Lav was pointing out that a cooler summer in 2020 doesn’t prove...

First 36 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
zipperlip

28,594 Posts.

250

02/03/21

12:39

Post #: 51449587
Share

Originally posted by zipperlip: ↑

The point I was making wasn’t that Lav’s post about, smoking causes lung cancer was incorrect.
I was pointing out that it isn’t the only thing that causes lung cancer.
I didn’t say that smoking doesn’t cause lung cancer did I?
You offered up an “off the top of my head” piece from your memory as did I.
I should of tried to find a link to the conversation that I listened to on the radio a few years ago but I was lazy, apologies to those who need links.

I found it interesting when I looked up smoking v lung cancer that piece of research put the number of smokers who developed lung cancer at 10% or less.
Those warnings on the packets are true, smoking causes lung cancer but not entirely true as smoking doesn’t cause lung cancer in all smokers and not all lung cancer victims are smokers.

My post wasn’t aimed at denying any adverse effects of smoking but to point out that a common belief can be based on less than perfect scientific reasoning.

Expand

Lav was pointing out that a cooler summer in 2020 doesn’t prove or disprove theories on MMCC, which I agree with as I agree that a smoker who lives to the age of 95 doesn’t disprove that smoking isn’t a cause of lung cancer.

Just that smoking isn’t the only cause of lung cancer.

Just as thinking that MMCO2 is the only explanation for variables in our climate or the only possible reason for any dramatic weather events is incorrect.

The science behind smoking and its effects has been proven and the proof is that the claims can be verified by repeating the experiments and reaching the same outcomes, unlike MMCC.

I wasn’t surprised at the range of non smokers with lung cancer percentages offered up on the first page of my google search.
Statistics are a poor substitute for facts.
1 Upvote

Reply