Changes in Tropical Cyclone Intensity & Track

[Gadagirl]

Originally Posted by boatman61

But.. did he die of cancer..
I don't suppose you ever considered other possible causes with a handy fall guy in the house.

Sure, it could be that they lived in proximity to severe air pollution from coal fired electric generation or other chemical producing manufacturing facilities. Or just next to an air field that contaminated their drinking water with chemicals. Perhaps next to a farm that used Monsanto products. Grew up near a refinery? All sorts of super fund sites and other sources of contamination.

[Exile]

OR, like my father . . . he could have smoked heavily for 53 years (16-69), lived until he was 95, and died of natural causes. And also like my father, he could have always smoked heavily in the car ... with all the windows rolled up tight ... with the a/c on recirculate ... with all his kids in the back seat ... none of whom have had any significant health issues (oldest is now 68).

Life is definitely unfair, and not even equitable, as much as some fantasize that it could be so. Now why did any of this come up again??

[SuW]

Originally Posted by Gadagirl

Sure, it could be that they lived in proximity to severe air pollution from coal fired electric generation or other chemical producing manufacturing facilities. Or just next to an air field that contaminated their drinking water with chemicals. Perhaps next to a farm that used Monsanto products. Grew up near a refinery? All sorts of super fund sites and other sources of contamination.

Nah, when you frequently can barely see across the living room from one side to the other, I'd say the obvious answer is that smoking indoors is bad for your family. Nobody in Canada does that now, it's considered child abuse.

Other than that he was a great guy.

As I say, anecdotal, but the tobacco industry has spent literally billions convincing some of you that smoking is healthy. And had to pay out billions to various jurisdictions in compensation.

Just like the oil industry (including a lot of it here in Canada, some of the dirtiest oil on the planet) has convinced some of you that the "Science isn't in, yet" when, in fact they've been pretty sure about the externalities of fossil fuels for more than 30 years.

The most dangerous industry in the world is Advertising and Marketing. They'll do anything for a buck.

[SuW]

Originally Posted by Exile

OR, like my father . . . he could have smoked heavily for 53 years (16-69), lived until he was 95, and died of natural causes. And also like my father, he could have always smoked heavily in the car ... with all the windows rolled up tight ... with the a/c on recirculate ... with all his kids in the back seat ... none of whom have had any significant health issues (oldest is now 68). Life is definitely unfair, and not even equitable, as much as some fantasize that it could be so. Now why did any of this come up again??

The boating comic complained that smokers were blamed for cancer. And threw a few other dead cats on the table.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by SuW

The boating comic complained that smokers were blamed for cancer. And threw a few other dead cats on the table.

Here's another dead cat for you.. my Mom and Dad did not smoke, my Dad worked as manager for the printing and packaging department of a large tobacco company so I was/am well aware of the alleged dangers of smoking.. but I jumped of the roof anyway at five years old with my first smoke and am currently approaching the 68th floor smoking lounge still singing..
Baby don't worry, about a thing, coz every little thing, gonna be alright..

Also, I was not complaining, just you must see it that way as it screws with your anecdotal arguments..

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SuW

The boating comic complained that smokers were blamed for cancer.

Notwithstanding the huge class-action settlement you spoke of, there have also been reams of smaller class-action and individual lawsuits that have failed because juries found that smokers themselves were in fact responsible for their own, highly predictable health problems. Tobacco cos. have mainly been found liable for marketing to children, for misleading advertising about the mitigating effect of filters, etc., and bogus claims about the addictive qualities of nicotine. But I don't think many lawsuits have been won persuading juries that smokers weren't aware that smoking was unhealthy. In fact, and since we're discussing anecdotes, my father started smoking as a teenager in 1939. He always said that, not only were he and his friends fully aware it was unhealthy, but that was exactly the reason they all smoked!

This idea of blame-shifting is even more out of whack when lawsuits are filed against oil cos., blaming them for damages caused from all sorts of allegedly CC-induced natural disasters from forest fires to hurricanes to droughts to tsunamis. Not unlike cigarettes, fossil fuels to run our cars, heat our homes, produce all our goods & services, even distribute our life-saving vaccines -- all demanded by every person in every country on the planet, facilitated by their taxpayer monies to support and militaries to protect, and still insisted on over any other form of energy by far. Do we need to try and dial this back now given what we know? Of course. But I find it absurdly hypocritical to blame an industry who's principal crime has been to supply a commodity which each and every one of us insists on to meet our daily energy demands.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Gadagirl

Sure, it could be that they lived in proximity to severe air pollution from coal fired electric generation or other chemical producing manufacturing facilities. Or just next to an air field that contaminated their drinking water with chemicals. Perhaps next to a farm that used Monsanto products. Grew up near a refinery? All sorts of super fund sites and other sources of contamination.

