Global Warming; Why you should not listen to someone who has been consistently wrong in his predictions and assumptions https://skepticalscience.com/lindzen-illusion-7-the-anti-galileo.html
Red line is the Hansen 1988 model Blue line is Lindzen's prediction Black line is the observed temperature
@usher Here's the history https://www.cancer.org/latest-news/the-study-that-helped-spur-the-us-stop-smoking-movement.html
here's the consensus https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/lung/basic_info/risk_factors.htm#:~:text=People%20who%20smoke%20cigarettes%20are,the%20risk%20of%20lung%20cancer. https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/causes-of-cancer/smoking-and-cancer/how-does-smoking-cause-cancer
Any other questions? - the world isn't flat - evolution is real - vaccines work - 5G doesn't cause COVID
@usher Considering I had to tell you that there [u]IS[/u] a link between smoking and lung cancer and that it was established a long time ago, I wouldn't be surprised if I had to tell you that too. 🤷♂️
@EuphoricTurtle There might be a link to it but you have not and can not prove it causes cancer. You can tell me anything you want. It's proof you need and you seem to go by consensus rather than fact.
@usher I gave you three links. The first is referring to the initial studies which found the correlation between smoking and lung cancer, and the other two regarding the consensus today.
1. Read the literature provided and dispute it if you wish/ can 2. Provide literature which substantiates your claim It's that simple
@EuphoricTurtle I won't bother reading any of your links. Reason: I'm not that interested. I have read many scientific articles and there was evidence of age, genes and DNA hereditary reasons for lung and other cancers. I have also read articles that contradict these somewhat. Who am I to believe. What I do know is that there are people who die of lung cancer who never smoked, people who have smoked for 80 years and died naturally. So stop with the links
@usher Of course you won't, and that's why you will keep believing that bull. If you had read the links, or even just paid more attention to what I wrote you would realize that nowhere does it say that smoking is the lone cause of cancer BUT that it considerably raises the risk
[quote] Cigarette smoking is the number one risk factor for lung cancer. In the United States, [u][b]cigarette smoking is linked to about 80% to 90% of lung cancer deaths[/b][/u]. Using other tobacco products such as cigars or pipes also increases the risk for lung cancer. Tobacco smoke is a toxic mix of more than 7,000 chemicals. Many are poisons. At least 70 are known to cause cancer in people or animals.
[u][b]People who smoke cigarettes are 15 to 30 times more likely to get lung cancer or die from lung cancer than people who do not smoke[/b][/u]. Even smoking a few cigarettes a day or smoking occasionally increases the risk of lung cancer. The more years a person smokes and the more cigarettes smoked each day, the more risk goes up. [/quote] https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/lung/basic_info/risk_factors.htm#:~:text=People%20who%20smoke%20cigarettes%20are,the%20risk%20of%20lung%20cancer.
I give you links so you know I'm not just pulling this out of my ass like your "I have read many scientic articles" but fail to provide a link to a single one that supports your claim.
@EuphoricTurtle I do believe that smoking rise the risks, but what I'm saying is I don't believe that it the sole cause. But I really don't care that much. You are getting triggered and you fall back on the usual insults like flat earth stuff as an immature insult. I don't know how you managed to go from thinking the world is at impending doom because of global warming to smoking the cause of Cancer. Greta and Al Gore should be your next video to visit for the real bullshit..
@EuphoricTurtle haha..If I spread conspiracy theories ? Like what ? That Climate change has been happening forever ? so you deny that? And that there is no need for panic ? So you'd like us all to Panic like what Greta and Al gore said ? What if I di believe in things other than you do, so what. Would you like me to agree with everything you say? What kind of a bigoted mind have you got. You can't tolerate another's opinion. you are in worst shape than I thought. So when you find out what I believe in what ya gonna do ? hahah.. your starting to scare me. Is evolution real ? you're beginning to sound hillarious.😜
@usher Saying that since climate change occurs naturally anthropomorphic global warming is nothing to worry about is the same as saying that since death is natural murder is nothing to worry about. Because that's what's being addressed, global warming fuelled by anthropomorphic emissions.
You don't have to agree with anything I say, just provide evidence that disputes the science or at the very least supports your claim. So far you've provided a youtube video from someone who has been proven to be wrong. As for your opinions, I don't really care, I'm not discussing opinions...the graph in my first comment isn't an opinion, it's a fact. The science linking smoking to lung cancer isn't an opinion, it's a fact.
@EuphoricTurtle I'm glad you're sorry. You should be. Now stop believing everything you read. Man made emissions are not responsible for the global warming. A great fraud has been perpetrated by Al and Greta. I don't have to prove anything to an idiot like you . But soon enough the truth will come out. And that's not a conspiracy theory. It's a fact.😜
@usher You are aware that this is something that has been studied and documented since the 1930's right? Al Gore and Greta aren't scientist and have nothing to do with it.
I do look forward to the "truth" coming out, it's a shame you can't just share all that data which your "facts" are based on.
@usher Hate to break it to you buddy but I've never seen Al Gore's documentary or Greta's speeches. And I don't "believe that man is responsible for climate change", here's the facts; 1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas 2. Through ice core we can link mean average temperatures with concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
3. Anthropomorphic emissions have caused CO2 concentration to rise dramatically since the industrial revolution 3. Average global temperatures have also risen (as expected)
@EuphoricTurtle What the graph doesn't tell you is that CO2 lags the temperature. And co2 is only one of the green house gases. Water vapour is responsible for more green house effect than co2 ever can be. Stop relying on graphs and links alone. They mask the real culprit. Your graph is meaningless. Co2 is not responsible for global warming. Stop being a scaremonger and a sensationalist . That's what the idiot s do.
And yes, there are other greenhouse gases such as water vapour and methane. The issue here is that the increase in CO" emissions is what throws the system off balance. If you have a stable system of inputs and outputs and then you add another input (anthropomorphic emissions) which exceed the capacity of the system to absorb then you throw it off balance...hence the rising CO2 concentration and the warming.
Let's make this simple for you. If you are in Antarctica and pour water in a pan it will freeze so you need to add a heat source to keep it from freezing, however if that heat source is too high it will boil the water. No one is disputing the necessity of greenhouse gases for life on earth, the key is balance and we are throwing it off balance with anthropomorphic emissions.
@EuphoricTurtle Because you're obviously NOT a scientist I will quote Prof. William Happer, Princeton University through video to explain a few points for you rather than smother you with reams of links. You are obviously very interested in pushing your point across(unsuccessfully to me) about all the hype that surrounds co2 and Global warming. Let's say you cannot convince me of anything you say so far as you are so blinded by this hype. Take a look at the video, think about it and don't get back to me with any of your thoughts on it as you are seriously giving me a headache with your non-sense and immature insults. [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-9UlF8hkhs]
