# Why do people deny science?



## Luddly Neddite (May 29, 2013)

From global warming to fluoride: Why do people deny science? - Salon.com






The clouds of a thunderstorm roll over neighborhoods heavily damaged in a tornado in Moore, Oklahoma, May 23, 2013. (Credit: Reuters/Lucas Jackson)



> Excerpted from _"Denial: Self-Deception, False Beliefs, and the Origins of the Human Mind"_
> 
> The potent combination of our powerful intelligence with our massive reality denial has led to a dangerous world. Less obvious, but in the long term more dangerous, are threats resulting directly or indirectly from technological developments that have permitted us to increase our numbers well beyond the carrying capacity of the natural world. More efficient agriculture and the invention of artificial fertilizers permitted humans to produce food sufficient to support numbers that would be unthinkable for other animals of our physical size. Public health measures, vaccinations, antibiotics, and other medical advances also permitted population numbers to explode. The world is overpopulated already and is becoming more so at an alarming rate. And although we pay lip service to the resulting problems, we do relatively little to address their root causes. Indeed, some religions continue to promote the unrestrained propagation of their flocks. Planet Earth is sick, with a bad case of &#8220;infection by humans.&#8221;...
> 
> ... Why is it that ordinary citizens do not sit up and take notice of the danger? Unfortunately, the focus remains mostly on &#8220;global warming&#8221; instead of on the bigger concern&#8212;that we are disrupting the planet&#8217;s climate in completely unpredictable ways.



The intelligent and the educated are letting the stupid and the greedy kill our planet.


----------



## Katzndogz (May 29, 2013)

Global warming is a hoax.  To real scientists there are no absolutes and everything must be questioned.  When science becomes absolute it moves from science to faith.


----------



## Oddball (May 29, 2013)

As though we needed any more evidence of what a bunch of misanthropic Malthusian declinists the Goebbels warming crowd is, along comes the OP to really drive the point home.

Good show, Dudley.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 29, 2013)

Why can't the AGWCult ever show us a single repeatable experiment of how an additional wisp of CO2 drives up temperature and spawns hurricanes and tornadoes?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 29, 2013)

"Tornado Alley" 

See how the AGW is only effective in the Midwest?


----------



## Wry Catcher (May 29, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Global warming is a hoax.  To real scientists there are no absolutes and everything must be questioned.  When science becomes absolute it moves from science to faith.



Let's look at the reasoning from Katzndogz:

Statement:  Global wrming is a hoax (seems to be an absolute) and everything must be questioned (Huh?). 

Pure 'genius'.


----------



## westwall (May 29, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> From global warming to fluoride: Why do people deny science? - Salon.com
> 
> 
> 
> ...







We scientists were wondering the same thing?  How is it you supposedly intellectual types ignore, don't understand, or deny outright the science that is presented to you.  And now you have had to resort to revising science when the real world doesn't conform to your computer modeling addled minds.  Yes, you revisionists are quite a problem.


----------



## westwall (May 29, 2013)

Wry Catcher said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Global warming is a hoax.  To real scientists there are no absolutes and everything must be questioned.  When science becomes absolute it moves from science to faith.
> ...








AGW supporters question nothing and stamp out anything that doesn't support their pre-conceived ideals.  So yes, that qualifies as fraud.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 29, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Global warming is a hoax.  To real scientists there are no absolutes and everything must be questioned.  When science becomes absolute it moves from science to faith.



Well said........

And anyway.....the bozo's who wander into this forum dont get it......nobody cares about the science except the internet nutters. Nobody else.


----------



## t_polkow (May 29, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Global warming is a hoax.  To real scientists there are no absolutes and everything must be questioned.  When science becomes absolute it moves from science to faith.




Real scientists to you are "creation" scientists


----------



## ScienceRocks (May 29, 2013)

I feel that people on both sides don't understand what science is. Simply put the right denies it outright and the left thinks that we know it all.

The right has become anti-science and the left has just gotten burnt because  of our understanding of the oceans effects throughout the climate system proving them to be alarmist. You see within politics you must drive a message that is straight forward to the people getting it...Well, within science you just can't do that as it is charging and evolving.  

Simply the right is just stupid, but none the less is able to point out the weaknesses of the theory of global warming and the left doesn't understand how to use the politics with the science. Science evolves and pulls the carpet out way to many times. This gives the other side blood in the water to attack.


----------



## Trakar (May 30, 2013)

Matthew said:


> I feel that people on both sides don't understand what science is. Simply put the right denies it outright and the left thinks that we know it all.
> 
> The right has become anti-science and the left has just gotten burnt because of our understanding of the oceans effects throughout the climate system proving them to be alarmist. You see within politics you must drive a message that is straight forward to the people getting it...Well, within science you just can't do that as it is charging and evolving.
> 
> Simply the right is just stupid, but none the less is able to point out the weaknesses of the theory of global warming and the left doesn't understand how to use the politics with the science. Science evolves and pulls the carpet out way to many times. This gives the other side blood in the water to attack.


 
Feelings are only the best thing to base your decisions on when you are incapable or unwilling to apply the understandings imparted by empirical evidences and sound logic. 

There have been studies which indicate that there is some merit to your suggestion that there are blindsides and flaws among both sides of the political policy discussion of AGW, but this is very different from any suggestion that there is some great international conspiracy surrounding the topic of AGW and that there is some sort of legitimate controversy in the world's scientific communities regarding the basic understanding of climate science and AGW in particular.

Yale Law Psychologist

Climate Science is Core


----------



## Saigon (May 30, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Global warming is a hoax.  To real scientists there are no absolutes and everything must be questioned.  When science becomes absolute it moves from science to faith.



Katz nails it - denialism is an issue not of science, but of faith. 

SSDD showed on another thread that fully 0.7% of scientific papers deny AGW. Think about that number .*..0.7%*

And yet Katz has decided that this means that he must oppose the 90% and call it the whole thing a hoax. He starts with an absolute statement and refuses to ask questions.


----------



## Saigon (May 30, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> See how the AGW is only effective in the Midwest?



Now of course everyone who has read anything about climate science know that science has not predicted that we will all experience the same uniform weather all over the world, but that weather will become more extreme - dry countries will get drier. Wet countries may get wetter. Snowy countries will get more snow.

What Frank shows here is that a great deal of Denialism comes from a singular failure to grasp what scientists are actually telling us. 

Frank ridicules climate science because he can not understand what the hell scientists are saying, and has not interest in finding out. Ridicule is the easier option.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 30, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> From global warming to fluoride: Why do people deny science? - Salon.com
> 
> 
> The clouds of a thunderstorm roll over neighborhoods heavily damaged in a tornado in Moore, Oklahoma, May 23, 2013. (Credit: Reuters/Lucas Jackson)
> ...



That is ironic considering that Salon publishes bullshit like this:

Monsanto crops cause tumors - Salon.com

I never let anyone that ignores science lecture me about science.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 30, 2013)

Wry Catcher said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Global warming is a hoax.  To real scientists there are no absolutes and everything must be questioned.  When science becomes absolute it moves from science to faith.
> ...



How about this one?

How the Monsanto Protection Act snuck into law - Salon.com


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 30, 2013)

t_polkow said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Global warming is a hoax.  To real scientists there are no absolutes and everything must be questioned.  When science becomes absolute it moves from science to faith.
> ...



Want to debate science with this nutter? I bet I could prove to you that 1=2 and you wouldn't be able to prove me wrong without help.


----------



## Saigon (May 30, 2013)

Matthew said:


> I feel that people on both sides don't understand what science is. Simply put the right denies it outright and the left thinks that we know it all.
> 
> The right has become anti-science and the left has just gotten burnt because  of our understanding of the oceans effects throughout the climate system proving them to be alarmist. You see within politics you must drive a message that is straight forward to the people getting it...Well, within science you just can't do that as it is charging and evolving.
> 
> Simply the right is just stupid, but none the less is able to point out the weaknesses of the theory of global warming and the left doesn't understand how to use the politics with the science. Science evolves and pulls the carpet out way to many times. This gives the other side blood in the water to attack.



That is a very balanced overview, and I largely agree.

I would say, though, that the alarmism of the left is largely in the past. I think there was a feeling that only hysteria would get the attention of the masses, wheras in fact the hysteria only gave rise to a counter-movement of equal hysteria from the denialist side. 

The IIPC reports now tend to be much more conservative in tone - even too conservative.


----------



## SSDD (May 30, 2013)

Matthew said:


> I feel that people on both sides don't understand what science is. Simply put the right denies it outright and the left thinks that we know it all.
> 
> The right has become anti-science and the left has just gotten burnt because  of our understanding of the oceans effects throughout the climate system proving them to be alarmist. You see within politics you must drive a message that is straight forward to the people getting it...Well, within science you just can't do that as it is charging and evolving.
> 
> Simply the right is just stupid, but none the less is able to point out the weaknesses of the theory of global warming and the left doesn't understand how to use the politics with the science. Science evolves and pulls the carpet out way to many times. This gives the other side blood in the water to attack.



You keep on believing and "feeling" that.  What is interesting is that you hold your faith in the face of the undeniable evidence that the wheels are falling off the AGW crazytrain right before your very eyes.  It is all being falsified and none of the hard truth is penetrating your faith.

Your incessant worry about arctic ice for example...you seem to be blissfully unaware that as of 2 days ago, arctic ice was at a 12 year high.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 30, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > I feel that people on both sides don't understand what science is. Simply put the right denies it outright and the left thinks that we know it all.
> ...



...you seem to be blissfully unaware that as of 2 days ago, arctic ice was at a 12 year high because of AGW.

There, fixed. That's how "Peer review" works

AGW, the only "Science" that is magnetically repelled from the laboratory


----------



## SSDD (May 30, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> There, fixed. That's how "Peer review" works
> 
> AGW, the only "Science" that is magnetically repelled from the laboratory



There was far more hard evidence in support of phrenology than exists foir AGW.







At least phrenologists had the basic anatomy right...the energy budget that forms the basis for climate science is nothing more than an ad hoc construct designed explicitly to create an AGW industry.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 30, 2013)

The science hobbyists in here are appalled that the rest of the world is "meh" about global warming!!! It is a hoot to watch these handful of climate OC's in here carry on like some crusaders at the head of this awareness wave thats never coming, ever.

These people never acknowledge that costs matter in the real world and its a slam dunk that in the real world, we're not going back to 19th century energy now or any time in the future. So you can talk about people not understanding the science until the cows come home but its not going to add up to dick.........ever. Because the rest of the world can connect the dots.



In yesterdays Forbes........ 


5/26/2013 

*To The Horror Of Global Warming Alarmists, Global Cooling Is Here*

Around 1250 A.D., historical records show, ice packs began showing up farther south in the North Atlantic. Glaciers also began expanding on Greenland, soon to threaten Norse settlements on the island. From 1275 to 1300 A.D., glaciers began expanding more broadly, according to radiocarbon dating of plants killed by the glacier growth. The period known today Summers began cooling in Northern Europe after 1300 A.D., negatively impacting growing seasons, as reflected in the Great Famine of 1315 to 1317. Expanding glaciers and ice cover spreading across Greenland began driving the Norse settlers out. The last, surviving, written records of the Norse Greenland settlements, which had persisted for centuries, concern a marriage in 1408 A.D. in the church of Hvalsey, today the best preserved Norse ruin....as the Little Ice Age was just starting to poke through.



Colder winters began regularly freezing rivers and canals in Great Britain, the Netherlands and Northern France, with both the Thames in London and the Seine in Paris frozen solid annually. The first River Thames Frost Fair was held in 1607. In 1607-1608, early European settlers in North America reported ice persisting on Lake Superior until June. In January, 1658, a Swedish army marched across the ice to invade Copenhagen. By the end of the 17th century, famines had spread from northern France, across Norway and Sweden, to Finland and Estonia.



To The Horror Of Global Warming Alarmists, Global Cooling Is Here - Forbes



The climate OC's need to recognize its not 2006 anymore.


Time for Plan B.


----------



## Bfgrn (May 30, 2013)

_The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie  deliberate, contrived and dishonest  but the myth  persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
President John F. Kennedy_

The human fingerprint in global warming

*The skeptic argument...

It's not us
'What do the skeptics believe? First, they concur with the believers that the Earth has been warming since the end of a Little Ice Age around 1850. The cause of this warming is the question. Believers think the warming is man-made, while the skeptics believe the warming is natural and contributions from man are minimal and certainly not potentially catastrophic à la Al Gore.' (Neil Frank)*

What the science says...

Multiple sets of independent observations find a human fingerprint on climate change.

When presented with the overwhelming evidence that the planet is warming, many people react by asking "but how can we be sure that were causing the warming?" It turns out that the observed global warming has a distinct human fingerprint on it.

In climatology, as in any other science, establishing causation is more complicated than merely establishing an effect. However, there are a number of lines of evidence that have helped to convince climate scientists that the current global warming can be attributed to human greenhouse gas emissions (in particular CO2). Here are just some of them:






The first four pieces of evidence show that humans are raising CO2 levels:

1) Humans are currently emitting around 30 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere.
2) Oxygen levels are falling as if carbon is being burned to create carbon dioxide.
3) Fossil carbon is building up in the atmosphere. (We know this because the two types of carbon have different chemical properties.)
4) Corals show that fossil carbon has recently risen sharply.

Another two observations show that CO2 is trapping more heat:

5)Satellites measure less heat escaping to space at the precise wavelengths which CO2 absorbs.
6) Surface measurements find this heat is returning to Earth to warm the surface.

The last four indicators show that the observed pattern of warming is consistent with what is predicted to occur during greenhouse warming:

7) An increased greenhouse effect would make nights warm faster than days, and this is what has been observed.
8) If the warming is due to solar activity, then the upper atmosphere (the stratosphere) should warm along with the rest of the atmosphere. But if the warming is due to the greenhouse effect, the stratosphere should cool because of the heat being trapped in the lower atmosphere (the troposphere). Satellite measurements show that the stratosphere is cooling.
9) This combination of a warming troposphere and cooling stratosphere should cause the tropopause, which separates them, to rise. This has also been observed.
10) It was predicted that the ionosphere would shrink, and it is indeed shrinking.

(References for all of these findings can be found here.)

Often one hears claims that the attribution of climate change is based on modeling, and that nobody can really know its causes. But here we have a series of empirical observations, all of which point to the conclusion that humans are causing the planet to warm.

The human fingerprint in global warming


----------



## skookerasbil (May 30, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> _The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie  deliberate, contrived and dishonest  but the myth  persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
> President John F. Kennedy_
> 
> The human fingerprint in global warming
> ...






Like I said s0n.....time for PLan B. The climate OC's have been trotting out this same crap for almost 2 decades and havent moved the goalposts a single yard. Nobody buys the whole "man-made" stuff anymore because people are spending 8 or 9 months out of their year freezing their asses off. Reality is 95% perception, except in the world of the climate OC's. If people were getting all hysterical over this stuff......like the climate k00ks.....representatives would be having their doors knocked down demanding climate change legislation. But nobody cares.......


----------



## DarkLion (May 30, 2013)

Why do people deny science? Because it might make them look in the mirror and accept a different truth than the one they wish to believe


----------



## skookerasbil (May 30, 2013)

DarkLion said:


> Why do people deny science? Because it might make them look in the mirror and accept a different truth than the one they wish to believe




Because people with real responsibilities in life dont want to be paying double for their electricity.

As Ive said on here a number of times......people will embrace the warmist narrative when Alaska has 3 weeks straight of 70 degees in mid-January and not a moment sooner. Its just the way it is.......otherwise, youd have tens of millions more people heading to Vegas and Atlantic city all the time to drop lots of coin. The masses dont want to open their wallet wide based upon a hail Mary pass guess.


----------



## Bfgrn (May 30, 2013)

skookerasbil said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > _The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie  deliberate, contrived and dishonest  but the myth  persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
> ...



In a country where over 90% of citizens support universal background checks, but it fails to pass because well funded corporate lobbyists decide it is not a good idea? 

Have you ever had the curiosity to investigate who funds these so called 'scientists' who deny global warming can be attributed to human greenhouse gas emissions? It is the greenhouse gas emitters. The biggest polluters on the planet. Can you fathom they might have a monetary interest in undermining science??

These are the same 'scientists' and think tanks who offered the same 'scientific' evidence for years that cigarettes don't cause cancer.

Are you really THAT obtuse???


----------



## Papageorgio (May 30, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> From global warming to fluoride: Why do people deny science? - Salon.com
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And the left ignores science in issues such as when life forms in a mother's womb.


----------



## Sunshine (May 30, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> From global warming to fluoride: Why do people deny science? - Salon.com
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I have studied as much science as any person who is not an actual _scientist._  In order to become a nurse where I went to school, one must take and graduate with enough science to have an 'area' in science.  In other words, that is a type of minor.  I think there is some evidence that the planet is changing.  But the science simply isn't there to prove that humans are causing it.  Ice ages have happened before.  Continents have shifted.  And there were few if any people present when it happened.  We have only been keeping record of temperature since the invention of the thermomenter, and given that the ancients built observatories, and prayed and sacrificed human beings to the sun to insure it would return or to have bountiful crops, I simply do not believe that they recorded anything beyond the global category of the seasons.  Certainly not temperatures.

There are more people on the planet now than there has ever been.  Those numbers certainly give humans the ability to sully the environment.  But I learned in Microbiology that things which are not currently biodegradable can become biodegradable as bacteria mutate and figure out how to consume those things. We are confining our wate to landfills as much as possible.  I don't think we have figured out exactly the best way to handle medical and nuclear waste, but we are trying.  The US is not the only polluter.  Beijing was the only place I have ever seen brown air.  China has very rich coal deposits and having just come out of feudalism themselves, the Chinese are not going to allow themselves to slip back to a primitive way of living.  We Americans are not going to either.  And I daresay that you, yourself are wasting resources just doing the Crusader Rabbit number on the internet.  Energy would be saved, and its impact on the enviornment would be lessened if you logged off, shut down the computer and never cranked it back up.  Certainly this political chewing gum pastime is not a necessity for you.  But, yet, you engage in it all the while expecting others to give up necessities.

I learned from my parents who lived through the Great Depression to live frugally, and even I do not live with as little waste has they had.  They simply didn't waste anything, not even the tablespoon of crowder peas left in the bottom of the bowl.  Someone had to consume it.  But when I eat meat, I remind myself the sacrifice that animal made and I either eat it all or I save it for a neighborhood dog to consume.  