True.. The exact causes of asthma are unknown, but it is most probably due to either genetic or environmental factors. Certain factors are known to trigger asthmatic symptoms.
Allergens like dust mites, animal dander, pollen, molds, cigarette smoke, chemical pollutants, and cold air
Sinusitis
Extreme emotional responses and physical exercise
Medications like aspirin, beta-blockers or NSAIDs
Gastro esophageal reflux disease
Other factors like dietary insufficiencies in vitamins C and E, and omega-3 fatty acids
Foods with sulfites and preservatives may also trigger symptoms
So many things but it was definitely cigarettes that did it..

[SuW]

As for legal action against corporations, in the absence of regulation and in the face of the lies of their marketers and ad men, sometimes as in the case of Purdue Pharma, it at least causes the billionaires some temporary embarrassment.

I think most, including the oil companies, see it as the price of doing business. And we all use their energy in some form. So the actual complaint is that they knew the harm we were doing using their products, and concealed it.

Some early scientists who warned about it were hounded and ridiculed. The oil companies invested serious money in lying. Regulators and legislators were either company insiders or paid off.

Tragedy of the Commons. Polluting the atmosphere has no cost on their bottom line.

So, now what? Carbon taxes are a start. In Ontario, carbon taxes collected are divided up and returned to the citizen/taxpayers. So my energy use is being subsidized by large users (obviously those corporations pass on their costs too). Other places use the money for other things.

[mjscottinnc]

Originally Posted by SuW

in the face of the lies of their marketers and ad men.

I don’t think that corporations alone have cornered the market for lies. Plenty of that going around.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by mjscottinnc

I don’t think that corporations alone have cornered the market for lies. Plenty of that going around.

Unless it's lying that serves an agenda, then the means justify someone's ideal of a utopian end, and only the side that opposes it is lying.

[mjscottinnc]

Originally Posted by Exile

Unless it's lying that serves an agenda, then the means justify someone's ideal of a utopian end, and only the side that opposes it is lying.

That’s probably a fairly realistic assessment given the times we live in.

In almost all subjects there is an absolute unassailable truth. Choosing to see it, now that’s a personal choice.

[SuW]

Originally Posted by mjscottinnc

...
In almost all subjects there is an absolute unassailable truth...

Unproven assertion. You can only prove a thing is not true (for example by experiment). You cannot prove it is true.

And there are many things that are in between. "Smoking causes cancer" is partly true and partly not. Not all smokers get cancer, but many do. Some die.

"Smoking causes needless health problems" is probably more true than not.

So, can we talk about the Pacific Islands and their problem when it comes to their future because of human-caused climate change? Cruisers should at least be alarmed about that.

[boatman61]

The S Pacific islands are a mixed bag of problems.. some are shrinking through erosion but many many more are gaining land mass despite all the doom and gloom being put about..

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-01-...igger/13038430

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by SuW

Unproven assertion. You can only prove a thing is not true (for example by experiment). You cannot prove it is true...

The IPCC has calibrated the 'likelihood language' used to describe the available evidence:
limited, medium, or robust;
and for the degree of agreement:
low, medium, or high.
A level of confidence is expressed using five qualifiers very low, low, medium, high, and very high.


The chart below depicts summary statements for evidence and agreement and their relationship to confidence.
Term: Likelihood of the outcome
Virtually certain: 99–100% probability
Very likely: 90–100% probability
Likely: 66–100% probability
About as likely as not: 33–66% probability
Unlikely: 0–33% probability
Very unlikely: 0–10% probability
Exceptionally unlikely: 0–1% probability

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SuW

Unproven assertion. You can only prove a thing is not true (for example by experiment). You cannot prove it is true.

And there are many things that are in between. "Smoking causes cancer" is partly true and partly not. Not all smokers get cancer, but many do. Some die.

"Smoking causes needless health problems" is probably more true than not.

So, can we talk about the Pacific Islands and their problem when it comes to their future because of human-caused climate change? Cruisers should at least be alarmed about that.

Of course you can prove a conclusion as true. It depends how you define it.

"Smoking has been indisputably shown to significantly heighten the risk of cancer." TRUE

"The relationship between greenhouse gases and warming is well-settled science and was proven as far back as 1896." TRUE

"AGW exists and humans have had some level of influence on the climate." TRUE

"There is unanimous scientific consensus that global warming will have severe impacts and we must abandon fossil fuels whether or not there are viable energy alternatives available." FALSE

"The world will end in 12 years unless you vote for me and my Green New Deal." Well, you get the idea . . . .