Man Made Global Warming

[MD_Titus]

no, what's evil is the preservation of profit margins over everything else.

the use of "so called "scientific community"" just smacks of someone who either doesn't understand it or disagrees with it's findings just disparaging it out of sheer ignorance.

the government's role of babysitter comes into play when it has to pay for people who don't wear motorbike helmets or who don't wear seatbelts, both of which are offences subject to fines here. smokers pay up front in the form of taxes on tobacco, and we generally just die rather than get left in need of lengthy and expensive car.

[kendo65]

MD_Titus' remark is accurate. I never said profits are evil. Businesses need to make a profit. It's the elevation of profit over the public good that I'm uneasy with.

Your California cigarette tax is a good example. There are similar measures here in the UK on both cigarettes and alcohol. Personally I'm not sure that I agree with the concept of using taxes to try to change people's behaviour (even when it might be in their best interests). There was talk a while back about increasing taxes on aircraft flights in order to 'encourage' people into taking 'greener' forms of transport. I can't agree with that idea at all.

From what I hear about the California situation, the measure was originally proposed by the Cancer Society, the American Lung Association and the American Heart Foundation who say it would raise more than $750m for cancer research and stop 220,000 children from taking up smoking.

I also read that tobacco companies Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds have bankrolled the $47.7m campaign to oppose the measures - more than triple the yes campaign.

So, nothing about protecting profit margins there then...

You're right that we aren't going to agree - even, apparently, on whether I'm a socialist or not. My take on that one is that I'm probably better placed to judge. But, maybe you're using a different definition to mine.

[MadBlaster]

I could care less how much RJ Reynolds bankrolled. It's their money and their business interest they are protecting. If I was an investor in their company, I would expect that.

On the other hand, the members of the scientific community (e.g., Cancer Society, the American Lung Association and the American Heart Foundation) of course, play themselves as the "good guys". When it's really about their job security via taxes on the cigarettes, the very thing they are against. Total hypocrisy. We don't need to keep researching this thing. We have known for decades smoking = not good for you. It is a waste of money, time and talent.

The latest, don't take antacid pills because they will give you a heart attack after decades of telling us that it prevents osteoarthritis and is a good source of calcium in the diet. Just brilliant, these guys. Anything to keep the money flowing. Like we are all eating antacid pills like candy or something when it says right on the label 2 pills equals 750 mg. They assume we don't know how to read. It is truly sad what a bunch of idiots we have become from socialist indoctrination. Scam after scam.

As far as paying for someone else mistakes, yea I'm against it. You build your own boat. If you take risk, you need to get some insurance before you take part. Simple. If you smoke, your problem. Shoot yourself if you can't deal with the consequences.

fyi:
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.ph...012%29#Details

[kendo65]

Originally Posted by MadBlaster

I could care less how much RJ Reynolds bankrolled. It's their money and their business interest they are protecting. If I was an investor in their company, I would expect that.

On the other hand, the members of the scientific community (e.g., Cancer Society, the American Lung Association and the American Heart Foundation) of course, play themselves as the "good guys". When it's really about their job security via taxes on the cigarettes, the very thing they are against.

That's just deranged in my opinion. Could say a lot more but what's the point?

Maybe time to stop now in this thread. It's not going anywhere.

(And I've missed 2 goals already in the Ireland V Croatia game.)

[MadBlaster]

Originally Posted by kendo65

That's just deranged in my opinion. Could say a lot more but what's the point?

Maybe time to stop now in this thread. It's not going anywhere.

(And I've missed 2 goals already in the Ireland V Croatia game.)

I gave you the link. It tell exactly where the money goes. Go ahead. Stay in denial. Okay, I'm out.

[MD_Titus]

Originally Posted by MadBlaster

I could care less how much RJ Reynolds bankrolled. It's their money and their business interest they are protecting. If I was an investor in their company, I would expect that.

1.On the other hand, the members of the scientific community (e.g., Cancer Society, the American Lung Association and the American Heart Foundation) of course, play themselves as the "good guys". When it's really about their job security via taxes on the cigarettes, the very thing they are against. Total hypocrisy. We don't need to keep researching this thing. We have known for decades smoking = not good for you. It is a waste of money, time and talent.