Why do you lash out at others, based on such little knowledge of people in general and science in particular.  Going back to the Stone Age will not further the preservation of the planet, and given the mere logistics of living, would likely hinder that preservation.


----------



## Saigon (May 30, 2013)

DarkLion said:


> Why do people deny science? Because it might make them look in the mirror and accept a different truth than the one they wish to believe



That's not a bad take on things; not bad at all.

There is also a VERY clear link between denial and extreme right wing politics. At least oneof deniers here has claimed that Conservatism is not right wing!


----------



## skookerasbil (May 30, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...





Beyond obtuse s0n......FTMFW I might add.


In our country, the people decide and they've sided *overwhelmingly* that they like the 2nd ammendment and reject having to open their wallets for the green energy fraud.


evidently s0n........the obtuse are in the distinct majority = winning.


Shit.....even the EU gave a huge kick to the balls on green energy last week = they're all in on coal and nautral gas ( ummm......those are fossil fuels last time I checked)



Indeed......climate science is closer to philosophy than science. And people who are obtuse do consider costs!!!!


----------



## Sunshine (May 30, 2013)

Do feel free to post all links from antiquity showing that the last ice age and continental shifts were caused by man.  I await them with bated breath! Also feel free to prove the connection of this 'denial' with extremists.  We recently did a poll on here which showed that the forum conservatives were more educated than the forum liberals.  So, there is a direct link with regard to critical thinking and knowledge in general.  I can certainly buy that the more educated people of the world are less likely to run around like this:













!!


----------



## Saigon (May 30, 2013)

Skooks- 



> Shit.....even the EU gave a huge kick to the balls on green energy last week = they're all in on coal and nautral gas



Wind, Solar, & Natural Gas Up In Europe &#8212; Coal & Nuclear Down






http://cleantechnica.com/2013/05/13/wind-solar-natural-gas-up-in-europe-coal-nuclear-down/


----------



## Sunshine (May 30, 2013)

Here are the top 4 enviornmental extremist groups:

Top 4 Environmental Extremist Groups



> Voluntary Human Extinction Movement &#8220;Phasing out the human race by voluntarily ceasing to breed will allow Earth's biosphere to returnto good health. Crowded conditions and resource shortages will improve as we become less dense.&#8221;
> 
> Read more at http://www.environmentalgraffiti.co...ntal-extremist-groups/742#riqQ1Z7bqIj1Y8EZ.99 Movement &#8220;Phasing out the human race by voluntarily ceasing to breed will allow Earth's biosphere to returnto good health. Crowded conditions and resource shortages will improve as we become less dense.&#8221;
> Read more at Top 4 Environmental Extremist Groups





> Earth First! &#8220;To put it simply, the Earth must come first.&#8221; This sums up the basic ideology of &#8216;Earth First!ers. Earth First! is a radical environmentalist group that believes anything must be done in order to protect mother earth. Members of the group believe in biocentrism, the belief that every life of every species is equally valuable.
> 
> 
> Read more at http://www.environmentalgraffiti.co...ntal-extremist-groups/742#hREUqEUEJzGY5ppg.99





> Greenpeace Greenpeace started in 1970, when activists from the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament wanted to stop a planned nuclear test in Alaska. The test was not prevented, but it laid the groundwork for the Greenpeace organization.
> Read more at Top 4 Environmental Extremist Groups





> ELF, ALF, RCALB, ARM, the Justice Department, and all other associated groups
> 
> The Earth Liberation Front (ELF); the Animal Liberation Front (ALF); the Revolutionary Cells&#8212;Animal Liberation Brigade (RCALB); the Animal Rights Militia (ARM); the Justice Department (not the government&#8217;s). These are all animal and environmental extremist groups. Are they all basically the same movement under different names? Most likely
> 
> ...






Ted Kaczynski the 'unabomber' also had enviornmental issues.


People on the right are not environmental radicals, it is the left where the radicals reside.  Those on the right are more about things like improved standard of living and productivity that furthers that goal.


----------



## Bfgrn (May 30, 2013)

Saigon said:


> DarkLion said:
> 
> 
> > Why do people deny science? Because it might make them look in the mirror and accept a different truth than the one they wish to believe
> ...



Saigon, I strongly believe there is also a VERY clear link to neurological and psychological elements of the conservative brain that explain their thinking, or should I say FEAR. Conservatives have larger amygdalas, almond shaped areas in the center of the brain often associated with anxiety, fear and emotions. 

Intolerance of Ambiguity

Intolerance of doubt or ambiguity is another measured trait that has been found to strongly correlate with subsequent predictions of conservative thought and behavior. Dislike of uncertainty leads to dichotomous thinking styles (good and evil, black and white types of stereotyping of both people and issues, denial of complexity, and intolerance for any idea that there is no absolutes in terms of dealing with social issues).

Intolerance of ambiguity constituted a general personality variable that related positively to prejudice as well as to more general social and cognitive variables. Individuals who are intolerant of ambiguity are significantly more often given to dichotomous conceptions of the sex roles, of the parent-child relationship, and of interpersonal relationships in general. They are less permissive and lean toward rigid categorization of cultural norms. Powerweakness, cleanlinessdirtiness, moralityimmorality, conformancedivergence are the dimensions through which people are seen. . . . There is sensitivity against qualified as contrasted with unqualified statements and against perceptual ambiguity; a disinclination to think in terms of probability.

Intolerance of ambiguity has been defined as:

    "the tendency to perceive ambiguous situations as sources of threat". Intolerance of ambiguity, by increasing cognitive and motivational tendencies to seek certainty, is hypothesized to lead people to cling to the familiar, to arrive at premature conclusions, and to impose simplistic cliche´s and stereotypes.

The consequences of this tendency towards intolerance lead to dogmatically sticking with a single solution, disregarding all contrary evidence that might introduce ambiguity, or any of those troubling shades of grey, and a tendency to think in terms of good and evil' (much as people are sorted into rigid catagories such as saved and unsaved' or saint or sinner' by the religious right), and a tendency to jump to conclusions before sufficient evidence has been accumulated and then rigidly stick with a half thought out solution through thick and thin, while remaining closed to new experience or ideas. The researchers describe the consequences of such rigidity in thinking as,

Resistance to reversal of apparent fluctuating stimuli, the early selection and maintenance of one solution in a perceptually ambiguous situation, inability to allow for the possibility of good and bad traits in the same person, acceptance of attitude statements representing a rigid, black-white view of life, seeking for certainty, a rigid dichotomizing into fixed categories, premature closure, and remaining closed to familiar characteristics of stimuli.


----------



## Sunshine (May 30, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > DarkLion said:
> ...



Post a list of all the right wing environmental radicals.


----------



## Bfgrn (May 30, 2013)

skookerasbil said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...



Now you are moving from obtuse to a lying sack of shit.

Most Americans, including half of all gun owners, say it is possible to enact new laws without infringing on gun rights, and overwhelming majorities support expanded background checks at gun shows and for online gun sales, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

The findings come as the Senate prepares for its first votes on new gun legislation this week, in what will provide an early test of strength between the influence of the gun lobby vs. the power of public opinion, at least when it comes to background checks.

The proposal for broader background checks is the only one of the three major provisions tested in the survey to draw broad bipartisan public support. Two other restrictions up for consideration this week  nationwide bans on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition clips  get majority support from Democrats and independents but are opposed by majorities of rank-and-file Republicans.

Washington Post

But don't feel too bad scooter, you are the only one with shit of your tongue.


----------



## Sunshine (May 30, 2013)

*Ahhhhhhhhh............ the peaceful and knowldgeable left!  So adept at debating!  NOT!  They really are just adept at being abusive.   *



			
				Bfgrn said:
			
		

> Hi, you have received -276 reputation points from Bfgrn.
> Reputation was given for *this* post.
> 
> Comment:
> ...


----------



## Katzndogz (May 30, 2013)

Extreme weather, like all weather is cyclical.  The extreme weather we have today is no different than the extreme weather we had in the 50s and 60s.  What is different is the amount of damage that extreme weather does.  That is an effect of population density, not the strength of the storms.


----------



## Sunshine (May 30, 2013)

Sunshine said:


> Post a list of all the right wing environmental radicals.









  I'm waiting.  Well maybe it will be here after my morning walk.


----------



## Sunshine (May 30, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Extreme weather, like all weather is cyclical.  The extreme weather we have today is no different than the extreme weather we had in the 50s and 60s.  What is different is the amount of damage that extreme weather does.  That is an effect of population density, not the strength of the storms.



You bad boy!  Stop confusing them with facts!


----------



## Truthmatters (May 30, 2013)

sceince means nothing to these people.

they make up the world they want to live in and then pretend its real.


how America created this pack of fools will be written about for generations


----------



## Saigon (May 30, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Extreme weather, like all weather is cyclical.  The extreme weather we have today is no different than the extreme weather we had in the 50s and 60s.  What is different is the amount of damage that extreme weather does.  That is an effect of population density, not the strength of the storms.



Can you present the opinion of a SINGLE trained physicist who agrees with you?

No, you can't.


----------



## Saigon (May 30, 2013)

Sunshine said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > Post a list of all the right wing environmental radicals.
> ...



I'm not sure what you are looking for here....obviously by far the majority of conservative politicians and political parties around the world accept AGW, just as the majority of conservative scientists do.


----------



## Oddball (May 30, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> In a country where over 90% of citizens support universal background checks, but it fails to pass because well funded corporate lobbyists decide it is not a good idea?


Red herring...Science isn't open to polling or a vote...Well, that is unless you count "peer review" and "consensus".



Bfgrn said:


> Have you ever had the curiosity to investigate who funds these so called 'scientists' who deny global warming can be attributed to human greenhouse gas emissions? It is the greenhouse gas emitters.


Yes....How _*dare*_ people who stand to have their businesses shut down over a hoax fight back?



Bfgrn said:


> These are the same 'scientists' and think tanks who offered the same 'scientific' evidence for years that cigarettes don't cause cancer.


Besides being non sequitur, cigarettes _*don't*_ cause cancer...If they did, the cancer rate amongst cigarette smokers would be far, far higher than it is. 



Bfgrn said:


> Are you really THAT obtuse???


We already know that you are.


----------



## Oddball (May 30, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > Sunshine said:
> ...


What she's asking for is the conservative analog to EarthFirst!, ELF and other leftist kook quasi-terrorist groups, you dunce.

Hint: There aren't any.


----------



## Saigon (May 30, 2013)

Oddball - 



> Science isn't open to polling or a vote..



Given you hold a position backed by 0.7% of published and peer-reviewed scientific papers, that is fortunate for you! 

However, I do think there is a good reason public opinion went with the 90% and not the 0.7%.



> cigarettes don't cause cancer.



The voice of modern scientific opinion speaks!


----------



## Nosmo King (May 30, 2013)

Science can be tough for Conservatives.  Conservatives by definition eschew change.  That's why they are called Conservative.  Science is all about gathering knowledge and knowledge is the catalyst of change.  Once we figured out how to cook, no one wanted raw meat anymore.  Once we had the knowledge of putting one block upon another, no one wanted to live in a cave.  

So here's science showing the world that we humans do indeed have the capacity to change the very planet we live on.  We have the ability to pump gases into the atmosphere and change the composition of that atmosphere.

Here's the problem: along with a suspicion of knowledge, Conservatives also LOVE corporations.  They will do the bidding of corporations as sycophants. Once it is revealed that the hallowed corporations are causing the problem, those very corporations will sound the alarm and get the 'pundits' Conservatives hold in high esteem to tell Conservatives precisely what the Conservatives should do.

Armed with no knowledge, the Conservatives do what they do best: bray and cry and complain that doing anything is useless (just like gun control) and doing anything will cost too much (protecting the corporations).  We see science telling us that we must clean up our activities before further damage is done.  But Conservatives are not about to 1) accept science and 2) champion anything that costs corporations any money.


----------



## Oddball (May 30, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Oddball -
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Peer review is a popcorn fart.....100% political.....Just as bullshit as your claimed 90% number.

And that's why fewer and fewer believe you hoaxers...Y'all keep making totally outlandish claims.


----------



## Oddball (May 30, 2013)

Nosmo King said:


> Science can be tough for Conservatives.  Conservatives by definition eschew change.  That's why they are called Conservative.  Science is all about gathering knowledge and knowledge is the catalyst of change.  Once we figured out how to cook, no one wanted raw meat anymore.  Once we had the knowledge of putting one block upon another, no one wanted to live in a cave.
> 
> So here's science showing the world that we humans do indeed have the capacity to change the very planet we live on.  We have the ability to pump gases into the atmosphere and change the composition of that atmosphere.
> 
> ...


Nice hyperbole and stereotyping, dude.


----------



## Saigon (May 30, 2013)

Nosmo King said:


> Science can be tough for Conservatives.  Conservatives by definition eschew change.  That's why they are called Conservative.  Science is all about gathering knowledge and knowledge is the catalyst of change.  Once we figured out how to cook, no one wanted raw meat anymore.  Once we had the knowledge of putting one block upon another, no one wanted to live in a cave.
> 
> So here's science showing the world that we humans do indeed have the capacity to change the very planet we live on.  We have the ability to pump gases into the atmosphere and change the composition of that atmosphere.
> 
> ...



Those are very, very good points.

I would also add that some conservatives backed the oil companies when oil companies denied climate change - now that all major oil companies have been forced to accept the science and move forwards, some conservatives seem to have forgotten they spent 10 years defending the scientific "research" oil companies paid good money for!

The fact is - at the time companies like Chevron, BP and Mobil admitted that they were responsible for a large proportion of the earth's emissions - the question mark over climate change disappeared forever. It's simply a done deal, and has been for years.


----------



## Saigon (May 30, 2013)

Odball - 

Spot the contradiction:



> Nice hyperbole and stereotyping, dude





> Peer review is a popcorn fart.....100% political.....Just as bullshit as your claimed 90% number.
> 
> And that's why fewer and fewer believe you hoaxers...Y'all keep making totally outlandish claims.



Your point here is veryclear: You ignore science, you reject science as a concept, and you hope everyone else rejects science to do. They don't. And that is why you lost this debate.


----------



## Oddball (May 30, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Science can be tough for Conservatives.  Conservatives by definition eschew change.  That's why they are called Conservative.  Science is all about gathering knowledge and knowledge is the catalyst of change.  Once we figured out how to cook, no one wanted raw meat anymore.  Once we had the knowledge of putting one block upon another, no one wanted to live in a cave.
> ...


Yes...How_* dare*_ people who stand to have their businesses destroyed by a bunch of kook hoaxers take any action to protect their business interests.


----------



## Nosmo King (May 30, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...


Claiming "kook hoaxers" is the best way to make a cogent argument if you want to continue to deny science.  But there's that pesky science again.


----------



## Bfgrn (May 30, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Sunshine said:
> ...



How about the conservative radicals who actually KILL human beings, fish and foul spewing carcinogens, toxins, poisons and other deadly chemicals into our air, lakes and streams?


----------



## Oddball (May 30, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Odball -
> 
> Spot the contradiction:
> 
> ...


Not contradictory art all...Nosmo's little bigoted missive was rife with sweeping generalizations, hyperbole and stereotypes, while my statement was  factual.

That you can't tell your ass from a hole in the ground isn't my problem, tovarich.


----------



## Saigon (May 30, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Yes...How_* dare*_ people who stand to have their businesses destroyed by a bunch of kook hoaxers take any action to protect their business interests.



You misunderstood the point. Try reading it again.

ALL major oil companies have confirmed that human acitivity causes climate change.


----------



## Truthmatters (May 30, 2013)

they dont care about facts


----------



## Oddball (May 30, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...


CO2 is neither a carcinogen, toxin, deadly chemical nor poison.....That's why howling moonbats like you need to resort to your demonetization, hyperbole, outlandish claims and smearing of anyone and everyone who dares to tell you go fly a kite.

Grow the fuck up, boy.


----------



## Oddball (May 30, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Yes...How_* dare*_ people who stand to have their businesses destroyed by a bunch of kook hoaxers take any action to protect their business interests.
> ...


_*ALL?*_.....Source?


----------



## Saigon (May 30, 2013)

Oddball said:


> smearing of anyone and everyone who dares to tell you go fly a kite.





Oddball said:


> Grow the fuck up, boy.



You to laugh, don't you?


----------



## Truthmatters (May 30, 2013)

they will ONLY be;lieve in science when rush the lush and other radio fools tell them to.

No facts permeate their braincases


----------



## Nosmo King (May 30, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...


Anything in greater than normal concentrations can become hazardous.  If you change the composition of the atmosphere by pumping in more of any gas, the consequences can be disastrous.  If oxygen content exceeds 24% it doesn't mean that we have a better atmosphere because of the extra oxygen.  It means we are coming close to an explosive situation.  We need water to live, but ask the Titanic passengers if too much water is a good thing.

Just because something is not a carcinogen or even a toxin does not make it benign.


----------



## Oddball (May 30, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > smearing of anyone and everyone who dares to tell you go fly a kite.
> ...


I know who I'm dealing with, asshole.....A boy.

Now who is it that can't stick to the subject, tovarich?


----------



## Oddball (May 30, 2013)

Nosmo King said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...


Apples and atom bombs.

Even with the "soaring" CO2 levels (the bulk of which is from natural sources) it still will remain a trace gas.....The worst case scenarios only have it changing by infinitesimal fractions, viz. PPM concentrations....Hardly anywhere near harmful, let alone catastrophic.


----------



## Cuyo (May 30, 2013)

Most of the world doesn't view this as a debate at all.  There is a debate as two what our best course of action is, and a debate as to the balance of economic growth and human benefit of the same activities that cause GW; But not a debate one whether or not it's happening.  That's largely settled and has been for decades.

There's only two groups in this narrative; 1. "Some American Republicans," and 2. "The rest of the planet."

Some American Republicans (SAR) are as content with studies conducted by "Economic climatologists," as they are with the "It snowed today!  So much for global warming!" argument, as they are with labeling the overwhelming preponderance of the worldwide scientific community "Warmers" or "Hoaxsters" or "Cultists."

This "Debate" is not an exercise in science; it's a microcosm of how futile it is for the world to try to argue with SAR.  It's sad really. But understand what it is, and while you are of course entitled to whatever preposterous opinion you have on the matter, please do realize how ridiculous you look to any educated person, let alone a scientist.


----------



## Katzndogz (May 30, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Extreme weather, like all weather is cyclical.  The extreme weather we have today is no different than the extreme weather we had in the 50s and 60s.  What is different is the amount of damage that extreme weather does.  That is an effect of population density, not the strength of the storms.
> ...



