4 ms·
I think you'll find that as soon as researchers began looking into the harmful effects of smoking, the link to cancer quickly became the scientific consensus. I
by devindotcom 4y ago
I think you'll find that as soon as researchers began looking into the harmful effects of smoking, the link to cancer quickly became the scientific consensus. It did not become the popular consensus for decades because of the indefatigable opposition campaign funded by the tobacco companies.
A good history of all this is here: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22345227/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22345227/
Imagine if a company had prohibited tobacco advertising that asserted smoking was healthy. That's the parallel here.
- _-david-_ 4y agoI am not disagreeing with your points. I was just trying to point out the consensus can be wrong and the consensus can change. The problem I have with this is they will almost certainly allow things that contradict the consensus. Let's say the consensus is like 2C increase in 50 years. If somebody says it will actually be 3C they would be contradicting the consensus but probably would be allowed the ad. If somebody says it will only increase 1C they would probably not be able to sell an ad.
- Certhas 4y agoYeah, consensus changes. Especially when new evidence and new ideas arise. That shows that scientific consensus is working. If the scientific consensus threatens assets and income of powerful industries they run massive lobbying and ad campaigns against it and try to interfere with the scientific process itself by funding biased studies. Pretending like the people that exaggerate the effect of climate change are a comparable issue is dishonest and not backed by facts. Classic false symmetry fallacy. Also, the scientific consensus is conditional: If we emit like this, then that will happen. The IPCC report doesn't predict a certain amount of warming.