Who to believe? Bonner or Royal Society...
We recently did a post on the outrageous claims made by Bonner Cohen,
the "tobacco hack turned climate change flak," in which Mr. Cohen, a "senior fellow" at the National Centre for Public Policy Research, who once stated on the science backing the harmful effects of second-hand tobacco smoke that:
"The science [on tobacco smoke], of which the EPA avails itself, is that which happens to fit the political agenda of the moment …. the one certainty following the EPA's report on tobacco smoke, is that the available science is inconclusive."
Scarily, his stance on climate change is quite similar:
"Your grandchildren would be best served, when considering climate change that we not allow ourselves to be driven by idle speculation, not by computer models. Simply look at the scientific data and see if in fact we are experiencing anything out of the ordinary."
I thought it would be interesting to post Mr. Bonner's claims against the official stance of the United Kingdom's Royal Society, you know, the one formed in 1600's whose membership over the years has included Robert Boyle and Sir Isaac Newton. Anyways, this group states:
"International scientific consensus agrees that increasing levels of man-made greenhouse gases are leading to global climate change. Possible consequences of climate change include rising temperatures, changing sea levels, and impacts on global weather. These changes could have serious impacts on the world's organisms and on the lives of millions of people, especially those living in areas vulnerable to extreme natural conditions such as flooding and drought."
Hmmmm…. Bonner or Royal Society, Bonner or Royal Society? Guy who said tobacco smoke science was "questionable" or the guys whose former president (Newton) was considered one of the greatest scientists the world has ever known? Tough call.
the "tobacco hack turned climate change flak," in which Mr. Cohen, a "senior fellow" at the National Centre for Public Policy Research, who once stated on the science backing the harmful effects of second-hand tobacco smoke that: "The science [on tobacco smoke], of which the EPA avails itself, is that which happens to fit the political agenda of the moment …. the one certainty following the EPA's report on tobacco smoke, is that the available science is inconclusive."
Scarily, his stance on climate change is quite similar:
"Your grandchildren would be best served, when considering climate change that we not allow ourselves to be driven by idle speculation, not by computer models. Simply look at the scientific data and see if in fact we are experiencing anything out of the ordinary."
I thought it would be interesting to post Mr. Bonner's claims against the official stance of the United Kingdom's Royal Society, you know, the one formed in 1600's whose membership over the years has included Robert Boyle and Sir Isaac Newton. Anyways, this group states:
"International scientific consensus agrees that increasing levels of man-made greenhouse gases are leading to global climate change. Possible consequences of climate change include rising temperatures, changing sea levels, and impacts on global weather. These changes could have serious impacts on the world's organisms and on the lives of millions of people, especially those living in areas vulnerable to extreme natural conditions such as flooding and drought."
Hmmmm…. Bonner or Royal Society, Bonner or Royal Society? Guy who said tobacco smoke science was "questionable" or the guys whose former president (Newton) was considered one of the greatest scientists the world has ever known? Tough call.