There are more than 1,300 scientists who know that global warming is a hoax.    130 German scientists named global warming as a pseudo religion.  

Many of those scientists are named here.

SPECIAL REPORT: More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims ? Challenge UN IPCC & Gore | Climate Depot

Global warming has been spread by lobbying efforts from scientists that were getting paid a lot of money to prove global warming.   It's not surprising that they did. All 52 of them.

The report itself is here.

http://cfact.org/pdf/2010_Senate_Minority_Report.pdf

More than 1,000 dissenting scientists (updates previous 700 scientist report) from around
the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United
Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President
Al Gore. This new 2010 321-page Climate Depot Special Report -- updated from the
2007 groundbreaking U.S. Senate Report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism
about the so-called global warming consensus -- features the skeptical voices of over
1,000 international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists,
who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated 2010 report includes a dramatic
increase of over 300 additional (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the
last update in March 2009. This report's release coincides with the 2010 UN global
warming summit in being held in Cancun.
The more than 300 additional scientists added to this report since March 2009 (21 months
ago), represents an average of nearly four skeptical scientists a week speaking out
publicly. The well over 1,000 dissenting scientists are almost 20 times the number of UN
scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.


----------



## Nosmo King (May 30, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...


Parts per million is how atmospheric gases are measured.  The difference between .07 ppm of benzene and .7 ppm is the difference between measuring it and walking away after measuring it.  

Where do you think the harmful level of CO2 is?  And when does that level become catastrophic?


----------



## Bfgrn (May 30, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Name ONE plant, factory or facility that emits ONLY CO2? There is ALWAYS carcinogens, toxins, deadly chemicals and poisons emitted WITH CO2. And CO2 may not be a carcinogen, toxin, deadly chemical nor poison to human, fish or foul, but it is deadly to the atmosphere's ability to regulate temperature and climate.


----------



## Oddball (May 30, 2013)

Nosmo King said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...


1) Benzine is neither necessary and beneficial to flora nor a necessary trigger for breathing of fauna...You did know that CO2 is necessary to trigger the breathing reflex, didn't you?

2) Even the worst of the worst case scenarios don't have CO2 concentrations rising from the current .039% to .39%, ergo that part of the question is entirely invalid.

3) Nobody -_*but nobody*_- can say for certain what the results of an increase of a scant few PPM of CO2 will or won't be....It's only the alarmist warmerist cranks who are predicting utter and total catastrophe....That should tell you something.

Try again.


----------



## Nosmo King (May 30, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...


I used benzene measurements as an example of the incremental and  "infinitesimal fractions" you seem all to quickly to dismiss.  And rather than examine the science, you further dismiss it as coming from alarmist warmerist (sic) cranks.

The 'science' coming from the very industries pumping CO2 into the atmosphere is the only 'science' that refutes the vast body of evidence to the contrary.  What does that tell you?


----------



## westwall (May 30, 2013)

Truthmatters said:


> sceince means nothing to these people.
> 
> they make up the world they want to live in and then pretend its real.
> 
> ...








And look who comes along to give support to the most pathological liar on the board   saggy and truthiness, a pact made in hell!


----------



## westwall (May 30, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Extreme weather, like all weather is cyclical.  The extreme weather we have today is no different than the extreme weather we had in the 50s and 60s.  What is different is the amount of damage that extreme weather does.  That is an effect of population density, not the strength of the storms.
> ...








Happer, Feynman, Dyson....to name a few.


----------



## westwall (May 30, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Oddball -
> 
> 
> 
> ...








That's too funny.  That same paper has now been shown to have mischaracterized at least 6 papers as supporting AGW when the authors themselves say no way.  AND, there were fewer that supported AGW than our side BEFORE they screwed with the numbers.

Lies, lies and more lies is what you asshats do.


----------



## kwc57 (May 30, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> From global warming to fluoride: Why do people deny science? - Salon.com
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Puddly Pillowbite, you want to know the science of tornados in the plains?  It's when colder dry air drops from the north to meet warm moist air rising from the south being forced to the east by the rockies on the west.  When the conditions are right, tornados happen.  They've been happening for untold millenia.  That people warming the earth a degree or so have intensified this condition is a pretty big fairytale.  I know real science is hard to understand and all and it's easier to blame man for what nature does, but do try.


----------



## kwc57 (May 30, 2013)

Truthmatters said:


> sceince means nothing to these people.
> 
> they make up the world they want to live in and then pretend its real.
> 
> ...



You are speaking of the liberal global warming hoaxsters, correct?


----------



## Katzndogz (May 30, 2013)

westwall said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



A few of the 1,300 that is.

Global warming hoaxters depend on this to prove them right.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...-louder-people-simply-assume-youre-right.html

Being confident and loud is the best way to win an argument - even if you are wrong, a new study suggests.


----------



## westwall (May 30, 2013)

Nosmo King said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...








It is impossible (other than in a lab setting) to generate enough CO2 to become toxic.  It would be easier to die of water poisoning than to die of CO2 poisoning.  A lot easier.

You'll have to try harder there mr. I'm so reasonable.  I do find it amusing that nearly all of you AGW revisionists claim that it is the religious right who are against your theory when the official position of the Catholic Church is yours.

So...who are the religious nutters?

Yep....it's YOU!


----------



## westwall (May 30, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...








Never once proven save in the addled minds of the computer modeler's.  And now, based on real observed data shown finally, to be absolute horsecrap.


----------



## Nosmo King (May 30, 2013)

westwall said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...


Toxicity is not the impending problem.  Altering the composition of the atmosphere and thus effecting the climate is the problem.  No one worries that CO2 will effect the respiratory health of living beings.  It's the composition of the atmosphere that is the question.

And only those grasping at straws and lacking real knowledge bring in the utterly ridiculous strawman of faith into the scientific argument.


----------



## Bfgrn (May 30, 2013)

westwall said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Sunshine said:
> ...



Sunshine didn't tell the whole story. My reply was to a neg rep she sent me. I was minding my own business, but she couldn't refute my post, so she used the coward's tool


----------



## Oddball (May 30, 2013)

Nosmo King said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...


You're still comparing apples and atom bombs...Benzine is not a gas necessary for life, CO2 is....Moreover, the infinitesimal uptick in percentage in atmospheric CO2 is neither neither toxic nor  foretells any catastrophe.

Your "vast body of evidence to the contrary" is based on computer modeling (not scientific) and peer review, which is entirely political not scientific.....The "science" is self-refuting as there is little to no scientific method involved in its compilation.


----------



## Nosmo King (May 30, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...


Toxicity is not the issue.  No one thinks that an increase in CO2 level will lead to a toxic situation.  But an increase in CO2 levels will effect the atmosphere in so much as how much water the atmosphere can hold as a result.  How much heat can the atmosphere hold as a result of the additional water.

You seem to think that increased levels of CO2 means toxicity.  That's not right.  No one is going to become asphyxiated due to higher CO2 levels.

And science is a matter of peer review.  That's how the cold fusion experiments of the late 1990s were refuted.  A mistake in math, a variation in a control, an unrecorded or unduplicatible result is what peer review is all about.


----------



## Oddball (May 30, 2013)

Nosmo King said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...


Moving the goalposts from toxic to "effecting" the climate is the problem.

And speaking of moving the goalposts, virtually every atmospheric event that comes down the pike gets blamed on anthropogenic Goebbels warming.

Too hot?...Goebbels warming.
Too cold?..Goebbels warming.
Drought?...Goebbels warming.
Deluge?...Goebbels warming.
No snow?...Goebbels warming.
Blizzards?...Goebbels warming.
Lots of hurricanes?...Goebbels warming.
No hurricanes?...Goebbels warming.

*A complete list of things caused by global warming*

This means that the claim of anthropogenically caused Goebbels warming fails yet another scientific acid test: Falsifiability.






Nosmo King said:


> And only those grasping at straws and lacking real knowledge bring in the utterly ridiculous strawman of faith into the scientific argument.


The ones grasping at straws are the ones who constantly invoke arguments of faith over those of science...That trait belongs entirely to the warmerists.


----------



## Oddball (May 30, 2013)

Nosmo King said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...


Then why is it that the warmerists keep comparing CO2 to toxins and call it a pollutant?


----------



## Nosmo King (May 30, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Here's where an understanding of science comes in handy.  "Toxicity" refers to the health effects brought about by a substance on individual beings.  What climate change models demonstrate is the increased levels of greenhouse gases like CO2 effect the ATMOSPHERE, not a poisoning of individual beings.

And what clever word play!  "Goebbels warming" shows you have not only the most open of minds, receptive to knowledge and understanding, but a firm grasp on the issue!  Kudos!


----------



## Nosmo King (May 30, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Dosage.  Everything is toxic in high enough doses.  But no one fears CO2 as a toxin.  CO2 changes the basic composition of the atmosphere if added in sufficient amounts.


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 30, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> From global warming to fluoride: Why do people deny science? - Salon.com
> 
> 
> 
> ...




"The intelligent and the educated are letting the stupid and the greedy kill our planet."



1.	Lets take a look at who is anti-science: 93 % of scientists acknowledge the necessity of animal research, as do 62 % of Republicans, but only 48% of Democrats. Section 5: Evolution, Climate Change and Other Issues | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

a.	Nuclear power plants? 70 % of scientists favor, as do 62 % of Republicans, but only 45% of Democrats Ibid.

b.	The National Academy of Sciences found that genetically engineered food is safe. So say more Republicans (48%) than Democrats (42%) Who?s More Anti-Science: Republicans or Democrats? - Reason.com



2.	Republicans are more scientifically literate than Democrats or independents arewith respect to belief in astrology, the need for control groups, probability, antibiotics, exposure to radioactivity.Check out the list at The Audacious Epigone: Republicans are more scientifically literate than Democrats or independents are

a.	Razib Khan reanalyzed the data and found that conservatives and liberals are roughly equal in their knowledge of science, but that both are more knowledgeable than moderates.                                                       
 Berezow and Campbell, Science Left Behind, p. 212.



 So.Republicans/conservatives less science literate or knowledgeable? Hardly. But do Democrats/liberals win the decibel battle..seems likely.


----------



## Oddball (May 30, 2013)

Nosmo King said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...


It doesn't matter....CO2 is neither a toxin nor a pollutant.....Comparing it with toxins and pollutants is a red herring.....Moreover, even the most outrageous claims by the scaremongers don't have CO2 levels rising to levels anywhere near toxicity.

Dismissed.


----------



## Sunshine (May 30, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > From global warming to fluoride: Why do people deny science? - Salon.com
> ...



I think you are right about that.  The right is more concerned with coming up with ways to feed the people we currently have on the planet and and those we will will have within the next century.   No one argues that there are too many people for the planet to support, but short of some super virus, killing them off just isn't going to work.  KY is a red state for sure.  In this end we have fertile farmland and farming is the big family business in most families.  If you drive down the highway, you see, for the lack of a better term, markers at various intervals in some of those fields.  The ones who have those markers are working with the University of KY Extension Service testing new varieties of grain.  Most of them double crop, and they also use 'no till' technology which they were testing in the 1960.  Perhaps not the older people in the families, but certany most of the younger ones have gone to college to study agriculture because farming is a science and the farmers here are business people.  If  we are going to feed the population of this earth or even just those in our own country for the next 50 years, we have to have better methods and technologies.  The stupid redneck farmer is a popular myth amongst the left who do not hesitate to use the products produced or get as much of it as they can for free.


----------



## Bfgrn (May 30, 2013)

Sunshine said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



Science literate or knowledgeable? WOW. I guess propaganda is science and knowledge.

Kentucky...a prime example of how polluters and cartels have so subverted the political landscape that taxpayers are paying them. In return, they get destroyed communities, destroyed roads and their kids have respiratory problems, high incidents of cancer and chronic asthma.

But right wing regressives in America will find any excuse to cower to the dirty energy cartels.







The Impact of Coal on the Kentucky State Budget
Executive Summary

Rapid and dramatic changes in the worlds approach to energy have major implications for Kentucky and its coal industry. Concerns about climate change are driving policy that favors cleaner energy sources and increases the price of fossil fuels. The transition to sustainable forms of energy is becoming a major economic driver, and states are moving aggressively to develop, produce and install the energy technologies of the future. Long reliant on coal for jobs and electricity, Kentucky faces major challenges and difficult choices in the coming years.

These energy challenges come in the midst of Kentuckys state fiscal crisis and sluggish economic performance. The gap between Kentuckys revenues and expenditures makes it increasingly difficult to sustain existing public services. A recent University of Kentucky report notes that Kentucky ranks 44th among states in per capita income, just as in 1970, while other southern states like North Carolina and Georgia have out-performed the Commonwealth in recent years.1 Eastern Kentucky still includes 20 of the 100 poorest counties in the United States measured by median household income.2

In this critical energy, fiscal and economic context, it is increasingly important for Kentuckians to understand the role and impact of coal in our state. Coal provides economic benefits including jobs, low electricity rates and tax revenue. But the coal industry also imposes a number of costs ranging from regulatory and public infrastructure expenses to environmental and health impacts.

*Coal and the Budget*

The Impact of Coal on the Kentucky State Budget tells one aspect of the story of coals costs and benefits. The report provides an analysis of the industrys fiscal impact by estimating the tax revenues generated by coal and the state expenditures associated with supporting the industry. We estimate for Fiscal Year 2006 Kentucky provided a net subsidy of nearly $115 million to the coal industry (see Figure 1).






*Coal is responsible for an estimated $528 million in state revenues and $643 million in state expenditures. *The $528 million in revenues includes $224 million from the coal severance tax and revenues from the corporate income, individual income, sales, property (including unmined minerals) and transportation taxes as well as permit fees. The $643 million in estimated expenditures includes $239 million to address the industrys impacts on the coal haul road system as well as expenditures to regulate the environmental and health and safety impacts of coal, support coal worker training, conduct research and development for the coal industry, promote education about coal in the public schools and support the residents directly and indirectly employed by coal. Total costs also include $85 million in tax expenditures designed to subsidize the mining and burning of coal.

More


----------



## Sunshine (May 30, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



There is no coal mining in this end of the state, the primary industries are agriculture and tourism.   We know we have oil underneath us here, but no one has gone for it yet.  There are several oil wells in central KY.  But mining supports little towns in areas where farming isn't possible and there are really few alternatives for people there to earn a living.  

I grew up in KY, and I have traveled it top to bottom, end to end, so I know more than 'just what I read.'  Therefore, for your information, and hopefully your edification, coal mining in KY has been a BIG issue in Kentucky for about as long as I can remember.  But like China, this country  is going to use the resources it has, even coal.  So you might as well just suck it up.  And your opinions don't make you any better than anyone else, because you still consume the goods and services the production of which you claim is killing the environment.

Oh, and you accused me of not being able to debate.  Since when has calling someone a 'C**t' become the preferred manner of debate.  If wanted to be abusive I could be, I just choose not to.  And I'm guessing you only know about 8 curse words which makes you functionally illiterate.


----------



## Bfgrn (May 30, 2013)

Sunshine said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Sunshine said:
> ...



No matter what part of Kentucky you live in, your tax dollars are subsidizing polluters and cartels that destroy communities, destroy roads and destroy the health of fellow citizens. Liberals are outraged by injustice and injury. Conservatives only have an epiphany when it's their kids or family dying or being debilitated by severe respiratory injury.

My paternal family is from the Corbin/London area. My aunt owned a farm and his brother drove a produce truck.  

Debate?
Well her's the rub Sunshine...you chose not to debate, you decided instead to use the right wing coward's tool, the neg rep. I never send out neg reps for anything a person posts...NEVER. I believe in the first amendment. And I wear big boy pants so I can defend myself. But I ALWAYS return a cowardly neg rep. If you don't like my comment, then next time don't start it. It's really that simple.


----------



## Nosmo King (May 30, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...


Of course CO2 levels aren't rising to the level of toxicity.  The toxic nature of CO2 isn't the issue.  No one is going to die from a toxic level of CO2.

But put enough CO2 into the atmosphere and the atmosphere changes.  More water is retained in it.  Heat is absorbed by it.  

Get  your head out of toxicity and look at the bigger picture.


----------



## Oddball (May 30, 2013)

Put enough X in the atmosphere and it changes....Truisms prove nothing.

The atmosphere holding more water means that there is more cloud cover, which in turn reflects more radiation away from the planet, mitigating the phenomenon....Also, more clouds mean more precipitation, which I hear is essential for all the plant life on the planet, which in turn -well I'll be dipped- absorbs more CO2.

The planets ecosystem is not static...Methinks someone needs to pull their head out of something here and it ain't me, sport.


----------



## MisterBeale (May 30, 2013)

I'm afraid prophets of old have predicted this.  This has more to do with our deforestation and pollution of the oceans than of heavy manufacturing and automobiles.  We are victims of cosmic law here, very few care to investigate the complicated interwoven mechanics of nature.  Now, the fact that we have let a few evil men with inter-bred blood-lines with allegiance to Lucifer try to create a global government and tax the poor to fill their coffers, while printing propaganda like this?  We have been warned.

Most people that study this issue probably have no idea WHAT a carbon sink is, nor have any clue that it has more affect on the total amount of CO2 than what we produce.  But I guess that is an intentional goal of the global elite's propaganda.

_"The earth dries up and withers,
         the world languishes and withers;
         the heavens languish together with the earth.
         The earth lies polluted under its inhabitants;
         for they have transgressed laws, violated the statutes
         broken the everlasting covenant.
         Therefore a curse devours the earth,
         and its inhabitants suffer for their guilt." 
_
~the prophet Isaiah (c.760-690 B.C.)




> Forests                                                                                                                                 As global warming worsens and temperatures rise, the forests become more stressed and susceptible to fire, pests and diseases. [23]  This in turn may cripple temperate forests' ability to absorb carbon dioxide.
> 
> 
> Boreal forests, which cover 17% of the Earth's land surface area, are found in Alaska's south-central and interior regions............ Models consistently project large-scale transformation of Arctic landscapes, where the northern edge of the boreal forest advances into the tundra. Even with these projections, concerns for Alaska's boreal forests from projected climate changes include: a loss in the moisture needed for forest growth; insect-induced tree mortality; increased risk of large fires; interference with the reproduction of white spruce, a biological and economic concern; and the changes caused by permafrost thaw e.g., slumping of land and wetland development from thaw water.......... It has been suggested that the past 20 years have seen the greatest moisture stress and lowest productivity of the 20th century through much of the interior boreal forest.............. Forest fire frequency and intensity have increased markedly since 1970. The 10-year average of boreal forest burned in North America, after several decades of around 2.5 million acres, has increased steadily since 1970 to more than 7 million acres annually.





