Published: Tuesday, July 1 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT
To "Laura Bilington" here are a couple of references to scientific
papers from the 1920's that said that smoking was not harmful. Werner C.
A., "The Triumph of the Cigarette," and W. M. Johnson, "The Effects
of Tobacco Smoking".Plus they got over 20,000 doctors that were
part of the AMA to say that smoking was ok.You may not believe them
or like them, but that is what was going on.
Warming researchers got caught in 2009 fudging the data in their attempt to keep
their grant funders happy. The earth hasn't warmed for 17 years. So how
is the debate settled? In the 1970's scientists believed we were headed
for an ice age.My opinion? The CO2 we are producing is what is
keeping us from this ice age.
To RedShirt:Like I said, any "scientist" or doctor who EVER
said that smoking was not harmful was himself a smoker.Do you have
any data that is LESS than 90 years old?
Just as the "greatest generation" did, when the need finally became
apparent to stop Hitler, we too will rise up but it is not apparent yet. While
one may suspect that something is happening, there is no proof of what that is
and is it good or bad.Some on both sides of the issue spend way to much
time trying to make converts of either the other side or the totally uninformed
. Others try and do make lots of money off the issue and quite often their
mouths and actions don't coincide.
Scientists also said that July 2012 was the hottest month on record but they
recently and quietly changed it back to July 1936 as the hottest month on
record. My point being that when it comes to so called "global warming",
scientific facts change.
@LovelyDeseretThe satellite temperature record from UAH (University
of Alabama - Birmingham) is much more stable and reliable, in that it
doesn't get adjusted every couple of weeks. The mistake the guys made who
adjust the GISS ground-based record is we know what the raw readings are. If you
subtract the raw readings from official adjusted numbers, guess what you get?
Global warming.I don't know the motive behind the adjustments.
Some call it homogenization. But it seems like a mistake to homogenize the
readings from pristine stations with the readings from stations afflicted by
urban heat island effect, which is what has been done. A more accurate approach
would have been to use the readings from pristine stations to remove the urban
heat island effect from other stations. If that had been done, we wouldn't
be having this conversation right now.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments