E-Cigs banned?

[JR8]

Arguing that scientists were wrong decades ago is moot.

It would be if only science were involved; the difficulty is when such issues are hijacked by politicians for their own ends.

[nakatago]

Arguing that scientists were wrong decades ago is moot.

It would be if only science were involved; the difficulty is when such issues are hijacked by politicians for their own ends.

Problem is, YOU have difficulty separating science from politics.

[JR8]

FFS, can you please debate your points without calling the other party names?! Whenever someone raises a left-wing point, you always assign them names.

-----
Eagle: Your 'evidence' of vineyards in the north during Roman times as contra-indicating global warming is silly and irrelevant to the challenges at hand... I had thought you better educated and more rational than that.

Me: Ah, a signed-up zealot I see
------

Which comment did you find more personal? A zealot is simply an 'ardent follower', and it was said with humour.


p.s. I started out in the world of science, and I have seen how research labs/wings have to go on their rounds for funding. So I have seen how topical causes tend to get well funded and hence draw in funding applications.

[nakatago]

* Whenever someone confronts you about your behavior, you focus on just one instance. This is the Grateful Dead all over again. You fail to realize that it's your overall dismissive attitude that gets to people. You claim you did nothing offensive in your latest post (regardless of topic) but really, your latest posts are often straws that break camels' backs.

* You make disclaimers after someone calls you out: "but I did it with humor." Puh-lease. It's like saying, "Black people seem to be stupid, not that I'm being racist or anything."

* Continuing with your dismissive attitude and broad generalizations: "Oh, scientists are just after funding. Therefore, all controversial studies must be just after money." This can be partly true but if you examine things enough, you'll be able to separate genuine science from just funding fodder. You do this all the time: "Oh I don't like the Grateful Dead. All its fans must have terrible taste in music." "I don't like Americans; they must all be uncouth barbarians." "I'm a landlord who's had bad tenants; all landlords must just be victims of exploitative tenants." "This is how it works in London; this must work in all commonwealth countries." "I didn't have a college degree when I made my first million in finance; therefore, all college degree are useless."

Which comment did you find more personal? A zealot is simply an 'ardent follower', and it was said with humour.


p.s. I started out in the world of science, and I have seen how research labs/wings have to go on their rounds for funding. So I have seen how topical causes tend to get well funded and hence draw in funding applications.

[Brah]

Which comment did you find more personal? A zealot is simply an 'ardent follower', and it was said with humour.

* Whenever someone confronts you about your behavior, you focus on just one instance. This is the Grateful Dead all over again. You fail to realize that it's your overall dismissive attitude that gets to people. You claim you did nothing offensive in your latest post (regardless of topic) but really, your latest posts are often straws that break camels' backs.

* You make disclaimers after someone calls you out: "but I did it with humor." Puh-lease. It's like saying, "Black people seem to be stupid, not that I'm being racist or anything."

* Continuing with your dismissive attitude and broad generalizations: "Oh, scientists are just after funding. Therefore, all controversial studies must be just after money." This can be partly true but if you examine things enough, you'll be able to separate genuine science from just funding fodder. You do this all the time: "Oh I don't like the Grateful Dead. All its fans must have terrible taste in music." "I don't like Americans; they must all be uncouth barbarians." "I'm a landlord who's had bad tenants; all landlords must just be victims of exploitative tenants." "This is how it works in London; this must work in all commonwealth countries." "I didn't have a college degree when I made my first million in finance; therefore, all college degree are useless."

sadly, ^^^this

[nakatago]

Was my post personal?

Yes, yes it is.

[Strong Eagle]

p.s. I started out in the world of science, and I have seen how research labs/wings have to go on their rounds for funding. So I have seen how topical causes tend to get well funded and hence draw in funding applications.

And yet again, you bring up an useless topic as though it somehow makes all the research and scientific opinion on global warming irrelevant.

You'd be far better off actually looking at the data, looking at the current situation, and refuting that with other viable data and observations. But, you don't do that because you can't do that... just like the tea party rednecks in the USA (sorry SMS!) cannot refute global warming... instead, they point to some massive conspiracy by the 'libtards' to create a one world government.

Seriously, JR8, your argument is bullshit... funding games in no way affect the vast, vast majority of climate change research.

[ecureilx]

Which comment did you find more personal? A zealot is simply an 'ardent follower', and it was said with humour.

Too much British humour ?? Well, I always felt British humour was divided by a very thin line from Sarcasm/Nastiness

Don't shoot me for saying that ...

[JR8]

Seriously, JR8, your argument is bullshit... funding games in no way affect the vast, vast majority of climate change research.

That is in one opinion, but there is another camp that believes climate 'scientists' are funding-chasers who have been effectively bought to give some credibility to politicians' policies.

I really don't believe in the idea of the 'noble scientist' selflessly working for an entire life, surviving on peanuts. No, they want money, and they want gongs and kudos. It's only human nature I expect.

I remember when I was a student, my personal 'tutor' (assigned mentor from the academic staff) was a wonderfully charming and eccentric DPhil (i.e. PhD from Oxford) in zoology. His whole field was the 'vertical stratification of insects within the canopies of rain-forest trees', and we spent many boozy nights in his orchard testing and tweaking UV illuminated insect traps. Anyway... apart from all the 'good side', he was also a consultant to a UK nuclear authority ('Nirex'??) and had put his name to research that said disposing of spent nuclear fuel down retired coal mines was, sensible and without risk.

My British uncle was a scientist who lived for 30 years in Africa, together with his family. Despite which he was on the payroll of the United States Marine Corps as a Rear Admiral [in a land-locked country lol]. Because ...apparently [cough], the USMC had a deep interest in bird borne parasites.

I decided not to go into academia as a)I'd probably not pass the exams b)I was told it would be a life of penury, and hence you had to have some form of 'higher calling' to enter it. What I have come to realise is that as with the myth of the 'poor downtrodden farmer', there aren't a lot of nobly poor scientists.

As always: Follow the money.

[Strong Eagle]

Seriously, JR8, your argument is bullshit... funding games in no way affect the vast, vast majority of climate change research.

That is in one opinion, but there is another camp that believes climate 'scientists' are funding-chasers who have been effectively bought to give some credibility to politicians' policies.

I really don't believe in the idea of the 'noble scientist' selflessly working for an entire life, surviving on peanuts. No, they want money, and they want gongs and kudos. It's only human nature I expect.

I remember when I was a student, my personal 'tutor' (assigned mentor from the academic staff) was a wonderfully charming and eccentric DPhil (i.e. PhD from Oxford) in zoology. His whole field was the 'vertical stratification of insects within the canopies of rain-forest trees', and we spent many boozy nights in his orchard testing and tweaking UV illuminated insect traps. Anyway... apart from all the 'good side', he was also a consultant to a UK nuclear authority ('Nirex'??) and had put his name to research that said disposing of spent nuclear fuel down retired coal mines was, sensible and without risk.

My British uncle was a scientist who lived for 30 years in Africa, together with his family. Despite which he was on the payroll of the United States Marine Corps as a Rear Admiral [in a land-locked country lol]. Because ...apparently [cough], the USMC had a deep interest in bird borne parasites.

I decided not to go into academia as a)I'd probably not pass the exams b)I was told it would be a life of penury, and hence you had to have some form of 'higher calling' to enter it. What I have come to realise is that as with the myth of the 'poor downtrodden farmer', there aren't a lot of nobly poor scientists.

As always: Follow the money.

It really doesn't matter what you 'believe', JR8, what matters is the facts. You have chosen to live in a world where your beliefs color your assessment and understanding of facts as presented by others. Fine. Your assessment in no way changes the actual facts, just your interpretation of them.

Cheers.

[zzm9980]

Seriously, JR8, your argument is bullshit... funding games in no way affect the vast, vast majority of climate change research.

That is in one opinion, but there is another camp that believes climate 'scientists' are funding-chasers who have been effectively bought to give some credibility to politicians' policies.

I really don't believe in the idea of the 'noble scientist' selflessly working for an entire life, surviving on peanuts. No, they want money, and they want gongs and kudos. It's only human nature I expect.

I remember when I was a student, my personal 'tutor' (assigned mentor from the academic staff) was a wonderfully charming and eccentric DPhil (i.e. PhD from Oxford) in zoology. His whole field was the 'vertical stratification of insects within the canopies of rain-forest trees', and we spent many boozy nights in his orchard testing and tweaking UV illuminated insect traps. Anyway... apart from all the 'good side', he was also a consultant to a UK nuclear authority ('Nirex'??) and had put his name to research that said disposing of spent nuclear fuel down retired coal mines was, sensible and without risk.

My British uncle was a scientist who lived for 30 years in Africa, together with his family. Despite which he was on the payroll of the United States Marine Corps as a Rear Admiral [in a land-locked country lol]. Because ...apparently [cough], the USMC had a deep interest in bird borne parasites.

I decided not to go into academia as a)I'd probably not pass the exams b)I was told it would be a life of penury, and hence you had to have some form of 'higher calling' to enter it. What I have come to realise is that as with the myth of the 'poor downtrodden farmer', there aren't a lot of nobly poor scientists.

As always: Follow the money.

It really doesn't matter what you 'believe', JR8, what matters is the facts. You have chosen to live in a world where your beliefs color your assessment and understanding of facts as presented by others. Fine. Your assessment in no way changes the actual facts, just your interpretation of them.

Cheers.

^ +1

[JR8]

Those were experienced based facts and not simply 'beliefs'. Furthermore they were (arguably) 'dark-sides' of people who I otherwise had massive respect for. It's not like I'm outing these aspects of their work for fun or a cheap point.

Just because they clash with your 'beliefs' doesn't make them wrong.

[rajagainstthemachine]

Sigh! yet another thread takes a tangent course. Could we just continue where we left of about e-cigs and other *cough cough* substances?

[JR8]

Yes, perhaps there should be a place (on 'Strictly Speaking'?) where public vilification can be indulged in.

Back onto the topic of NRT (and e-cigs). I'm completely in favour of NRT as a means to quitting smoking, and went through it myself. An observation I made at the time was that it's cheaper to smoke in Singapore than buy NRT here*.

If e-cigs are safer than smoking, then as with smoking and cutting down from Malboro Red, Winston, etc... to something lighter, I believe it is at least a step in the right direction. The cycle isn't that hard to break, but of course it is made easier if it can be done in steps.



* You get NRT in the UK on prescription, so by contrast there is an immediate financial benefit in quitting.

[ecureilx]

f e-cigs are safer than smoking, then as with smoking and cutting down from Malboro Red, Winston, etc... to something lighter, I believe it is at least a step in the right direction. The cycle isn't that hard to break, but of course it is made easier if it can be done in steps.

You didn't know Singapore stopped the use of "LIGHT" Branding as that has been perceived by Psychologists as subtly encouraging new smokers as they are seen to be 'less harmful'

Hence, no more LIGHTS, but WHITE !!!