> Loss of Reflective Capability of Ice                                                                                  Ice and snow both strongly reflect the sun's rays, keeping the earth cool. But as global warming melts glaciers, as well as ice in Greenland, the Arctic and Antarctic, it exposes land and water. Land and water, being darker surfaces reflect less solar heat back out into space, allowing the atmosphere to absorb more warmth. In fact, ice absorbs less than half the sunlight that falls on it, but ocean surfaces absorb about 90%.[57]  As can be expected, more ice and snow will melt.





> Water Vapor In the Atmosphere Increasing                                                                   Water vapor is the most prevalent greenhouse gas on the planet, but its increasing presence is the result of evaporation caused by the warming, in turn, caused by carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases. (See NOAA's National Climate Data Center (NCDC) FAQ page) As the Earth heats up relative humidity is able to increase, allowing the planet's atmosphere to hold more water vapor, causing even more warming, thus a positive feedback scenario. Because the air is warmer, the relative humidity can be higher (in essence, the air is able to 'hold' more water when its warmer), leading to more water vapor in the atmosphere, says the NCDC. There is much scientific uncertainty as to the degree this feedback loop causes increased warming, inasmuch as the water vapor also causes increased cloud formation, which in turn reflects heat back out into space.





> Disappearing Plankton                                                                                                       The ability of the oceans to absorb carbon dioxide may be at risk. Presently oceans are absorbing about 2 billion tons of carbon annually [3] . A report in Nature, August 1995, suggests that the oceans may be losing fixed nitrogen, an essential fertilizer that allows phytoplankton to grow. Phytoplankton absorb and fix carbon that is then transferred to the deep ocean. If in fact the oceans are losing nitrogen as they warm, they will tend to absorb less carbon, boosting the rate of carbon dioxide buildup in the atmosphere. [24]
> Plankton are a major carbon sink in addition to the forests, other green plants, the permafrost, the earth's soil and atmosphere. Plankton take in about half of all the world's CO2, using the carbon for growth, while releasing oxygen during the process of photosynthesis. During the past 20 years there has been a stark decline, more than 9%, in primary production of plankton, while in the same period plankton of the North Atlantic has decreased by 7%. Less plankton; less carbon uptake.





> Loss of Carbon Sink: Warming Tundra & Thawing Permafrost
> Permafrost relates to areas where the ground is frozen all year round, except for the upper layer that melts and freeze each year.
> 
> Permafrost may be continuous, discontinuous, or more sporadic - and then typically in mountain areas.
> ...



http://www.ecobridge.org/climate_roulette.html

These are just excerpts, but reading the whole article makes one realize how small a part of the picture man's release of CO2 is.  Taxing the common man for his use of energy IS not going to solve the problem.  The problem lay with our core attitudes, such as having the latest and greatest things are good.  Obsessing over economic growth is good.

Why do we allow GMO's and factory farming?  Why do we allow industrial fishing?

I still have a cathode ray TV, and I picked another perfectly good one up for when this one craps out.  I still think VHS tapes are fine.  My phone is over ten years old, and my cell is too.  How many of these AGW global warmer freaks need the latest IPhone?  Hypocrites I tell you, all of them.  Do you use your PC till the CPU craps out, or do you get a new one because it is old and not up to date?  If the later, THEN YOU ARE THE PROBLEM.  What year is your car?  If you bought a new one because the old one made you LOOK bad, then YOU are the problem.  If on the other hand, it is from the 90's, congratulations, you are part of the solution.  Some may say that the new cars are more efficient, but my auto mechanic tells me that the energy savings in the production of new cars IS NOT made up for by the use of them; especially when you consider all the new exotic toxic materials they had to destroy the Earth to get, and the pollution caused from the manufacturing by-products.  My car doesn't have a computer in it, does yours?  Those computers have lots of harmful pollutants.  The less computers and gadgets you own in your life, the less polluted the Earth will be.  YOU HAVE NO IDEA how toxic computers, IPhones, tablets, and all those gadgets are, nor how valuable the exotic materials are in them if you recycle them.


----------



## XPostFacto (May 30, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Why can't the AGWCult ever show us a single repeatable experiment of how an additional wisp of CO2 drives up temperature and spawns hurricanes and tornadoes?



They always provide lots of graphs, but it takes data to create these graphs. Whenever I asked the folks to provide the data that was used to create the graph, they would respond that it was on said website that they provided, but I never could locate that data, even though I was told it was on that site.


----------



## Saigon (May 30, 2013)

Nosmo King said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



You are absolutely right, of course, and I am sure Oddball also knows that you are right - but don't expect him to admit it. 

People invest a lot of pride in their positions on climate change. I often see posters here arguing points they know hold no water.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 31, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



He's not right.  AGW is a myth.  CO2 is not a pollutant and it's not toxic.  In fact, it's beneficial to plant life..


----------



## Saigon (May 31, 2013)

BriPat - 



> He's not right. AGW is a myth. CO2 is not a pollutant and it's not toxic. In fact, it's beneficial to plant life..



This is something that we can test right now. 

Water is not toxic, right? Plants need it, right?

Go and drink about 25 litres of water during the next hour, and tell us what happens.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 31, 2013)

Saigon said:


> BriPat -
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Gee, how brilliant. 

You could always breathe 100% oxygen to avoid all the dangerous carbon dioxide. Of course that would kill you, but at least you wouldn't die from the dreaded carbon dioxide.


----------



## westwall (May 31, 2013)

Saigon said:


> BriPat -
> 
> 
> 
> ...








  Typical revisionist brainless response.  How much CO2 would you need to ingest to equal that 25 litres of water?  As a percentage?   You guys like to compare apples to elephants but that only serves to make you look foolish.  Try better.


----------



## Oddball (May 31, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...


He's not right and I already addressed his fallacious reasoning.

Try to keep up, Dudley.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 31, 2013)

Saigon said:


> BriPat -
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So the government should begin a program to eliminate water from the planet?


----------



## whitehall (May 31, 2013)

Why do lefties use trite phrases like "deny science"? Who knows, maybe it's the union based education system that forces them to rely on you tube and Huffington for information.


----------



## mamooth (May 31, 2013)

Fascinating, how all the denialists now spout the "it's just a trace" stupidity. No one with a 3-digit IQ would say something that stupid, but pretty much all of them now repeat it. It's obviously yet another of their herd-identity things, because if there's one thing the denialists here do well, it's displaying their absolute unquestioning devotion to their herd. Once any idea takes root with a few of them, they will all start babbling it, no matter how dumb it is, because disagreeing with a fellow herd member is strictly forbidden.


----------



## westwall (May 31, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Fascinating, how all the denialists now spout the "it's just a trace" stupidity. No one with a 3-digit IQ would say something that stupid, but pretty much all of them now repeat it. It's obviously yet another of their herd-identity things, because if there's one thing the denialists here do well, it's displaying their absolute unquestioning devotion to their herd. Once any idea takes root with a few of them, they will all start babbling it, no matter how dumb it is, because disagreeing with a fellow herd member is strictly forbidden.











It's OK admiral...we actually KNOW what we're talking about.  When you get a clue please come on back!


----------



## Bfgrn (May 31, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Fascinating, how all the denialists now spout the "it's just a trace" stupidity. No one with a 3-digit IQ would say something that stupid, but pretty much all of them now repeat it. It's obviously yet another of their herd-identity things, because if there's one thing the denialists here do well, it's displaying their absolute unquestioning devotion to their herd. Once any idea takes root with a few of them, they will all start babbling it, no matter how dumb it is, because disagreeing with a fellow herd member is strictly forbidden.



You must understand that the vast majority of scientists, especially climatologists are REALLY stupid people. About 97% stupid. There is a tiny percentage, about 3%, who are really really smart, and they all are on the same side of the issue. But what can only be a coincidence, they are all funded by the biggest polluters on the planet...image the odds?


----------



## Nosmo King (May 31, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...


Too much of a good thing...

But that begs you to actually understand science, so I guess it's hopeless.


----------



## Oddball (May 31, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Fascinating, how all the denialists now spout the "it's just a trace" stupidity. No one with a 3-digit IQ would say something that stupid, but pretty much all of them now repeat it. It's obviously yet another of their herd-identity things, because if there's one thing the denialists here do well, it's displaying their absolute unquestioning devotion to their herd. Once any idea takes root with a few of them, they will all start babbling it, no matter how dumb it is, because disagreeing with a fellow herd member is strictly forbidden.


Projecting again, eh Gomer?...


----------



## IanC (May 31, 2013)

Nosmo King said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



the money available for frivilous papers based on the evils of CO2 have tainted not only climate science but other fields as well. a couple of years ago a study came out that blamed the obesity epidemic on rising CO2 levels. CO2 in the lungs is never as low as ambient air and is often orders of magnitude greater. the very fact that this nonsensical paper was approved, funded, peer-reviewed, published, and publicized by the media without any remark about the absurdity of the premise should be a warning to us all about the ease of finding false correlations to rising CO2 levels.


----------



## PredFan (May 31, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Global warming is a hoax.  To real scientists there are no absolutes and everything must be questioned.  When science becomes absolute it moves from science to faith.



This thread was officially killed by this post.


----------



## Bfgrn (May 31, 2013)

PredFan said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Global warming is a hoax.  To real scientists there are no absolutes and everything must be questioned.  When science becomes absolute it moves from science to faith.
> ...



Ohhhhh, so the world could still be flat. Unless you are attend the church of round...


----------



## Oddball (May 31, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...


According to quantum physics, "spherical" is the best explanation our current minds can come up with to describe a planet that also exists in terms of (at least) time, if not other yet-to-be-discovered dimensions.

But thanks for stooping by to, once again, demonstrate what an utterly arrogant ignoramus you are.


----------



## ScienceRocks (May 31, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Fascinating, how all the denialists now spout the "it's just a trace" stupidity. No one with a 3-digit IQ would say something that stupid, but pretty much all of them now repeat it. It's obviously yet another of their herd-identity things, because if there's one thing the denialists here do well, it's displaying their absolute unquestioning devotion to their herd. Once any idea takes root with a few of them, they will all start babbling it, no matter how dumb it is, because disagreeing with a fellow herd member is strictly forbidden.
> ...



97% of scientist understand physics, but may NOT completely understand the complexity  of the entire climate system. Even Hansen says that Aerosal and the oceanic storage of heat is a very real break for the republicans to attack the theory to the idiocy(low iq'ed). This must be understood. 

Our society was built on those polluters. We just have to be wise in transioning away from the dirty energy means to the cleaner ones. Let's support them as long as we need them...


----------



## Bfgrn (May 31, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



Says a flat earther...


----------



## Oddball (May 31, 2013)

Says the warmerist cult moonbat.


----------



## PredFan (May 31, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



You really have reading comprehension problems. Perhaps that is the cause of your belief in AGW. In that case you can be excused for your ignorance.


----------



## Bfgrn (May 31, 2013)

Matthew said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



Well these climatologists can't be very smart. I mean the jerks put in years at college studying to get degrees in that science, when all they have to do is come on a board like this. Who needs a degree, just spend a few hours on a BLOG, and you're an expert...


----------



## PredFan (May 31, 2013)

As long as scientists depend on money to do their jobs, they will be corrupted by it.


----------



## Trajan (May 31, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> From global warming to fluoride: Why do people deny science? - Salon.com
> 
> 
> 
> ...



lets see; in my time- Alar would poison us all, , DDT would all the birds( thank you supreme hack rachel carson), the air was supposed to be virtually unbreathable by 2030....the 'new ice age' was upon us ( in 30 years or so which puts us past that time-line ), acid rain , ozone depletion should have burnt our skin off by now,.....the Population Bomb (another deadline to mass starvation that has passed too)...what else? I must be missing some more 'science' driven alarmist horse shit,


----------



## westwall (May 31, 2013)

Nosmo King said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...









I have a PhD in geology.  What scientific degree do you hold?


----------



## Papageorgio (May 31, 2013)

westwall said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



According to the nut job liberals, you deny you exist! Their stupidity just keeps increasing.


----------



## FactFinder (May 31, 2013)

*Why do people deny science?* 

It may have to do with the fact that it is conducted by humans and so very often flawed. Especially when they try to push theory as fact.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 1, 2013)

westwall said:


> I have a PhD in geology.



Fraud!

Just kidding. I actually don't doubt your claim.

The point is, however, that given you and some others make of habit of attacking the credentials of others, they'd certainly be justified in tossing that kind of sleaze tactic back at you. Yet we don't.

Why? Because when you can intelligently discuss the ideas, you don't need to attack the person. And because we don't like to stoop to such depths.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 1, 2013)

I have noticed that several of our Deniers here - gslack, westspam, Fox and Polar - seem to be obsessed with where other posters are from and what their jobs are. Hence we've seen inexplicable attacks against most of the pro-science posters here.

From my side I assume everyone else is honest about what they do, and I take them at their word. I'd rather debate the topic than conduct trials. 

It seems to me both a gutter tactic and a sign of clear desperation - real 'shoot the messenger' stuff.


----------



## westwall (Jun 2, 2013)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > I have a PhD in geology.
> ...









The difference is when we challenge you on aspects of your claim your responses don't make sense.  You can ask me any geologic related thing period and I can back it up chapter and verse and if it isn't too esoteric probably from memory.

Further were you intelligently discussing ideas you wouldn't need to resort to calling sceptics "deniers".  That single word exposes all of you for the closed minded,0 anti-science religious nutters you have all turned into.


----------



## westwall (Jun 2, 2013)

Saigon said:


> I have noticed that several of our Deniers here - gslack, westspam, Fox and Polar - seem to be obsessed with where other posters are from and what their jobs are. Hence we've seen inexplicable attacks against most of the pro-science posters here.
> 
> From my side I assume everyone else is honest about what they do, and I take them at their word. I'd rather debate the topic than conduct trials.
> 
> It seems to me both a gutter tactic and a sign of clear desperation - real 'shoot the messenger' stuff.







Case in point....if you wish to be taken seriously as a "intelligent" debater then YOU must act the part.  Tossing pejoratives around just makes you look like idiots.

No one pays any attention to idiots.  So, if you wish to be treated as adults...act like one.


----------



## IanC (Jun 2, 2013)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > I have a PhD in geology.
> ...



when I joined this MB, just before the climategate emails were released, attacking the character and credibility of anyone who questioned any aspect of AGW was the standard operating procedure by the warmist crowd. concensus and all that. the skeptics were more interested in pointing out the distortions, misdirections and outright mistakes in climate science.

unfortunately since then, as the skeptical side has become more widespread and the CAGW arguements fall to tatters, many anti-AGWers have become just as bad mannered and dismissive as the warmists. ideas and evidence seem to matter less and less each day, while wild rhetoric and insults are the norm. it pisses me off that 'my side' is just as bad as the other side now, at least here on the message board.


----------



## Bfgrn (Jun 2, 2013)

IanC said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Herein lies your problem Ian...'Climategate' was a trumped-up scandal and multiple inquiries, while calling for more openness in data sharing, found no evidence of scientific misconduct on the part of the involved scientists. And new scientific assessments and studies have re-affirmed the Earth is warming and human activities play a key role. 

And in the supposed liberal media, 'Climategate' Debunking Gets Less Coverage Than Original Trumped-Up Scandal


----------



## Oddball (Jun 2, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


In other news, G.Gordon Liddy, John Mitchell and E. Howard Hunt thoroughly investigated the break-in at the Watergate Hotel, and found no evidence of any wrongdoing.


----------



## IanC (Jun 2, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



have you read any of the emails? have you looked into any of the investigations? 

let's just think about Phil Jones' delete all AR4 emails email. with FOIA in the header no less. did the English inquiries look into it? no, they said they would have had to question him under caution (Miranda in the US). did the Penn State inquiry look into Mann for deleting the emails? they asked him, he said no, they left it at that. Wahl later admitted to NOAA that he got the email from Mann and deleted the emails. he said it was the first time anyone asked him about it!!!!

if you believe that the inquiries were legitimate attempts to get to the truth of the matter then you are sadly mistaken. whitewash is more like the correct term for studiously avoiding any areas of contention.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 2, 2013)

IanC said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


He doesn't give a fuck.

Let sources like Heartland Institute obtain some funding from petro companies and they have zero credibility, no matter how sound the facts and reasoning turns out to be...But perish the thought that those who have a vested interest in keeping the AGW hoax going be held under the slightest skepticism, for their "investigation" and subsequent clearing of the East Anglia/UCAR/NCAR/Penn State scamsters.

It's how shameless hackery works.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 2, 2013)

Oddball -

Can you explain why you think political organisations are a better source of scientific information than scientific organisations?

Because to me that is simply laughable, and explains very clearly where Denialism went wrong. 

Personally, I'd rather get information from NASA, the American Physical Society and the British Academy of Sciences than the Heartland Society!


----------



## Oddball (Jun 2, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Oddball -
> 
> Can you explain why you think political organisations are a better source of scientific information than scientific organisations?
> 
> ...


Irrelevant.

You claim your funding sources to be pure as the wind-driven snow, while anyone and everyone else who funds any skeptical source as one step removed from Beelzebub himself....It's how hackery works.

Oh, and that you  prefer the people who were actively involved in the coverup and whitewashing of the East Anglia scandal says far more about you than anything else.


----------



## Bfgrn (Jun 2, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball -
> ...



Hey Jethro, maybe if these same think tanks and 'scientists' hadn't previously taken tobacco money to deny smoking causes cancer, they might have some credibility. They are hired guns for any and all polluters and murderers. The tobacco industry knew way back in the 1950's that smoking causes cancer. 

But in your world, money ALWAYS trumps human life.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 2, 2013)

This isn't about tobacco, junior.

But your churlish attempts at deflection and rationalizing your ad homs is duly noted.


----------



## Bfgrn (Jun 2, 2013)

Oddball said:


> This isn't about tobacco, junior.
> 
> But your churlish attempts at deflection and rationalizing your ad homs is duly noted.



Wasn't your butler reading to you? Did you try to fly solo here Jethro? It IS about tobacco, not because of what I say, it's because of what the Heartland Institute DID...

The Heartland Institute and the Academy of Tobacco Studies







Long before the Heartland Institute was in the business of organizing events like the "International Climate Change Conference"  they were hard at work trying to minimize the negative public perception that second-hand tobacco smoke was bad for your health.

