and handled DIRECTLY by the workers.

 

These other poisons are far more toxic and detrimental to not only us but the other life forms and the environment in general. Many like mercury and lead are FOREVER

 

 

 

OFF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Humans ARE making changes to the global climate. But it's not happening the way "they" think it is.

 

Carbon and hydrocarbon emissions are only the tip of the iceberg. We are cutting down forrests faster than they can grow back. We are using up oil, coal, gas and other natural resources faster than we can find new sources. We are building more buildings and paving over more virgin land than ever.

 

Did you know that one mile of a 4-lane freeway covers 17 acres of ground?

 

All of the forrest, wetlands and wild areas on earth bind together to form a network of "buffers" that moderate the climate. Trees sequester pollution and absorb sunlight and turn CO2 into oxygen. This also prevents the ground temperatures from getting too hot in the day or too cold at night.

 

Destroying these natural buffers will cause weather to begin to swing wildly out of control. No, the earth won't turn into a big desert. The polar ice caps won't melt all at once and drown all the polar bears. New York City won't be under water.

 

BUT...

 

We will see more incidents like Hurricane Katrina. There will be more blizards in the midwest like there were this year. Temperate areas will see hotter temperatures in the summer and colder temperatures in winter. Costal areas of Europe and the UK will see more and more unusual monsoonlike weather.

 

Here's the rub: All this unstable weather will actually serve to stabilize weather elsewhere in the world. After several decades of rough and tumble weather (maybe even a century) the global climate will stabilize again. Things will, hopefully, go back to the way they used to be. But we will be in for a rough ride while Mother Nature sorts it all out!

 

There are plenty of things we can do to help the Nature heal herself before she gets out of control.

 

We can use less fossil fuels. We can pollute less. We can cut down fewer trees and destroy less virgin grassland. We can find better fuel sources. We can make better use of the resources we do have.

 

Most of this is all common sense. These are things we can do EVERY DAY. We don't have to pass all sorts of silly laws and make all sorts of drastic changes in the way we live. We can simply ADJUST the way we live now so that we can live easier in the future.

 

ToS, you're right in the overall sense. I just think you overemphasize the conspiracy nature of government and society. Things aren't always as nefarious as they seem on the surface.

 

We really need to keep our heads on and think about these issues before they get out of hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes I agree fully but that is a different issue. The point is the bad science.

 

Smoking may be offensive and cause some people discomfort; therefore segregation is needed. However the bad science that links it with diseases it has nothing to do with is indefensible; as is the argument against global warming.

 

But yes I accept what you are saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Smoking IS bad for you. There is no doubt about that in my mind. However, it is no worse for you than many other things that we do.

 

We eat too much red meat and not enough veggies. We eat too many processed foods and not enought natural foods. We don't exercise enough. We participate in too many activities that are unlealthy when we overindulge. I can list a HUNDRED other things that are bad for you... just as bad as smoking.

 

It's just that politicians have picked up on smoking as a way to dupe people into thinking that they are "doing something" to help improve the country.

 

They can't keep the economy in balance and keep inflation and interest rates in check. They can't find new, better fuel sources. They can't stop pollution and global climate damage.

 

Hell! My city government spent THREE MONTHS debating whether to ban Pit Bulls in the city limits, all the while they were unable to ratify a budget! The budget was supposed to be submitted by the end of the year and ratified by April 15. It wasn't until JULY when it was finally ratified!

 

So, what do they do in the mean time? They try to ban smoking!

It dupes the people into thinking that the government is DOING something!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is not ONE shred of solid proven evidence linking smoking to disease. EVERY piece of research has FAILED to take into account other factors such as ethnicity geography diet social class etc. EVERY study that has taken a whole host of other factors into account like these has come up with zilch. The high incidence of lung cancer is Scotland for example is almost always tied in with granite areas damp climates and low social class therefore bad diet hardship and alcoholism. Scot ex pats living in Spain who smoke have far lower lung cancer rates than non smokers in Scotland.

 

However what IS now provable beyond any shred of doubt is:

Smoking prevents Alzheimers parkinsons and prostrate cancer.

Smoking CANNOT cause cervical or stomach cancer.

 

I agree about the other stuff about habitat damage wholeheartedly.

 

However it is all conspiratorial as it is part of US 'liberal' and UK socialist social engineering; the christian right in the US goes along with it because they have morality agendas too. It is a design, and bad science is used to support it all. The three issues here are indeed linked by bad science, global business vested and particularly newly vested interests and state control over individual freedoms. We can see it in the UK because we have a governemnt which has taken a milion pound bribe from the AR movement and added to their vicious class agenda they have used all sorts of mickey mouse science that goes unquestioned by the media.

 

That is my last say on the matter.

 

I have shown you the emperor has no clothes its up to you lot what to do about it.

I will be around now and again but sadly my time here in terms of long winded posts is at an end which should please some! I have work to do elsewhere so will be just popping in from time to time to enjoy the furs!

 

I will of course still be a member here and can be contacted by pm but otherwise I will only pop in from time to time.

 

I will post the white turf stuff in a few weeks time.

 

Bye for now.

 

TOS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting point on the volcanoes, I never knew that. As for smoking, i've always believed that it's your body you can do what you like to it. Considering the majority of smokers have paid taxes and national insurance most of their life they should be entitled to NHS treatment. As for the proposed ban I'm not too sure. Smoking in pubs is the way it's always been- I don't smoke myself but I accept that when I go to a pub it will be smokey and I will come home stinking, but that's all part of going to the pub. But, I would really like to se it banned in restaurants, I really find it off putting when I'm just about ready to start the first course I'm engulfed in smoke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a good point STA. To a non smoker, smoke will definately dull, or mask the taste buds. And since you go to a restaurant to pay to have good food, you should have the right to enjoy all the subtle flavours

 

Just as a smoker should be able to go to a pub to drink , smoke and relax. Different locations - different purposes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think there should be a law saying whether we can or can not smoke in public places but I think there should be a law that says all public establishments must DECLARE themselves to be either smoking or non-smoking. Such declaration must be posted at the entrance for all to see as they go in.

 

People who don't like smoking won't go to the places that allow it. People who want to smoke will go to the places where it is permitted.

 

What it boils down to is that business owners who think they can make more money by allowing smoking have the right to do so. Business owners who think they can make more money NOT allowing it ALSO have the right to do so. It is each owner's right to decide whether or not he should or should not allow smoking.

 

If not enough people want to smoke won't be any patrons in the smoking establishments. If too many people don't like to be around smoke they will go to the places where it is not allowed.

 

If there are not enough patrons going to establishments that allow smoking, they will be forced to change their ways or go out of business.

 

The moral of this is that it is the business owner's right to decide how to manage his own affairs, NOT the governments!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On smoking 60% of native Americans smoke and lung cancer is virtually unknown

There are many diseases smoking prevents. There is not ONE disease smoking has been proven to cause.

Its bad sceinc justifying political ideas.

 

This thrad should be about bad science really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Folks, this is where the ToS Smoking Train Ride began

 

If we just go back to the old Melody posts on this subject, paste them in here and neither ToS nor myself will have to write another word on the subject.

 

If you are interested check out the archives on the subject. There are scores of posts and I'm sure the outcome will be the same.

 

ToS and his Smoking Thread here!!! Just about everybody else over here!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OFF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That just shows to go you Uncle Joe.

 

ToS is correct. Not ALL smoking is bad, epecially for kippers and Virginia Hams [bacon too].

 

See what it does for them

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OFF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...