2.The latest, don't take antacid pills because they will give you a heart attack after decades of telling us that it prevents osteoarthritis and is a good source of calcium in the diet. Just brilliant, these guys. Anything to keep the money flowing. Like we are all eating antacid pills like candy or something when it says right on the label 2 pills equals 750 mg. They assume we don't know how to read. It is truly sad what a bunch of idiots we have become from socialist indoctrination. Scam after scam.

As far as paying for someone else mistakes, yea I'm against it. You build your own boat. If you take risk, you need to get some insurance before you take part. Simple. If you smoke, your problem. Shoot yourself if you can't deal with the consequences.

fyi:
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.ph...012%29#Details

you're great.

in the first instance 1.they're researching about cancer. lung cancer can and does develop in people who have not smoked. if cancer was cured then all these scientists would be able to channel their ability and knowledge elsewhere. not one single scientist worthy of the title would like to stay employed if it were the choice between unemployment and tens of thousands of people dying annually from the disease at the centre of their research. this research is expensive. it is not publicly funded to the degree it needs to be, hence the dozens of cancer research charities. if they increase taxes on cigarettes it has the dual effect of discouraging through expense, and making the cancer research paid for by smokers... then fine by me. as with the law, that's the penalty to do what you want - are you willing to pay it?

to say that they have a vested interest in not curing cancer or researching how to treat it is actually more offensive than telling atheists to kill themselves.

Use of revenue
Revenue raised by the initiative would have been spent as follows, according to the California Legislative Analyst's Office:
Approximately $75 million annually would have maintained existing tobacco tax revenue streams. The objective here was to avoid negatively impacting other revenue streams from other cigarette taxes such as from Proposition 99 (198 and Proposition 10 (199.
60% (approximately $468 million annually) would have gone to research of cancer and tobacco-related disease "for the purpose of grants and loans to support research into the prevention, early detection, treatments, complementary treatments and potential cures of lung cancer and other types of cancer, cardiovascular disease, emphysema and other tobacco related diseases, including but not limited to coronary heart disease, and chronic obstructive lung disease".
15% (approximately $117 million annually) would have gone to facilities and capital equipment for research "for the purposes of grants and loans to provide facilities, including but not limited to those building, building leases and capital equipment as my be found necessary and appropriate by the Committee, to further biomedical ,epidemiological, behavioral, health services, and other research whose primary focus is to identify and refine promising prevention, early detection, treatments, complementary treatments, rehabilitation and potential cures of lung cancer an other types of cancer, cardiovascular disease, emphysema and other tobacco related diseases".
20% (approximately $156 million annually) would go to tobacco prevention and cessation to the state’s existing tobacco control program. These funds would be divided between the California Department of Public Health (80%) and the California Department of Education (20%) for their existing programs to prevent and reduce the use of tobacco.
3% (approximately $ 23 million annually) would have gone to tobacco law enforcement "to support law enforcement efforts to reduce cigarette smuggling, tobacco tax evasion, and counterfeit tobacco products, to reduce illegal sales of tobacco products to minors, and to enforce legal settlement provisions and conduct law enforcement training and technical assistance activities for tobacco related statues".
No more than 2% (approximately $16 million annually) would have gone to administration, including the collection, auditing, and distribution of revenue.

how is any of that bad?

2. this is how science works. they keep on testing things, and when they find out something that only becomes clear after decades-long research by hundreds of teams throws up enough data for a really good meta-analysis... they make it public, and they are more than happy to change their advice if the evidence supports it, if the results are statistically significant, if there are no flaws in their method. that's when you find stuff like this out. also, are antacid a generic or trademarked tablet?

in this case you blame a socialist scam, when in fact you're most likely looking at a corporate-based lack of depth to the research or non-reporting of it. if they aren't looking for a link to heart attacks then they won't find it.

a drug company team is different to a cancer research, or any research, team that is not directly linked with a product.



kendo, that's his tactic. fail to win with either logic or rhetoric, instead infuriate with "wait what?"