With that kind of past how could the media take the Heartland Institute and their upcoming climate conference seriously? Heartland could have easily played the role of the "Academy of Tobacco Studies" in the movie Thank you for Smoking.

How could anyone take seriously a group that took money from tobacco companies and downplayed the harmful effects of tobacco and then moved on to take money from oil companies and said global warming is all a big hoax?

A three year old could figure this one out.

more


----------



## Oddball (Jun 2, 2013)

Oh, and though it may be a contributing factor to contracting the disease, tobacco use _*still*_ doesn't _*cause*_ cancer.

I'm sure your local community college offers an ISL course.


----------



## Bfgrn (Jun 2, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Oh, and though it may be a contributing factor to contracting the disease, tobacco use _*still*_ doesn't _*cause*_ cancer.
> 
> I'm sure your local community college offers an ISL course.



Game, set, match...Bfgrn in straight sets...

I knew when I read the line 'A three year old could figure this one out' that you were in over your head...


----------



## Trajan (Jun 2, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Skooks-
> 
> 
> 
> ...



the eu has just dumped their carbon credit scheme....hello


----------



## Dot Com (Jun 2, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Global warming is a hoax.  To real scientists there are no absolutes and everything must be questioned.  When science becomes absolute it moves from science to faith.



link? 

Katzy thinks she's USMB's female Moses in that no sourcing is req'd for her blanket statements lol.


----------



## westwall (Jun 2, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...








CLIMATEGATE exposed the AGW crowd for what it was...an anti-science political quasi religious movement who's main goals were redistribution of wealth.  If it were a "scam" the carbon trading schemes would be in full swing, carbon taxes would be levied worldwide, and you would be sitting in a dark room for a good bit of your day.

The fact that none of that has happened shows us that CLIMATEGATE was real and it exposed rampant corruption within the AGW funded academic world.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 2, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Oh, and though it may be a contributing factor to contracting the disease, tobacco use _*still*_ doesn't _*cause*_ cancer.
> 
> I'm sure your local community college offers an ISL course.



Priceless. 

When you see things like this, you realise how difficult it is for scientists to get the message through. There are still people out there who live in 1955.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 2, 2013)

Trajan said:


> the eu has just dumped their carbon credit scheme....hello



Yes - because the shift to renewable energy has taken place without the need for it. Hello.


----------



## westwall (Jun 2, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...








Really?  How about allowing DDT to be used to combat malaria then?  Over 100 million people have died since environmentalists banned its use.  Those deaths are on you bucko...


----------



## westwall (Jun 2, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, and though it may be a contributing factor to contracting the disease, tobacco use _*still*_ doesn't _*cause*_ cancer.
> ...









Maybe because technically Oddball is correct.  Tobacco use doesn't cause cancer...if it did anyone who ever used it and those who breathed secondhand smoke would all generate cancer from the exposure.  What tobacco use does do is almost guarantee that anyone with a genetic predisposition to cancer will get one of several types that are exposed to that tobacco use.

You would think that a "journalist" who I would expect to keep up with basic current events would be familiar with Angelina Jolie and her decision to have a double mastectomy because of a certain GENE she carries that gave her an 85% chance of developing breast cancer.  Now she has a 15% chance of it.

You see saggy it's the genes that cause cancer....tobacco and all the other carcinogens out there are merely the trigger.  And, most importantly, you could go through your entire life and never smoke, never be exposed to smoke and STILL get lung cancer and die.  

Why is that?   Oh yeah,.... genes....


----------



## westwall (Jun 2, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > the eu has just dumped their carbon credit scheme....hello
> ...








No, because people figured out it was a scam and abandoned it....do try and keep up.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jun 2, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



Life isn't fair as corporations are going to fight for their bottom line. We also live within a nation that values someone's right to do stupid things...Now my dad died from cancer from smoking so I hate it with a passion. Polluters aren't good for society or anything but our liberty does get in the way of using the government to "force" all people to do what one considers right.


We always have to be mindful of ones rights when enforcing anything.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 2, 2013)

Tobacco causes Global Warming


----------



## Bfgrn (Jun 2, 2013)

westwall said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Every time you open your pie hole, your "I have a PhD in geology" sounds more and more like bullshit.

The DDT Global Ban Myth

On February 10th, 1970, almost a year before he founded the EPA, President Nixon announced, we have taken action to phase out the use of DDT and other hard pesticides. It therefore seems highly likely that the DDT ban was decided by Nixon long in advance of the EPA hearings, which is probably why Ruckelshaus, who Nixon put at the head of the agency he founded over-ruled his own agency. Nixon seemed to expect nothing less than absolute loyalty from those he put in high positions. In what became called The Saturday Night Massacre, Ruckelshaus and his boss, Elliot Richardson, famously quit their jobs at the Justice Department rather than obey an order from Nixon to fire the prosecutor investigating Watergate.

The conservative myth is that the ban was worldwide. While the ban did affect the price and popularity of DDT donated to poorer countries like Africa, Ruckelshaus decision was based on whether the ban was good for America, which it was and still is. We had alternatives that were just as good and the decision is cited by scientists as a major factor in stopping the bald eagle from going extinct. But the ban was a terrible decision for Africa because it caused a very poor country to adopt more expensive chemicals, causing a large number of unnecessary human deaths. This definitely should have been considered by Nixon and Ruckelshaus before they decided to institute the ban, but even today Ruckelshaus doesnt see the link between his decision and how the DDT ban affected poorer countries.

While foregoing the ban would have saved countless lives, it also goes against one of the prime tenants of medicine: Dont make the patient any worse. DDT is hardly a harmless miracle cure demonized by overzealous environmentalists. A 2006 study says found many children exposed to DDT as fetuses (found in trace amounts in the umbilical cord) had decreased attention and cognitive skills. Studies done in poorer regions that use DDT have found unhealthy levels of it in breast milk. Another study of Chinese textile workers found DDT and early pregnancy loss. A case-control study in Japan supported by several other studies concluded that in utero DDT exposure may affect thyroid hormone levels and be a factor in cretinism.

As for Silent Spring, Carson never advocated banning DDT, not in America and certainly not worldwide. She only advocated limiting it because its overuse would cause insects to evolve defense mechanisms against it, and she was right about that. She certainly didnt manipulate data as that article claims. Her science was vindicated by President Kennedys Science Advisory Committee and Discover Magazine calls it one of the one of the 25 greatest science books of all time. The conservative claim repeated in the Green Death that scientific studies have proved that DDT had no effect on the thinning of eagle and falcon shells is actually technically true: it is a metabolite of DDT, called DDE, that actually causes the thinning of the shells.

more


----------



## Oddball (Jun 2, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, and though it may be a contributing factor to contracting the disease, tobacco use _*still*_ doesn't _*cause*_ cancer.
> ...


Maybe we could scare up a three-year old to explain to you what the word "causes" means...Seems none of the adults in the room can pull it off.


----------



## Bfgrn (Jun 2, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



The word 'causes' huh? That certainly is a toxic word for any corporate lawyer isn't it? It encompasses a whole bunch of responsibility and guilt. So THAT is your threshold?  






*Tobacco Use & Health*


Cigarette smoking is a leading *cause *of preventable deaths in the United States.

Cigarette smoking significantly increases the risk of developing lung cancer, heart disease, chronic bronchitis, emphysema and other serious diseases and adverse health conditions.


The risk for serious diseases is significantly affected by the type of tobacco product and the frequency, duration and manner of use.
 
No tobacco product has been shown to be safe and without risks. The health risks associated with cigarettes are significantly greater than those associated with the use of smoke-free tobacco and nicotine products.


Nicotine in tobacco products is addictive but is not considered a significant threat to health.
 
It is the smoke inhaled from burning tobacco which poses the most significant risk of serious diseases.

*Tobacco Consumers*


Individuals should consider the conclusions of the U.S. Surgeon General, the Centers for Disease Control and other public health and medical officials when making decisions regarding smoking.
 

The best course of action for tobacco consumers concerned about their health is to quit. Adults who continue to use tobacco products should consider the reductions of risks for serious diseases associated with moving from cigarettes to the use of smoke-free tobacco or nicotine products.
 

Minors should never use tobacco products and adults who do not use or have quit using tobacco products should not start.


Adults who smoke should avoid exposing minors to secondhand smoke, and adult smokers should comply with rules and regulations designed to respect the rights of other adults.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 2, 2013)

Couldn't care lass....Your source is wrong....Tobacco use does not _*cause*_ cancer....If it did, even casual smokers would be succumbing to the affliction.

That smoking _*increases the risk *_ &#8800; a causal pathogen.

The shitty use/abuse of the English language by your sources and yourself is your problem, Bubba.


----------



## Bfgrn (Jun 2, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Couldn't care lass....Your source is wrong....Tobacco use does not _*cause*_ cancer....If it did, even casual smokers would be succumbing to the affliction.
> 
> That smoking _*increases the risk *_ &#8800; a causal pathogen.
> 
> The shitty use/abuse of the English language by your sources and yourself is your problem, Bubba.



My source?






About Us

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company is the second largest *tobacco company* in the United States. The company manufactures and markets cigarettes and modern, smoke-free tobacco products for adult tobacco consumers. Our Guiding Principles and Beliefs seek to reflect the interest consumers, employees and other stakeholders. R.J. Reynolds is committed to addressing the issues regarding the use of and harm associated with tobacco products in an open and objective manner.
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here what you need to do *immediately*...have the butler race you to the nearest gas station. Find one of these...






Set it at max pressure. Now, that valve in the side of your head...hook the end of the hose to the valve and let it run for an hour...

This is an EMERGENCY...


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 2, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Couldn't care lass....Your source is wrong....Tobacco use does not _*cause*_ cancer....If it did, even casual smokers would be succumbing to the affliction.
> 
> That smoking _*increases the risk *_ &#8800; a causal pathogen.
> 
> The shitty use/abuse of the English language by your sources and yourself is your problem, Bubba.



Pathogen, carginogen or Toxin?? If it's a toxin -- it's a shitty one if you have to smoke for 20 years before an illness erupts.. The RISK of illness indeed DOES increase. But if it's a toxin then the Smoking Nazi scientists are violating protocol by declaring that exposure to this "toxin" is DOSE INDEPENDENT. Meaning tthat whether you smoke 60 unfiltered Camels a day or just 4 low tar filtered cigarettes -- you are at HORRIBLE risk levels..

In fact the accepted definition of a smoker is anyone who uses a tobacco product more than 4 times a week for 6 months. Hell --- that's living in Newark kind of exposures.. 

Seems to me that every other toxin on the planet is given a rating and dose limit.. Is one cigar a day enough to CAUSE anything?

You want to talk about DENYING SCIENCE?? Why is it that one cigarette is as bad as 60 a day? Where's the science on that one American Lung Association?


----------



## freedombecki (Jun 3, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Fascinating, how all the denialists now spout the "it's just a trace" stupidity. No one with a 3-digit IQ would say something that stupid, but pretty much all of them now repeat it. It's obviously yet another of their herd-identity things, because if there's one thing the denialists here do well, it's displaying their absolute unquestioning devotion to their herd. Once any idea takes root with a few of them, they will all start babbling it, no matter how dumb it is, because disagreeing with a fellow herd member is strictly forbidden.


Arguing man's interference with nature is questionable at best, imho. Ozone, that famous culprit greenhouse gas, traps heat. Even so, as the ozone layer gets smaller, some try to say that man is villain in it all. That's silly, because Ozone traps heat that would otherwise dissipate into space if it weren't there. When Ozone holes enlarge, less heat is trapped. So argument that man's influence is heating the earth is not exactly true. I mean, really, it is either true or it is not true. 

According to science, the earth is 6 billion years old
Human pollution as we know it began 500 years ago.

Temperature changes have been constant for millions of years.

Science has taken a sinister turn in the last 50 years to ignore the most important data of all: earthly water vapor, produced solely by nature and not by any anthropogenic sources to speak of.

And recent scientific studies have put man's contribution to air pollution at less than one one-thousandth of a percent when water vapor is taken into account. The devious foundation-money-procurement angle of omitting water vapor from the data predicting "global warming" has been busted for several years now.

Yet, people cling to the studies that ignore 95% that nature's own (and not anthropogenic pollution) is the only supplier. Only 5% of other aspects come from mainly volcanos and terrestrial sources, solar flares (extraterrestrial), and other phenomena such as the vast area in Canada that emits plumes of sulphur gases into the atmosphere.

By far, it seems to me that things anthropogenic pollution is being blamed for as high as 25% of all pollutants are minimal when the impact of only one volcano can dwarf all of man's pollutants for the past 200 years. Only one. This earth has 50 or more volcanic eruptions per annum, and always has had.

If we wish to eliminate the anthropogenic pollution in an area the size of California, the best way would be to reduce the size of human population to around 700,000, which would be quite a drop from the 25 millions or more who currently occupy the area. I don't think we want to exactly go there, but I will grant that the high density of population and number of exhaust pipes responsible for getting people to and from work to home and recreational excursions is not a pretty sight and causes countless people to suffer from allergenic annoyances which vary from person to person.

It's a big world, and we could take better care of it, no less. But instead of doing that, we compound the insult when we follow scientists who blame it all on us for foundation grants to continue earning a living from "science," which should be about truth, and not about making a living by twisting data to suit a comfortable existence based on improperly-gathered data that troubles others instead of affirm the fickle finger of mother nature, who is responsible for 99.9996 of all of it, and not mankind.


----------



## freedombecki (Jun 3, 2013)

Oh, it just occurred to me that there is something California could do about pollution if it had the courage of its convictions. It could go through a 2-generation phase of reorganization of living areas and work areas so that people in 2-generations' time of about 50 years would own residences within walking distance or cycling distance of their job. That would get rid of most of the smog in the LA basin area that tends to have no winds to remove automobile gas pipe pollutants.

As people age and die off, their properties could  be sold in an area to make way for a business or industrial center in small areas with people living within 2 miles of the central business/work areas. Those in the furthest areas could cycle, while those bordering the business areas could walk. Cars or even mass transit could get people back and forth to Big-Bear or Beach resort areas, shopping centers, downtown LA, or other areas the remapping would accommodate. This would not tax individual families if a fair market price applied equally over the area were decided upon amicably ahead of time. Also, any changes would have to come from within the areas affected by change, and not by people like me from outside the state's borders.

Change is what an individual state decides to do about internal issues, based on support of the majority of citizens to follow one path of action or another.


----------



## IanC (Jun 3, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Couldn't care lass....Your source is wrong....Tobacco use does not _*cause*_ cancer....If it did, even casual smokers would be succumbing to the affliction.
> 
> That smoking _*increases the risk *_ &#8800; a causal pathogen.
> 
> The shitty use/abuse of the English language by your sources and yourself is your problem, Bubba.





its been a long time since I looked into tobacco/illness. there were several long term, high number studies that showed very peculiar results. one showed worse mortality for people that quit. these were not tobacco funded studies, they were govt studies that had every reason to find smoking (heh) gun results. it didnt stop them from making extravegant claims though, for our own good of course. second hand smoke danger is a complete fabrication and that is where people like Lindzen came in, to dispute the science not to support smoking in any way.

kinda sounds like AGW doesnt it? if it sounds good, lets run with it even if it isnt scientifically valid.


----------



## Bfgrn (Jun 3, 2013)

IanC said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Couldn't care lass....Your source is wrong....Tobacco use does not _*cause*_ cancer....If it did, even casual smokers would be succumbing to the affliction.
> ...



Like I've said many times before, forget AGW, you right wingers don't even believe pollution that contains carcinogens, toxins and poisons are deadly to human, fish and foul. You people are environmental terrorists.

It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.
Albert Camus





*
Secondhand Smoke*

*Secondhand smoke causes cancer*

Secondhand smoke is classified as a known human carcinogen (cancer-causing agent) by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the US National Toxicology Program, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a branch of the World Health Organization.

Tobacco smoke contains more than 7,000 chemical compounds. More than 250 of these chemicals are known to be harmful, and at least 69 are known to cause cancer.

SHS has been linked to lung cancer. There is also some evidence suggesting it may be linked with childhood leukemia and cancers of the larynx (voice box), pharynx (throat), brain, bladder, rectum, stomach, and breast.

*Secondhand smoke causes other kinds of diseases and deaths*

Secondhand smoke can cause harm in many ways. Each year in the United States alone, it is responsible for:


An estimated 46,000 deaths from heart disease in people who are current non-smokers
 

About 3,400 nonsmoking adults die of lung cancer as a result of breathing SHS
 

Worse asthma and asthma -related problems in up to 1 million asthmatic children
 

Between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections in children under 18 months of age, and lung infections resulting in 7,500 to 15,000 hospitalizations each year
*Surgeon Generals reports: Findings on smoking, secondhand smoke, and health*

Since 1964, 30 separate US Surgeon Generals reports have been written to make the public aware of the health issues linked to tobacco and SHS. The ongoing research used in these reports continues to support the fact that tobacco and SHS are linked to serious health problems that could be prevented. The reports have highlighted many important findings on SHS, such as:


SHS kills children and adults who dont smoke.
 

SHS causes disease in children and in adults who dont smoke.


Exposure to SHS while pregnant increases the chance that a woman will have a spontaneous abortion, still-born birth, low birth- weight baby, and other pregnancy and delivery problems.


Chemicals in tobacco smoke damage sperm which might reduce fertility and harm fetal development. SHS is known to damage sperm in animals, but more studies are needed to find out its effects in humans.
 
Babies and children exposed to SHS are at an increased risk of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), acute respiratory infections, ear infections, and more severe and frequent asthma attacks.


Smoking by parents can cause wheezing, coughing, bronchitis, and pneumonia, and slow lung growth in their children.
 
SHS immediately affects the heart, blood vessels, and blood circulation in a harmful way. Over time it can cause heart disease, strokes, and heart attacks.


SHS causes lung cancer in people who have never smoked. Even brief exposure can damage cells in ways that set the cancer process in motion.


There is no safe level of exposure to SHS. Any exposure is harmful.


Many millions of Americans, both children and adults, are still exposed to SHS in their homes and workplaces despite a great deal of progress in tobacco control.


On average, children are exposed to more SHS than non-smoking adults.


The only way to fully protect non-smokers from exposure to SHS indoors is to prevent all smoking in that indoor space or building. Separating smokers from non-smokers, cleaning the air, and ventilating buildings cannot keep non-smokers from being exposed to SHS.

