Posted 9 Apr 2010 · Report post Bob, do you really think that I am so lacking in knowledge that I do not know the items you mentioned? And Charles Darwin did do his research on his own as every thinking person has to do no matter how many state otherwise. What I was trying to point out, and what it seems you missed, is that no one needs anyone else to confirm their knowledge and if you think so then you fail to understand the virtue of independence. In other words, I do not need you nor anyone else to agree with my thoughts on exercise and diet for me to accept them, all I need is for them to be varified by reality.Actually I don't know what you know. I only know what I read that you have written here and I respond accordingly. I have no way of reading your mind. I am genetically mind-blind (one of the benefits of Asperger's Syndrome).Now to the point: Every scientific hypothesis requires experimental or observational verification or corroberation. And it ain't reality that does it. It is people sweating blood and shedding tears to construct apparatus and design experiments. To get reality to talk you have to shine a strong light in its face and beat it bloody with a club (in a manner of speaking, of course). Reality does not reveal. It is people who find out. Nature reveals nothing to those who just sit and stare. To find out what Nature has to say, one must think, seek and work hard. Nature hides, people find. The root word of experiment is Latin for try. Every hypothesis has to be put on trial. Bob Kolker Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted 9 Apr 2010 · Report post Just a reality check here.. isn't Prof. Lindzen the one who asserted that cigarette smoking did not cause lung cancer? If he was wrong about smoking, what makes him anymore credible about climate change? (Just playing devil's advocate here.)Just to insert my avatar here. And to mention the results of my lung function test and chest x-ray done last month. Both normal. I'll be 62 this year. I've been smoking since I was 14. Quit three times. Once for 8 years and twice for 1 year. My grandfather died at age 92 of "old age". Not lung cancer or any kind of cancer. He started smoking at age 12 and smoked till the end. I'm not a scientist so I'm not sure of this, but I thought that for something to be true it has to apply to all. Yet this individual and his grandfather and others I've read about in news stories who lived long lives and smoked cigarettes all their lives are mere exceptions? There's a pleasure in smoking cigarettes that's so singular that for this individual the risks -- if they are there for me -- don't matter. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted 9 Apr 2010 · Report post Just a reality check here.. isn't Prof. Lindzen the one who asserted that cigarette smoking did not cause lung cancer? If he was wrong about smoking, what makes him anymore credible about climate change? (Just playing devil's advocate here.)Just to insert my avatar here. And to mention the results of my lung function test and chest x-ray done last month. Both normal. I'll be 62 this year. I've been smoking since I was 14. Quit three times. Once for 8 years and twice for 1 year. My grandfather died at age 92 of "old age". Not lung cancer or any kind of cancer. He started smoking at age 12 and smoked till the end. I'm not a scientist so I'm not sure of this, but I thought that for something to be true it has to apply to all. Yet this individual and his grandfather and others I've read about in news stories who lived long lives and smoked cigarettes all their lives are mere exceptions? There's a pleasure in smoking cigarettes that's so singular that for this individual the risks -- if they are there for me -- don't matter.Well, if it raises the risk from 0.5% to 4% (pulling numbers out of the air), there's definitely a correlation, but not one you can spot empirically. I do find it amusing that my family talks of my grandad dying aged 89 of smoking-related diseases (heart/blood pressure problems I think) and blaming the smoke for his "early death". I find 89 a very respectable age for a man who fought on three continents at an age where the balance of forces was more... even. But whilst I doubt the climate warming scam, I find the smoking-related disease science to be a lot more convincing. Think of it like radiation risk (I believe some of it actually IS) - if you walk through a nuclear cloud, there's a certain probability that the radiation will damage the DNA of some of your cells to a sufficient extent to cause cancer, which depends on the intensity of radiation, the probability of it hitting the right part, etc., but most people exposed to very large doses, if they do not die immediately, tend to develop cancer. The people who survived Chernobyl or Hiroshima do not invalidate the concept of radiation sickness.I do not smoke but would if I had gotten into it. There's something about the (bespoke) cigar culture that is just... cool. (speaking as a scotch nut who sourced some PC7 within days of it coming out)Your last sentence says it well, though. You value the pleasure of smoking a cigarette more than the extra probability of surviving (expressed as "added longevity" or however you want). I agree with that approach. It reminds me of this great ad:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66axPzBpwwYI hope to be able to say the same thing at his age (many of my ancestors can). Life without risks is not as interesting.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
