Yeah, there are real scientists in their formal organizations who can see what is "consensus" on issues, like the AAAS.philly-Rich wrote:Well,sorry mover I did not know the the "real" scientists had it all figured out.Funny how you can know so much about people just by knowing what side of a debate they are on.Seems odd that you would be on a site about smoking,(adds to greenhouse gases) and traveling to Amsterdam(contribues tons of greenhouse gases),all while wasting electricity on the computer.Seems kind of hypocritical to me.Maybe your like Al Gore, everyone else must change the way they live,so he can continue his lavish lifestyle.
& then there's people funded to only tell the side of the story they're paid to tell.
It's why there's any "controversy" over evolution (there isn't in the scientific community), or why people like Sen. Bob Dole (the senator from ADM & Philip Morris), as late as 1996, kept claiming cigarettes aren't addictive & it's not proven that tobacco causes cancer.
Exxon wouldn't be spending 20 million dollars on disinformation if it wasn't in their bottom-line interests. & when arguments come straight out of their playbook, well, if it walks like a duck...
But I guess if we don't all live in a cave in the middle of nowhere & live off the land then we really have to shut our mouths about environmental issues & let Big Energy do whatever it wants.
funny how this applies to the scientists, advocates, etc., for the environment but never applies to the side of the debate funded by business interests.