Secondhand Smoke


----------



## Circe (Jun 3, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> From global warming to fluoride: Why do people deny science? - Salon.com
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Excellent. I'll look for that book directly, in the hope that it does indeed concentrate on overpopulation, not the discredited "Ice Age Coming" in the '70s or "Global Warming" a la Fantasia with the dinosaurs dying of heat prostration. How "science" follows art.

Luddly, you may be the first poster after me who has started chucking out the global warming nonsense in favor of the actual danger: overpopulation. I have realized for YEARS that leftists dealt in global warming as a way to talk about overpopulation without actually mentioning it, because of course it's a racial issue: whites are declining in population, it's yellows and blacks and browns that are grossly overpopulating the world now. (Though whites had our hockey-stick time, too.) So leftists could not possibly talk about it, and went a wrong direction, and tried to somehow blame a falsified "global warming" on Bush and Republican Americans, which was all such incredible nonsense that it failed as a meme, finally.

I know it has by now conclusively failed because I just visited leftist relatives in Boston and not a single word was spoken on global warming, despite past enthusiasm and total faith expressed about that silly idea. 

Here's a book for you: Spillover, by David Quammen. He is speaking of pandemics but makes an excellent case for humans being one of the few mammals that has had a true "outbreak" like disease outbreaks and pests, like gypsy moths and such do, increasing population by several factors very fast. Lemmings, of course, do have outbreaks, but other than that, mammals generally do not. Too large and reproductively slow. But humans certainly have!! Look at the hockey stick graphs. We are going to eat up the world and a whole lot of other species, and many are gone already.


----------



## dilloduck (Jun 3, 2013)

But now science can make new everything with these cool new machines . Completely safe and no downsides whatsoever 

3-D printing goes from sci-fi fantasy to reality


----------



## Circe (Jun 3, 2013)

Luddly, I see that book comes out tomorrow. I did send for it.  [

I am hoping it's one of those blow-up-your-mind books like Dawkin's "Selfish Gene" or the Reverend Malthus's "Essay on the Principles of Population."


----------



## dilloduck (Jun 3, 2013)

Unfortunately closed minds can't be blown


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 3, 2013)

> There is no safe level of exposure to SHS. Any exposure is harmful.



And there ya go.. Denial of scientific process for means of advancing an agenda.. Just as I pointed out above... 

Where's the public concern about legitimizing marijuana smoking. Do we have a similiar "any dose is harmful" concern from the left? Reminds me of very good friends in Cali who had "No Smoking" signs in every room of their house.. But were the biggest pot-heads in my circle of friends.

I do know that 2nd hand dope smoking IS a real problem in a tiny dorm room...


----------



## Circe (Jun 3, 2013)

dilloduck said:


> Unfortunately closed minds can't be blown



Was that a gratuitous insult against me, or against someone else?

I couldn't tell. Always nice to know where the snark is aimed.


----------



## IanC (Jun 4, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



sermons aren't studies. the numbers for SHS correlations are smaller than the error bars.


----------



## westwall (Jun 4, 2013)

Circe said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > From global warming to fluoride: Why do people deny science? - Salon.com
> ...








You need not worry about overpopulation.  The population (unless we're hit by an asteroid, or have a major war or pandemic) will level off at around 10 billion in 25 years or so.  Then, the population will begin to decline as the various third world countries become richer.

Of course that assumes that liberal enviro loons don't kill off a bunch more before that.  Or regulate perpetual poverty like they wish to do with Africa.


----------



## Bfgrn (Jun 4, 2013)

IanC said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Like I've said many times before, forget AGW, you right wingers don't even believe pollution that contains carcinogens, toxins and poisons are deadly to human, fish and foul. You people are environmental terrorists.


----------



## IanC (Jun 4, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



I actually consider myself as a classical liberal but I must admit that as the years mount up I find that I have less and less patience for ignorant ideas that no chance of being successful. 

let's put aside SHS because it has too much political baggage. how about cell phones causing brain cancer? there is no possible physical mechanism for it but there have been many 'studies' that found a positive correlation in general. but more studies that found no correlation, especially if they were designed to find that specific correlation. any study will find spurious correlations, at the significant level no less, if they look at enough factors. any factor will find spurious correlations if they look at enough studies. publication bias seeps into the media and we all hear the latest fad paper. playing classical music to your unborn baby will make it smarter, or a glass of red wine a day will make you healthier, etc.

some ideas are so attractive that we will believe them no matter how much evidence is against them. other ideas are so abhorrent that we will never accept them even if the evidence supports them.

too many people accept things because they sound good and stop using their critical thinking skills. are cookies more dangerous than second hand smoke? we hate smoking and love cookies. ponder that a while.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 4, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...





When people say, "People on the left cant think on the margin." this ^^^ is exactly what they are talking about


Listening to lefty k00ks, you'd think we were back in the early 1970's with the Love Canal!!!! They all read too much Rousseau in college and got developmentally stuck.......they want us all to live in a bubble like they do. The world is horribly tragic to these people and to them, people who dont think exactly as they do are the sole cause. All have the political IQ of a small soap dish, as evidenced by their continuous obsession with this global warming/green energy crap......as if it is actually something more than a fad. They'd have zero problem putting 2.5 million people in the coal industry out of work if they could......"FUCK THEM!!". They want us opening up our wallet and forking over twice as much for our electricity as we do now, "FUCK THEM......more carbon taxes!!!". They'd close your fireplace and steal your Galaxy Phone in a heartbeat ( can exist without fossil fuels).......'FUCK YOU.......we need nothing less than a lilly white environment......put out that cigarette you fuck!!!". They want ALL OF US driving around in those little faggy SMARTCARS because "I care more about the environment than you do!!!!"


Make no mistake.......these are the most intelorant people on the face of the earth.......and they are mental cases.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 4, 2013)

PS.....second hand smoke causing cancer is a gigantic myth pushed by lefty k00ks.

But dont take my word for it........thats what a WHO study found ( WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION )

The WHO's First Study on Second Hand Smoke





k00k lefties always push the data that fits their narrative.


----------



## Bfgrn (Jun 4, 2013)

IanC said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



The only 'sermons' are coming from you and kooks like skookerasbil. No evidence, sources or studies. Why is that? Is it because you are protecting your beloved hierarchy, the 'captains of industry' and parroting the propaganda of the tobacco industry and the pseudo 'scientists' and 'think' tanks who were hired guns for the tobacco industry and now the SAME pseudo 'scientists' and 'think' tanks who were hired guns for big polluters to create 'doubt' about climate change so they can rake in as much money as possible while killing human, fish and foul.

And PLEASE, don't even use the word 'liberal', you are a right wing environmental terrorist. There is not a liberal bone in your body.

Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan


----------



## Bfgrn (Jun 4, 2013)

skookerasbil said:


> PS.....second hand smoke causing cancer is a gigantic myth pushed by lefty k00ks.
> 
> But dont take my word for it........thats what a WHO study found ( WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION )
> 
> ...



Hey pea brain, do you even check your own sources?

At the bottom of the page YOU posted:

More Information

The WHO's press release is located here. 






p'wned...


----------



## IanC (Jun 4, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > PS.....second hand smoke causing cancer is a gigantic myth pushed by lefty k00ks.
> ...



I'm not asking you to believe smoking is harmless, I'm asking you to look at the results of the studies to check whether the findings support the hyperbolic rhetoric. in the case of the WHO study the results at best show inconclusive findings.



> RESULTS: ETS exposure during childhood was not associated with an increased risk of lung cancer (odds ratio [OR] for ever exposure = 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.64-0.96). The OR for ever exposure to spousal ETS was 1.16 (95% CI = 0.93-1.44). No clear dose-response relationship could be demonstrated for cumulative spousal ETS exposure. The OR for ever exposure to workplace ETS was 1.17 (95% CI = 0.94-1.45), with possible evidence of increasing risk for increasing duration of exposure. No increase in risk was detected in subjects whose exposure to spousal or workplace ETS ended more than 15 years earlier. Ever exposure to ETS from other sources was not associated with lung cancer risk. Risks from combined exposure to spousal and workplace ETS were higher for squamous cell carcinoma and small-cell carcinoma than for adenocarcinoma, but the differences were not statistically significant.
> 
> CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk. We did find weak evidence of a dose-response relationship between risk of lung cancer and exposure to spousal and workplace ETS. There was no detectable risk after cessation of exposure.



do I think children were protected from cancer by being exposed to SHS? no. but if the results were 1.22 CI(1.04-1.36) you would be screaming that it was proof positive.

and the CI for adults overlaps 1.0, meaning that SHS could either help or hurt the chances of getting cancer.

this is feeble evidence to be calling smokers environmental terrorists, let alone the people who just don't want to ostracize smokers.


----------



## Circe (Jun 4, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
> James M. Buchanan



I like this quote. I never heard that one. Probably true. It's true of me, anyway: I assume a natural hierarchy, though I do believe in equality under the law.


----------



## Bfgrn (Jun 4, 2013)

IanC said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...



WHAT? You don't want to ostracize smokers? Smokers have every right to smoke...just take it OUTSIDE. Every human has the right to breath clean, fresh air. Anyone who invades that right should be 'ostracized'

Second-hand smoke kills 600,000 a year: WHO study

Fri Nov 26, 2010

Around one in a hundred deaths worldwide is due to passive smoking, which kills an estimated 600,000 people a year, World Health Organization (WHO) researchers said on Friday.

In the first study to assess the global impact of second-hand smoke, WHO experts found that children are more heavily exposed to second-hand smoke than any other age-group, and around 165,000 of them a year die because of it.

"Two-thirds of these deaths occur in Africa and south Asia," the researchers, led by Annette Pruss-Ustun of the WHO in Geneva, wrote in their study.

Children's exposure to second-hand smoke is most likely to happen at home, and the double blow of infectious diseases and tobacco "seems to be a deadly combination for children in these regions," they said.

Commenting on the findings in the Lancet journal, Heather Wipfli and Jonathan Samet from the University of Southern California said policymakers try to motivate families to stop smoking in the home.

"In some countries, smokefree homes are becoming the norm, but far from universally," they wrote.

The WHO researchers looked at data from 192 countries for their study. To get comprehensive data from all 192, they had to go back to 2004. They used mathematical modeling to estimate deaths and the number of years lost of life in good health.

Worldwide, 40 percent of children, 33 percent of non-smoking men and 35 percent non-smoking women were exposed to second-hand smoke in 2004, they found.

This exposure was estimated to have caused 379,000 deaths from heart disease, 165,000 from lower respiratory infections, 36,900 from asthma and 21,400 from lung cancer.

For the full impact of smoking, these deaths should be added to the estimated 5.1 million deaths a year attributable to active tobacco use, the researchers said.

*CHILDREN*

While deaths due to passive smoking in children were skewed toward poor and middle-income countries, deaths in adults were spread across countries at all income levels.

In Europe's high-income countries, only 71 child deaths occurred, while 35,388 deaths were in adults. Yet in the countries assessed in Africa, an estimated 43,375 deaths due to passive smoking were in children compared with 9,514 in adults.

more


----------



## IanC (Jun 4, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



you are putting up the sermon again, rather than the study. 



> They used mathematical modeling to estimate deaths



here we go again with modelling.


----------



## Circe (Jun 4, 2013)

IanC said:


> here we go again with modelling.



Yeah, that modeling is how they got in trouble with the global warming crap. Modeling is not science! It's free creation;  it's science fiction. It's an attempt to put somebody's bias over on a naive public, and it's immoral.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 4, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...


Ahhh.....The old WHO report that was discovered to be a TOTAL FRAUD....Guess ole Gomer Pyle  didn't get the memo.

*...And They Call This "Science"!*


Just as with Goebbels warming, the Euronannies at the UN had a conclusion they wanted to reach and made the "facts" fit the template.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 4, 2013)

IanC said:


> you are putting up the sermon again, rather than the study.


They won't release the study.....Just the "findings".

Nope....Nothing fishy there!


----------



## freedombecki (Jun 4, 2013)

Oddball said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > you are putting up the sermon again, rather than the study.
> ...


 That's because the current philosophy is "just pass, so we can know what it's all about later."


----------



## Bfgrn (Jun 4, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



REALLY Jethro? Goebbels? Shouldn't you be calling yourself out on Godwin's law?  Can it get any more narcissistic, sick and evil than FORCE? Better find that Godwin pic, because this sounds like it goes beyond environmental terrorists.

To FORCES belong those who consider what follows *unacceptable*:


The principle that public and private health - instead of general and individual liberty of choice, behaviour and enterprise - is the paramount value of society, to which any and all other values must submit.


The ideological equation of health with liberty.


----------



## Bfgrn (Jun 4, 2013)

The Truth About Secondhand Smoke

Excerpted from Consumer Reports electronic services January 1995, reprinted by permission.


Introduction

    In the 1950s and 1960s, the tobacco industry mounted a campaign to keep doubt alive about the consequences of smoking. The effort ultimately flopped. But it succeeded in putting off that day when everyone acknowledged the hazard. That delay bought years of robust sales. The industry is at it again, only this time the target is secondhand smoke.


    The Evidence?

    For years, researchers have accumulated information about the effects of the compounds in secondhand smoke. Cigarette smoke and tars condensed from it induce cancer in laboratory animals.

    The smoke causes genetic mutations in bacteria, another common test for carcinogenic potential. And several of its components are known or probable human carcinogens. If scientists had only this animal and laboratory evidence to go on, secondhand smoke would still qualify as a "probable" or "possible" human carcinogen.

    Tobacco smoke is among a handful of substances (including asbestos, vinyl chloride and radon) for which abundant human evidence exists.

    That evidence comes from epidemiology (the study of disease patterns in human populations), the field responsible for identifying all the known human carcinogens. There are 33 published epidemiological studies of secondhand smoke, 13 of which were conducted in the U.S. Most used standard epidemiological technique. The published studies looked at nonsmoking women who developed lung cancer, to see whether they were more likely to be married to smokers than were women who didn't get the disease.

    In all such studies, it is difficult to accurately measure every variable. Most of the smoking occurred decades ago, and the details can't be learned. Some women whose husbands didn't smoke might still have breathed smoke at work or with friends. And some wives of smokers might have been able to avoid their spouses' smoke. But both of those factors would tend to hide any true relationship between exposure and disease.

    So, if anything, the studies should underestimate the risk of secondhand smoke. Despite the unknown variables, 26 of the 33 studies indicated a link between secondhand smoke and lung cancer. Those studies estimated that people breathing secondhand smoke were 8 % to 150 % more likely to get lung cancer sometime later.

    Of the remaining seven studies, one found no connection with lung-cancer rates. Six suggested that people exposed to secondhand smoke had lower rates of lung cancer, although no one suggests passive smoking really reduces the risk. Seven of the 26 positive studies included enough subjects, and found a sufficient effect, to attain "statistical significance," meaning there was no more than a 5 % probability that the results in those studies occurred by chance.

    In contrast, just one of the negative studies reached statistical significance.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 4, 2013)

8% to `50%?  What sort of spread is that to base anything on?  Random numbers would give you a tighter spread than that.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 4, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...


WHO fudged, contrived and outright lied, dumbshit.....That's a documented fact.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 4, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> The Truth About Secondhand Smoke
> 
> Excerpted from Consumer Reports electronic services January 1995, reprinted by permission.
> 
> ...



Hey Jethro --- Dose LEVELS?? They don't matter in these studies or they were meticulously controlled for? Which was it? You think THAT yields science accurate enough to pronounce causality/rate numbers that overlap 1.0? Or even a 1.2?



> In all such studies, it is difficult to accurately measure every variable. Most of the smoking occurred decades ago, and the details can't be learned. Some women whose husbands didn't smoke might still have breathed smoke at work or with friends. And some wives of smokers might have been able to avoid their spouses' smoke. But both of those factors would tend to hide any true relationship between exposure and disease.



Good enough for propaganda.. Not for science. Sorry Pal.. Dose matters in studies of this type... 

My interest in this topic started in the early 90s when a local news show blared the headline "Parents are Killing their Children -- details at 11".. 

So the media mental midgets repeated the "conclusions" part of the study that children of smokers were 30% more likely to die of lung diseases in their lifetimes.. So I pulled the study and read it.. Guess what??? 

In order to force a positive 1.3 effect out of the study, 

......... the kid had to live in a 2 smoker family CONSTANTLY for 24 years 

And children with less exposure than that quickly got reprieves and maybe even PROTECTIVE results from living with smokers. But the propaganda meisters accomplish the drive-by assassination of science and used the useful idiots to broadcast their lie...

I'm sure that THAT STUDY is still quoted to this day by your lying heroes as proof of the dangers to "all children" exposed to "any level" of exposure to SHS. They have no shame or scientific scruples when there are kids to save.. God bless their little hearts.


----------



## Bfgrn (Jun 4, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > The Truth About Secondhand Smoke
> ...



Link?


----------



## Bfgrn (Jun 4, 2013)

The Tobacco Industry's Campaign

The tobacco industry foresaw the health debate over secondhand smoke, and the problems it would cause for cigarette makers. In 1978, a Roper poll commissioned by the Tobacco Institute, the industry's trade group, called growing public concern about secondhand smoke "the most dangerous development yet to the viability of the tobacco industry" and recommended "developing and widely publicizing clear-cut, credible medical evidence that passive smoking is not harmful."

In 1986, Imperial Tobacco Ltd., Canada's largest cigarette company, commissioned a secret study on how to combat the growing success of anti-smoking activists. The study documents, made public in the course of a lawsuit, lay out in prescient detail the industry's current strategy on secondhand smoke: "Passive smoking [should be] used as the focal point.... Of all the health issues surrounding smoking...the one which the tobacco industry has the most chance of winning [is] that the evidence proclaimed by the anti-group is flawed.... It is highly desirable to control the focus of the debate."

The study's documents go on to urge "an attack on the credibility of evidence presented to date." The ideal advocate would be a medical professional, the report said, but "the challenge will be to find a sympathetic doctor who can be demonstrated to take a largely independent stance." The recommended message on secondhand smoke: "Now that you have seen that all which has been said is not true, let's be adult and get down to the real business, a respect for each other's choices and space."

Whether or not tobacco companies ever saw the report, their current public-relations campaign is following its advice.


----------



## Bfgrn (Jun 4, 2013)

Influencing Science

In its efforts to construct the sort of "credible medical evidence" its pollsters recommended, the tobacco industry has commissioned research from sympathetic scientists, sponsored scientific meetings carefully tailored to bring out their point of view, and published the results in the medical literature.