[MadBlaster]

Originally Posted by MD_Titus

how is any of that bad?

It's bad because people that choose to smoke already know of the risk by now. They have been very aware for a very long time. Common sense tells you when you stand in a smoky room and you start coughing and your eyes water, not good. Don't need a researcher to tell me that. And yes, lung cancer comes in many forms from many causes. So, special tax on the painters? The coal miners? The wind? This is California doing the double dip because the state is pro liberal/socialist and by nature they are completely fiscally irresponsible and they saw this as an easy way to steal some more money and pander to the dimwits that live here, to make up for declines in the other cigs tax revenue streams. The part you didn't post.

per wiki
"Approximately $75 million annually would have maintained existing tobacco tax revenue streams. The objective here was to avoid negatively impacting other revenue streams from other cigarette taxes such as from Proposition 99 (1988 ) and Proposition 10 (1998 ). "

See, already taxed many times over. So, how much of the part you posted would have gone to fund the wild BBQs parties and pretty interns on short term contracts I wonder?

Originally Posted by MD_Titus

2. this is how science works. they keep on testing things, and when...

hum dee dum. Go back and google the marlboro man. that was a long time ago. they have been stretching this thing all that time. get a clue. The antacid thing, just another $50 light-bulb scheme.

Research is fine, but it should be subject to rules of cost/benefit. Not guise for money grab to fix irresponsible state spending. wait, what???

[camber]

Originally Posted by MadBlaster

See, already taxed many times over. So, how much of the part you posted would have gone to fund the wild BBQs parties and pretty interns on short term contracts I wonder?

hahaha, serves me right for telling jokes about my career To clarify, the pretty STUDENTs are unpaid. The BBQ parties are not very wild, outside working hours, and rely upon steaks and beer paid for out of modest scientist salaries

Originally Posted by MadBlaster

hum dee dum. Go back and google the marlboro man. that was a long time ago. they have been stretching this thing all that time. get a clue. The antacid thing, just another $50 light-bulb scheme.

Research is fine, but it should be subject to rules of cost/benefit. Not guise for money grab to fix irresponsible state spending. wait, what???

But actually you make a good point. I often wonder in Australia, what would happen if we just stopped research? Some research seems to show diminishing returns. We (scientists) have to convince society that we are worth funding, so health gets a big proportion. My society (and hence govt) kind of accidently then puts a perverse incentive on what we do. We must do something that is totally groundbreaking, but has a very high chance of success (which is a paradox). The successful high level scientists (not me ) must generate grant proposals that SOUND groundbreaking but are ACTUALLY rather incremental. To their credit, there is then the possibility to do groundbreaking, risky work on the "down low" on equipments already paid for to do kind of boring stuff. At one point I knew of two researchers running cold fusion in their spare time after it was majorly discredited. I never heard anything new so it musn't have gone anywhere.

Some health research has gone down this path imo. But society likes to have the tools to respond to big problems when they arrive, and a competent scientist group is a pretty good one, even with the BBQ situation. For example, it is not well known that an antibiotic crisis is relatively likely in the near future. This is due to unregulated capitalism...the ubiquitous pointless unregulated use of front line antibiotics in Asia and the ability to use antibiotics to get 0.1%s of extra profit margin from livestock growth for food production.

When a healthy young member of your family dies in a US city hospital getting a minor wound dressed (from antibiotic resistant bacteria), and many other families are having the same experience, the scientist currently fattening rats and knocking them on the head to study diabetes has a rather useful set of skills.

camber

[MadBlaster]

Lol. So your still reading this garbage?

Your point about the antibiotic, good. There's another one on the horizon you probably know about.

http://naturalsociety.com/sunscreen-...out-sunscreen/

[=CfC= Father Ted]

Originally Posted by MadBlaster

Research is fine, but it should be subject to rules of cost/benefit.

So who should make these rules? Obviously not governments, because they just use the results to make policy which robs the man in the street, so who else?


The only way to really arrive at the "truth" in the scientific arena is to fund blue sky (sorry Titus) research, where it's the idea that's important, not who's right or wrong, or who stands to gain/lose from the findings.