The research support comes through various channels: direct grants from companies or industry-funded research institutes -- such as the Council for Tobacco Research and the Center for Indoor Air Research) -- and consulting contracts from tobacco companies, public-relations firms, and law firms. To get favorable research on the record, the tobacco industry has borrowed a technique from the pharmaceutical industry: sponsoring scientific symposia and seeing to it that their findings end up on medical library shelves.

Lisa Bero, a health policy analyst at the University of California, San Francisco, has documented the results of such symposia. She identified four symposia between 1974 and 1990 that were paid for by the tobacco industry. Only 4 % of the articles from the industry-funded symposia said that passive smoking was unhealthful, compared with 65 % of the other journal articles. Fully 72 % of symposia reports argued that secondhand smoke wasn't harmful, compared with 20 % of independent journal articles. (The balance was neutral.)

The symposium reports did not undergo the standard scientific process of peer review, yet can be found in the databases of medical literature.

This careful construction of a citable scientific record came in handy when the tobacco industry set out to attack early drafts of the EPA's report on secondhand smoke. Bero found that two-thirds of comments critical of the EPA report came from industry scientists, who drew heavily on industry-generated literature. The Tobacco Institute's own submission, for instance, cited 32 papers from symposia, but only seven peer-reviewed articles.

As the industry has learned, however, research support doesn't guarantee that a scientist will go along with the company line. At least five members of an independent scientific advisory board that reviewed the EPA's 1993 secondhand smoke report had ties to industry research groups, either as advisers or grant recipients, including a scientist awarded a $1.2-million grant from Philip Morris during the review period. Yet the board unanimously agreed that passive smoking was a cancer risk.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 4, 2013)

The tobacco industry didn't author the fraudulent WHO and EPA reports, Gomer.


----------



## Bfgrn (Jun 4, 2013)

Oddball said:


> The tobacco industry didn't author the fraudulent WHO and EPA reports, Gomer.



Says the hired guns paid for by the tobacco industry. Did the butler you read what I posted Jethro? If he did, do you have a comprehension issue?


----------



## Oddball (Jun 4, 2013)

Who I may or may not be hired by is irrelevant to WHO's and EPA's fraudulence.

You really suck at this, Gomer.


----------



## Bfgrn (Jun 4, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Who I may or may not be hired by is irrelevant to WHO's and EPA's fraudulence.
> 
> You really suck at this, Gomer.



WHO someone is hired by is TOTALLY relevant, especially when the industry doing the hiring spells out in memos entered as evidence in a lawsuit they their intent was not science, or truth, their intention was to launch a PR campaign, and that they were looking for  'sympathetic doctors'.

Tobacco-industry funding of research

The tobacco industry's role in funding scientific research on second-hand smoke has been controversial. A review of published studies found that tobacco-industry affiliation was strongly correlated with findings exonerating second-hand smoke; researchers affiliated with the tobacco industry were 88 times more likely than independent researchers to conclude that second-hand was not harmful. In a specific example which came to light with the release of tobacco-industry documents, Philip Morris executives successfully encouraged an author to revise his industry-funded review article to downplay the role of second-hand smoke in sudden infant death syndrome. The 2006 U.S. Surgeon General's report criticized the tobacco industry's role in the scientific debate:

    The industry has funded or carried out research that has been judged to be biased, supported scientists to generate letters to editors that criticized research publications, attempted to undermine the findings of key studies, assisted in establishing a scientific society with a journal, and attempted to sustain controversy even as the scientific community reached consensus.

This strategy was outlined at an international meeting of tobacco companies in 1988, at which Philip Morris proposed to set up a team of scientists, organized by company lawyers, to "carry out work on ETS to keep the controversy alive." All scientific research was subject to oversight and "filtering" by tobacco-industry lawyers:

    Philip Morris then expect the group of scientists to operate within the confines of decisions taken by PM scientists to determine the general direction of research, which apparently would then be 'filtered' by lawyers to eliminate areas of sensitivity.

Philip Morris reported that it was putting "...vast amounts of funding into these projects... in attempting to coordinate and pay so many scientists on an international basis to keep the ETS controversy alive."


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 4, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



The impact of reading the TRUTH about that study has stayed marked in my brain.. It inspires me to even spend time countering shills like you.. But it was too many years ago and before the internet for me to try to dig up.. 

Instead --- WHY don't you read the tagline in my footer again eh BullWinkle?

And then ANSWER MY DAMN QUESTION about how accurate all your science can be if DOSE and EXPOSURE is completely unknown and uncontrolled.. Use what you have of your OWN brain and explain it to me.


----------



## Bfgrn (Jun 4, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



No links, just insults...

But you know, why would any reasonable person believe that secondhand smoke could be harmful? I mean, we know it is deadly to smokers, but it actually is helpful to the kid sitting next to him if you believe some of your 'expert' studies. And everyone knows if they ever bought a car from a smoker, that all that tar, nicotine, carcinogens and poisons know they are only allowed to go directly to the windows. They are not allowed to touch kids.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 4, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Who I may or may not be hired by is irrelevant to WHO's and EPA's fraudulence.
> ...


Recriminations and a text brick written by someone else_* still*_ doesn't refute the fact that WHO and EPA lied out their asses.

You really, _*really*_ suck at this, Gomer.


----------



## Trajan (Jun 4, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > The Truth About Secondhand Smoke
> ...



its the old Alar scare type play- you'd have to eat a bushel of 'Alar" sprayed apples a week for 20 years to begin to reach levels of toxicity build up etc etc ...


----------



## SSDD (Jun 4, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> No links, just insults...






> ANSWER MY DAMN QUESTION about how accurate all your science can be if DOSE and EXPOSURE is completely unknown and uncontrolled



That seemed like a reasonable question.  Got an answer?  I would be real interested in hearing how any sort of rational scientific position could be reached with those two critical variables remaining unknown.  So what is the answer?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 4, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > No links, just insults...
> ...



Geez yeah.. The thread is about denying SCIENCE, not denying smoking.. Seems appropriate...


----------



## Bfgrn (Jun 4, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Who I may or may not be hired by is irrelevant to WHO's and EPA's fraudulence.
> 
> You really suck at this, Gomer.



Hey Jethro, it is time to step up to the plate. I hear all these accusations with ZERO documentation, links, articles or proof.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 4, 2013)

I posted the documentation and links....You refuse to accept the truth.

Your problem.


----------



## Bfgrn (Jun 4, 2013)

Oddball said:


> I posted the documentation and links....You refuse to accept the truth.
> 
> Your problem.



Post #?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 4, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > I posted the documentation and links....You refuse to accept the truth.
> ...



Here comes the IRS audit OddBall.. Assume the position... Links and Post #s... Next he's gonna want your reading list and library card..


----------



## Bfgrn (Jun 4, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Oddball is not one to post anything but emotes in ebonics. I don't recall seeing any documentation, links or proof of his accusations.

Hey, maybe Oddball has some anecdotal evidence from years ago that is unsubstantiated like you?


----------



## Oddball (Jun 4, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > I posted the documentation and links....You refuse to accept the truth.
> ...


180

You attacked the source, not the facts uncovered by that source.

Fact remains that the WHO and EPA "studies" were smoked out as straight-up frauds years and years ago.....But  nanny state agenda driven hacks like you don't give a fuck....Once the lie gets published, it's instantly accepted as gospel.

There's a reason I use the term "Goebbels warming".


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 4, 2013)

Hey BFGrn:: 

The Second-Hand Smoke Charade | Cato Institute

Can we just call all that junk science and be done with it?? 



> Judge Osteen determined that *the EPA had cherry picked its data and had grossly manipulated scientific procedure and scientific norms in order to rationalize the agencys own preconceived conclusion* that passive smoking caused 3,000 lung cancer deaths a year. In addition, Osteen ruled that the EPA had violated the Radon Act, which was the agencys authority for disseminating its de facto regulatory scheme that intended to prohibit passive smoking. *The agency responded, embarrassingly, with an ad hominem attack on the judge, not on the cold logic of his arguments.*  [[Does that sound familiar to anyone on USMB??? ]]
> 
> .......... In fact, the EPA did not even evaluate the studies on smoking in public places. Instead, the EPAs analysis was based on 11 U.S. studies that examined the risks of contracting lung cancer to nonsmoking spouses married to smokers, a different matter altogether. *Yet none of the studies in the original sample reported a strong relative cancer risk associated with ETS*.
> 
> ...



Holy Cow Batman --- we've got a SCIENCE DENIAL problem here.. B4 you object. I ADORE CATO, I TRUST CATO, and I donate reguarly to CATO.. Don't like?? Tough shit. It still happened. Go find it elsewhere..


----------



## Bfgrn (Jun 4, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



You link says passive smoke is a non-danger. Is that your belief Jethro?


----------



## Oddball (Jun 4, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Hey BFGrn::
> 
> The Second-Hand Smoke Charade | Cato Institute
> 
> ...


CATO is just a lemonade stand storefront for Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and the shadow gubmint operating in the basement of the  Wal-Mart in Annandale, Virginia!


----------



## Oddball (Jun 4, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...


My belief is irrelevant....Bring facts, chump.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 4, 2013)

*Why do people deny science?*
Because science no longer deals with the data and theory. It has a political agenda that it must push, without pushing their agenda they may lose their government funding.


----------



## Bfgrn (Jun 4, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Hey BFGrn::
> 
> The Second-Hand Smoke Charade | Cato Institute
> 
> ...



So, is it your belief that passive smoke is a non-danger?


----------



## Oddball (Jun 4, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> So, is it your belief that passive smoke is a non-danger?


Belief isn't science.....The one operating on belief is you, Gomer.


----------



## Bfgrn (Jun 4, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



You are a yellow bellied coward. You squealed that I attacked your source. Well, your source SAYS:

This list should put an end to the diatribe on passive smoke since it conclusively demonstrates, step by step and in extremely simple language accessible, to all the incredible misrepresentation of evidence used to transform *a non-danger *into an "epidemic" and into a collective hysteria phenomenon.

Do you stand by YOUR source, or should we disregard your source?


----------



## Bfgrn (Jun 4, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > So, is it your belief that passive smoke is a non-danger?
> ...



Then your source isn't science. Because your source believes that passive smoke is a non-danger.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 4, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...




Disprove the source, hysterical dickweed.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 4, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Hey BFGrn::
> ...



I'm glad you asked.. I go on the SCIENCE that I've read.. For instance,, I remember a study from one of the National Labs that ACTUALLY measured workplace SHSmoke to be equivalent to six cigarettes a YEAR. Not the 0.3 cigs per DAY that the EPA pulled out of it's ass. I don't believe, as public health hazards go, that THAT rises to a catastrophe by any measure.. Just doesn't fly when it takes 40 someodd unfiltered Camels a day for 20+ years to trigger a disease. 

The RIDICULOUS proclamations like "ANY AMOUNT OF EXPOSURE to SHS is harmful"  (which you repeated above)  and the real winner --- "SHSmoke is MORE dangerous to bystanders than it is to smokers" are really not funny. THey pervert science. And I HATE perverted science and reason. 

So what I believe is that science was perverted to promote over-hyped hysteria in order to lock-down the manuevering room for those who choose to smoke.. I CERTAINLY would abhor the thought of prosecuting parents for smoking in the presence of their children, or denying the ability of airports to provide filtered ventilated accomodations. 

THe real alarm bells went off for me when I actually read that study years ago (the one with the 2 smoker family with the kid living there for 24 years). It was the clearest perversion of science that I had ever witnessed and it struck me deeply as a scientist and engineer. And I discovered that although the game was to claim SHS as a carcinogen and toxic YET -- none of the studies did any rigorous titration studies on DOSE or EXPOSURE. There is no other toxin or carcinogen treated in this distorted manner. 

Horse shit? Not quite. But its' clearly a DENIAL OF SCIENCE in order to forward a public policy agenda... With a moderate dose of just pure wicked dickering with the facts.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 4, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> I'm glad you asked.. I go on the SCIENCE that I've read.. For instance,, I remember a study from one of the National Labs that ACTUALLY measured workplace SHSmoke to be equivalent to six cigarettes a YEAR. Not the 0.3 cigs per DAY that the EPA pulled out of it's ass. I don't believe, as public health hazards go, that THAT rises to a catastrophe by any measure.. Just doesn't fly when it takes 40 someodd unfiltered Camels a day for 20+ years to trigger a disease.
> 
> The RIDICULOUS proclamations like "ANY AMOUNT OF EXPOSURE to SHS is harmful"  (which you repeated above)  and the real winner --- "SHSmoke is MORE dangerous to bystanders than it is to smokers" are really not funny. THey pervert science. And I HATE perverted science and reason.
> 
> ...


Yeahbbit....yeahbbit....yeahbbit...yeahbbit.......Where are your computer models?!?!?


----------



## Bfgrn (Jun 4, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Does your beloved CATO Institute mention all the malfeasance of the tobacco industry? Do they mention all the documents gathered through litigation? The tobacco industry knew way back in the 1950's they were marketing and selling death. But they grossly manipulated or withheld information and data. They used obfuscation and hired pseudo-scientists to deceive the public.  Or is that just capitalists being 'creative' entrepreneurs?


----------



## Bfgrn (Jun 4, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



I already did Jethro. Your 'scientific' source is founded on BELIEFS and doctrinaire.

WHO WE ARE

FORCES International is an organisation in support of human rights and - in particular, but not limited to - the defence of those who expect from life the freedom to smoke, eat, drink and, in general, to enjoy personal lifestyle choices without restrictions and state interference.

Philosophy and message

The message of FORCES is based on the values of liberty for every individual in his personal choices. In this, FORCES is aligned with those who fight the antismoking movement, which is essentially false and oppressive.

To FORCES belong those who consider what follows *unacceptable*:

*public and private health - instead of general and individual liberty of choice, behaviour and enterprise - is the paramount value of society, to which any and all other values must submit.*

The ideological equation of health with liberty.


What your 'scientific ' source is *saying* in plain English.

My right to smoke is more important than human life. If some kid dies because of my right to smoke anywhere I want, too fucking bad.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 4, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...


That doesn't refute a word of the data that they've collected, which debunks the lies of WHO and EPA.

You really, *really*, _*REALLY*_ suck at this, Gomer.


----------



## Bfgrn (Jun 4, 2013)

Tobacco Explained

The truth about the tobacco industry
in its own words


*Summary*

Thousands of internal tobacco industry documents released through litigation and whistleblowers reveal the most astonishing systematic corporate deceit of all time. What
follows is a survey of the documents, 1,200 relevant and revealing quotes grouped under common themes.

*Chapter 1* Smoking and health Publicly the industry denied and continues to deny that it is clear that smoking causes lung cancer - yet it has understood the carcinogenic nature of its product since the 1950s. It is now clear that the industrys stance on smoking and health is determined by lawyers and public relations concerns.

*Chapter 2* Nicotine and addiction Until recently the industry has denied its product is addictive. Most recently it has used a definition of addictiveness so broad that it encompasses shopping and the Internet. Internally, it has known since the 1960s that the crucial selling point of its product is the chemical dependence of its customers. Without nicotine addiction there would be no tobacco industry. Nicotine addiction destroys the industrys PR and legal stance that smoking is a matter of choice.

*Chapter 3* Marketing to children The companies deny that they target the young. The documents reveal the obvious - that the market of young smokers is of central importance to the industry. Many documents reveal the companies pre-occupation with teenagers and younger children - and the lengths they have gone to in order to influence smoking behaviour in this age group.

*Chapter 4* Advertising The industry maintains that advertising is used only to fight for brand share and that it does not increase total consumption - academic research shows otherwise. The documents show that advertising is crucial in nurturing the motivation to smoke by creating or projecting the positive values, such as independence, machismo, glamour or intelligence, erroneously associated with the product.

*Chapter 5* Cigarette design The documents show that the companies initially hoped to make safer cigarettes, but then abandoned the enterprise when it recognised that this would expose their existing products as unsafe. The industry has deliberately promoted low-tar cigarettes knowing that they would offer false reassurance without health benefits. It has manipulated nicotine and introduced additives to change the delivery of nicotine. It recognises the cigarette as a drug delivery device.

*Chapter 6* Second-hand smoke The industry is challenged by second-hand smoke in two ways. First, measures to protect non-smokers will reduce the opportunities to smoke and contribute to its social unacceptability. Second, the freedom to smoke arguments are confounded if non-smokers are harmed. The industry has refused to accept the now overwhelming consensus regarding the harm caused by second-hand smoke - instead it has denied and obfuscated, and sought to influence debate by buying up scientists on a spectacular scale.

*Chapter 7* Emerging markets Faced with reducing levels of smoking in the West and an insatiable need for money, the companies have moved aggressively into developing countries and Eastern Europe. The documents reveal an arrogance and fanaticism that has imperialist echoes.

http://www.who.int/tobacco/media/en/TobaccoExplained.pdf


----------



## Oddball (Jun 4, 2013)

Busting on the tobacco industry, yet again, _*does not*_ disprove the lies of the WHO and EPA.

I'm sure you can find an ESL course at your local community college.


----------



## Bfgrn (Jun 4, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



It proves you 'scientific' source is based on a political agenda, not truth or science. They TELL you they are heavily BIAS. THAT is not science Jethro, it's DOGMA.

The page you linked me to doesn't mention either study


----------



## Oddball (Jun 4, 2013)

None of that refutes what they've documented via mainstream sources.

The one reverse engineering the data to achieve a political result here is you, Gomer Pyle.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 5, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



You're really really not absorbing any of this science stuff are Ya?? I tell you about the phoney science that's been bought and mangled by your smoking zealots and all you can do is tell me about the tobacco companies. Guess what? you're in the SCIENCE forum. 

Not my fault if the American Lung Assoc uses the media as useful idiots. Not my fault if the tobacco companies decided to defend themselves. They have that right. 

Most of all -- in science, we don't dodge and weave between discussing different topics like health aspects of smoking versus health aspects of being in the proximity (occasionally) of a smoker. Details matter. The data is different. The conclusions are different. One does not influence the other. 

I can see by reading ahead, that you're off on impeaching sources with your OddBall skirmish. GENERALLY -- we don't do that either in Science. Facts and theories rise and fall LARGELY on content. If it's ridiculous, it's easy to refute. Just like the hysteria about SHS.

The only author bias we bring to the table is if someone is a convicted cheat, can't balance their checkbook, or is chronically wrong. And in those cases, we'll generally take the time to reply anyway. Just like we do on USMB..


----------



## Bfgrn (Jun 5, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Interesting. You claim to be looking only at 'science'. But there is so much science out there that proves second hand smoke is dangerous that the only way to avoid it is for you to dodge, weave and cherry pick the BIAS of your source. There is a mountain of evidence from documents and memos seized through lawsuits that proves the tobacco industry willfully and deliberately fudged and edited the 'science', would not submit studies and papers for peer review and outright lied to the public about the death they sell.

Your answer? The tobacco industry has a right to commit murder and lie about it. Really? I mean for you right wingers making a lot of money=morality and is all someone needs to do to be worshiped by the right.

I really don't believe you people on the right have any morals, ethics or what could be called Christian beliefs. 

Albert Camus said, "It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners" You folks willfully DEFEND the executioners.


----------



## IanC (Jun 5, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



you are confusing your moral, ethical and religious beliefs with science. science doesnt work by belief, it works on principles that determine physical truth. in the case of SHS the evidence is ambiguous and it cannot be proven either way. when those in charge falsely claim scientific proof it damages the respectability of science.


----------



## Bfgrn (Jun 5, 2013)

IanC said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



You're confused. Actually the 'real science', which is the medical evidence on the devastating harm to the human body's life functions for smoking and passive smoking is overwhelming. The statistical evidence of probability is inherently less reliable.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 5, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Interesting. You claim to be looking only at 'science'. But there is so much science out there that proves second hand smoke is dangerous that the only way to avoid it is for you to dodge, weave and cherry pick the BIAS of your source. There is a mountain of evidence from documents and memos seized through lawsuits that proves the tobacco industry willfully and deliberately fudged and edited the 'science', would not submit studies and papers for peer review and outright lied to the public about the death they sell.
> 
> Your answer? The tobacco industry has a right to commit murder and lie about it. Really? I mean for you right wingers making a lot of money=morality and is all someone needs to do to be worshiped by the right.
> 
> ...


 Back to attacking the tobacco companies, when it's WHO and EPA that used worthless methodology and plain old lied out their asses, in "proving" so-called second-hand smoke is dangerous.

Other than being strongly habit forming, fact remains that smoking doesn't _*cause*_ jack shit.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 5, 2013)

Sorry -- I quoted the wrong post. But my response is solely to Bfgrns comments below.. 

Busy day today.. 



Bfgrn said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Let's not confuse SMOKING with the SHSmoke issue.. On the latter, the evidence is extremely weak and does not justify most of the public policy hysteria based on junk science. YES -- junk science. Like when you create a MetaStudy from evidence TOO WEAK to make your case and cherry pick studies and change the confidence levels. Despiite your assertion that it is "overwhelming" I presented clear evidence that it is "marginal" at best and IGNORES basic scientific standards of evidence like dose and exposure studies.. 

I don't HAVE to cherry-pick SHS smoke studies to say that are weak. THe EPA however has to cherry-pick and fudge to make the case hysterical enough for media and public consumption --- EXACTLY BECAUSE THE RAW EVIDENCE IS WEAK.. Got THAT Bullwinkle??


And your disdain for the tobacco companies is selective from my objective point of view. Wasn't too long ago that PHYSICIANS were prescribing Cigarettes for asthmatics. We ALL screwed up.. And that why we need to isolate science from zealous campaigns backed by govt power.. ... 

?Divine Stramonium?: The Rise and Fall of Smoking for Asthma



> In addition, surveys and clinical studies conducted during the 1940s and 1950s continued occasionally to emphasize the therapeutic value of cigarettes containing either stramonium or one of its active ingredients, atropine: &#8220;Atropine administered locally in cigarette smoke or wet aerosols&#8221;, wrote H Herxheimer in 1959, &#8220;increases the vital capacity and gives a feeling of relief in cases of mild or moderate chronic asthma and emphysema.&#8221;65
> 
> In spite of authoritative endorsements from clinicians and scientists, however, it is evident that even before Proust died in 1922 the popularity of smoking for asthma was already under threat. Opposition to the smoking cure appeared from a variety of directions. In the first instance, it is evident that declining support for smoking was prompted partly by new, allergic understandings of asthma that prioritized inflammation rather than nervous bronchoconstriction.



Unfortunately -- failure and error ARE PART of the scientific process. Better restrain those Camu executioners until we round up ALL the guilty eh?


----------



## Bfgrn (Jun 5, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting. You claim to be looking only at 'science'. But there is so much science out there that proves second hand smoke is dangerous that the only way to avoid it is for you to dodge, weave and cherry pick the BIAS of your source. There is a mountain of evidence from documents and memos seized through lawsuits that proves the tobacco industry willfully and deliberately fudged and edited the 'science', would not submit studies and papers for peer review and outright lied to the public about the death they sell.
> ...



Thank you for finally professing your ignorance. But to be honest with you, I never thought it was THAT massive. Even for you.

You have given me a 'keeper'

Oddball: "smoking doesn't _*cause*_ jack shit.


----------



## KevinWestern (Jun 5, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> From global warming to fluoride: Why do people deny science? - Salon.com



Ah yes, those crazy people who claim Fluoride is harmful. People have been saying this for years and years and the claim was recently validated by a Harvard Study featured here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mercola/fluoride_b_2479833.html

I suppose that's why people remain ever questioning of the science of the day (because it's not always correct or what it seems at first).



.


----------



## Bfgrn (Jun 5, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Sorry -- I quoted the wrong post. But my response is solely to Bfgrns comments below..
> 
> Busy day today..
> 
> ...



Are you really interested in the truth? Because if you really are, you can easily find out you are wrong, totally wrong. There is a HUGE problem with your argument. REALLY HUGE. Many of the of the tobacco industry's underhanded strategies and tactics have been exposed, thanks to landmark legal cases. Conclusive internal studies proving shs is deadly, internal documents, memos and strategies all authored by tobacco companies.


Deadly Deception: The Tobacco Industry's Secondhand Smoke Cover Up

*Tobacco Companies Have Long Been Aware of Secondhand Smoke Hazards*

Tobacco companies knew much more about the health hazards of secondhand smoke, and knew it longer ago, than most people realize.

Recognizing the need to do more biological research on its own products, but also understanding the need to distance itself from this research for legal reasons, in 1971 Philip Morris purchased a biological lab in Germany called Institut Fur Biologische Forschung ("INBIFO"), or Institute for Biological Research. PM then created a complex routing system to ensure that work done at INBIFO could not be linked back to Philip Morris. INBIFO routed its study results through a PM research and development facility in Switzerland called Fabriques de Tabac Reunies, and documents created at INBIFO were often in French or German language.

Between 1981 and 1989, Philip Morris (PM) conducted at least 115 different inhalation studies on secondhand smoke at INBIFO in which they compared the toxicity of mainstream smoke (the smoke the smoker himself inhales) to that of secondhand smoke. *PM discovered that secondhand smoke is 2-6 times more toxic and carcinogenic per gram than mainstream smoke. *The company never published the results of these in-house studies or alerted public health authorities to their findings. Rather, they kept this information strictly to themselves -- even most Philip Morris employees were unaware of these studies.

*Strategies to Deceive the Public*

But Philip Morris did much worse than hide this crucial information from the public. Spurred by a 1993 EPA Risk Assessment that declared secondhand smoke a known human carcinogen, and recognizing the danger the secondhand smoke issue held for the cigarette industry, Philip Morris masterminded a massive global effort to confuse and deceive the public about the health hazards of secondhand smoke and to delay laws restricting smoking in indoor public places.

A 1993 internal Philip Morris (PM) strategy paper titled "ETS (Environmental Tobacco Smoke) World Conference" shows PM organizing a wide range of strategies to shape public views on secondhand smoke and fight smoking restrictions worldwide. PM pursued tactics to "shift concern over ETS to slippery slope argumentation and/or tolerance"; liken secondhand smoke to perceived risks from other items of public concern, such as cellular phones and chlorinated water; "shift concern over ETS in the workplace from the health issue to one of annoyance;" "shift the concern over ETS in restaurants from bans to accommodation where bans are imminent;" "develop an 'ETS Task Force,' with global PM representation to develop strategies to combat smoking restrictions;" "... package comprehensive improvements in ventilation to forestall tobacco specific bans and ... shift the debate from ETS to IAQ [indoor air quality]." Another strategy was the "development of a global coalition against "junk science" to complement a similar coalition PM was already forming in the United States.

At the same time, PM implemented Project Brass, a secret action plan conceived by the Leo Burnett Company, to create a "controversy" over secondhand smoke where there really was none. Project Brass strove to "forestall further public smoking restrictions/bans," "create a decided change in public opinion," and "develop an atmosphere more conducive to smokers" in the general public.

Project Brass was just the tip of the iceberg. The tobacco industry implemented many projects over the decades to shape public perception about secondhand smoke and to delay laws regulating it. Many of these projects are listed under TobaccoWiki's "Projects and Operations" page: Project Mayfly, the INFOTAB ETS Project, PM and British American Tobacco's Latin American ETS Consultants Program, PM's ETS (Environmental tobacco smoke) Media Strategy, Philip Morris' Science Action Plan, and PM's ICD-9 Project to impede the creation of a medical billing code that would indicate illnesses that are attributable to secondhand tobacco smoke exposure.

These are just some of the projects we've learned of by combing through industry documents. Any one of these projects taken individually would be stunning in scope and ambition in its own right, but all of them taken together -- and the as-yet undiscovered efforts -- probably constitute the single most coordinated, widespread, expensive, under-the-radar PR campaign ever waged.

These extensive, expensive and hidden deceptions significantly undermined public understanding of the hazards of secondhand smoke and killed thousands and thousands of non-smokers and smokers alike.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 5, 2013)

Yet another text brick that tries to deflect from the lies of WHO and EPA.

*yawn*


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 5, 2013)

BFGrn:

You're a complete DUPE for repeating this supercilious factoid.. 



> PM discovered that secondhand smoke is 2-6 times more toxic and carcinogenic per gram than mainstream smoke.



Forget what you think you know.. Use your brain.. If the statement above is true, smokers could avoid the major carcinogenic effect of tobacco by just inhaling the Mainstream Smoke and not taking the SHS into their lungs..  Am I CORRECT?    Of course I am.. The media converts this to SHSmoke is MORE DAMAGING to bystanders than smoking.. Isn't that the implication you get from this? It's wrong.. 

 The statement that SHS is more damaging to bystanders than mainstream smoke is to smokers is just ludicrous on its face. Doesn't even pass the logic test. 

Where the hell is the smoker in the room? Are they avoiding the intake of SHSmoke so that they are protected from this component? This is WITCHCRAFT and Black Magic. Not a scientific conclusion.. 

My bet is --- it's been MANGLED on purpose from some data factoid taken out of context from a study.
Like for instance.... 

PM KNOWS (and most idiots) that if you're smoking a FILTERED cigarette, the mainstream smoke contains less tar and components than the stream coming directly off the tip.. But the implication that somehow bystanders suffer MORE than the smoker from this is patently false. And it is passed to public to IMPLY just that.. 

You've never responded to any of the evidence or science involve. You just maintain a tight focus on the evil tobacco companies. You don't seem to care how weak the SHS evidence is. Perhaps you could comment on the following.. 

1) *What type of anger and resentment do you harbor for the Medical community?* Who through the 50s and 60s were STILL advocating smoking for asthmatics? *Why do you suspect that the tobacco companies would be more savvy to health implications than the medical researchers? Are you mad at them as well?*

2) *What about the absence of rigor in hand-waving away the scientific inclusion of dose and exposure in SHS studies?* Do you understand how NONE of those statistical prognostication can be matched to real life risk factors without them? *Do you know of any other toxin or carcinergen where the studies have ignored dose and exposure??* Please tell me.

3) I told you that I don't have to cherry pick the SHS study data to make the statement that they are weak results. The EPA did that for me. Because the data didn't show a danger concommiitant with the classification they wanted to give --- THEY had to cherry-pick and mangle the study results.  Weak data doesn't need cherry-picking to show it's weak. Therefore I wouldn't need to that. *Why do you suppose the EPA VIOLATED BASIC SCIENTIFIC PRACTICE to write that paper?? *

If you want to have a conversation --- we can start there. If you just want to bellow and grandstand and be non-responsive to the major theme of thread --- we're done and you're irrelevent.

Enough about the tobacco companies... That's a legal issue so that states and lawyers can pad their wallets. There's been a LOT of wallet padding going on and very little in the way of relief from the monies gained. All pissed away on "general fund" expenditures. Even tho -- the money was taken in the name of paying for smoker illnesses and child education and the environment and God and Country.


----------



## Bfgrn (Jun 6, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> BFGrn:
> 
> You're a complete DUPE for repeating this supercilious factoid..
> 
> ...



I am a complete DUPE, and I should forget what I think I know.. Use my brain.

OK...you are right, I now see the light!, How fucking stupid can I be!

Why would any reasonable person believe that secondhand smoke could be harmful? I mean, we do know it is deadly to smokers, but according to some studies forwarded here it actually is helpful to the kid sitting next to the smoker! WOW, cigarette smoke is HELPFUL to bystanders! And everyone knows if they ever bought a car from a smoker, that all that tar, nicotine, carcinogens and poisons know they are only allowed to go directly to the windows. They are not allowed to touch kids.


----------



## Bfgrn (Jun 6, 2013)

Tobacco Smoke and the Heart

When most people think "cigarette smoke," they immediately think "lung cancer," but far less public attention has been paid to how secondhand smoke effects heart function. In a memo dated 1980 that I first discovered in 1999, a Philip Morris scientist points out that nicotine lowers the heart's threshold to ventricular fibrillation -- an inefficient heart pumping pattern -- which increases people's susceptibility to heart attacks.

A 1991 report sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimated that secondhand smoke kills approximately 53,000 Americans year, mostly from heart disease. A public health study published in 2001 showed that exposure to secondhand smoke for even short periods of time, as little as 30 minutes, causes changes in platelets and cardiac epithelium. Lung cancer takes many years to develop, but heart function is impacted more rapidly upon exposure to secondhand smoke. 

----

Many of the of the tobacco industry's underhanded strategies and tactics have been exposed, thanks to landmark legal cases and the hard work of public health advocates. But we are still uncovering the shocking lengths to which the industry has gone to protect itself from public health measures like smoking bans. Now we can thank the city of Pueblo, Colorado, for an opportunity to look a little bit deeper into how the industry managed the deadly deceptions around secondhand smoke.

A new study, now the ninth of its type and the most comprehensive one yet, has shown a major reduction in hospital admissions for heart attacks after a smoke-free law was put into effect.

On July 1, 2003, the relatively isolated city of Pueblo, Colorado enacted an ordinance that prohibited smoking in workplaces and indoor public areas, including bars and restaurants. For the study, researchers reviewed hospital admissions for heart attacks among area residents for one year prior to, and three years after the ban, and compared the data to two other nearby areas that didn't have bans (the part of Pueblo County outside city limits, and El Paso County, which includes Colorado Springs). Researchers found that during the three years after the ban, *hospital admissions for heart attacks dropped 41 percent* inside the city of Pueblo, but found no significant change in admissions for heart attacks in the other two control areas.

Eight studies done prior to this one in other locales used similar techniques and yielded similar results, but covered shorter periods of time -- usually about one year after the smoking ban went into effect. The results of this longer, more comprehensive study support the view that not only does secondhand smoke have a significant short-term impact on heart function, but that lives, and money, are probably being saved by new laws proliferating around the world in recent years that minimize public exposure to secondhand smoke.


----------



## Bfgrn (Jun 6, 2013)

WHY talk about tobacco companies?

Philip Morris, is the world's largest tobacco company. In the U.S. it controls about half of the tobacco market.

Conviction in U.S. Racketeering Lawsuit

On September 22, 1999, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a racketeering lawsuit against Philip Morris (now a division of Altria) and other major cigarette manufacturers. Almost 7 years later, on August 17, 2006 U.S. District Court Judge Gladys Kessler found that the Government had proven its case and that the tobacco company defendants had violated the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Specifically, Judge Kessler found that PM and other tobacco companies had:


conspired to minimize, distort and confuse the public about the health hazards of smoking;

concealed and suppressed research data showing nicotine is addictive;

denied that they can and do control the levels of nicotine in cigarettes to keep smokers addicted;

marketed "light" and "low tar" brands to mislead people about their relative harmfulness compared to "full flavored" cigarettes;

purposely marketed to young people under 21 to recruit "replacement smokers" and preserve the industry's financial future;

*publicly denied, while internally acknowledging, that secondhand tobacco smoke is harmful to nonsmokers,* and

destroyed documents relevant to litigation


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 12, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



There is no evidence that 2nd hand smoke has caused a single cancer.  The rest of your claims are equally idiotic.


----------



## Wake (Jun 12, 2013)

If people are to consider the discussion of global warming, scientists should strive to simplify their claims by providing succinct, undeniable evidence. No theories or speculation. Most people accept that blood contains iron. People need to be able feel feel that same kind of certainty regarding the notion of global warming. Create a neat little package of undeniable scientific proof focusing on showing exactly how carbon can increase the temperature of our atmosphere. Break it down, and make it so that nothing can be dismissed without sounding like a Holocaust denier.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 12, 2013)

Wake said:


> If people are to consider the discussion of global warming, scientists should strive to simplify their claims by providing succinct, undeniable evidence. No theories or speculation. Most people accept that blood contains iron. People need to be able feel feel that same kind of certainty regarding the notion of global warming. Create a neat little package of undeniable scientific proof focusing on showing exactly how carbon can increase the temperature of our atmosphere. Break it down, and make it so that nothing can be dismissed without sounding like a Holocaust denier.



I fear that instead of simplifying the science, they've packaged and pruned it for public consumption, thus rendering a scientific understanding unacheivable. 

Witness the fuss about this one number.. This Annual Global Mean Surface Temperature.

The masses breathlessly await the lottery.. Did It rise? By how much?? Ooooooo that's warming. Does it fit the models? 

But the actual MEANING of that number and how it's derived implies that the ENTIRE earth is ONE CLIMATE zone working under a set of uniform rules. The Arctic doesn't react to temperature like the tropics do. Coastal areas are affected more by cyclical changes in the oceans.  Warm winters in Moscow and  cold summers in Des Moines cancel each other out but hold HUGE CLUES as to the dynamics of the system. And averaging all of those multivariate systems into one happy Average Annual is a side-show to understanding the problem or the theory.

AGW was purposely FOCUSED on that silly number because the public has the attention of a squirrel.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jun 12, 2013)

Many on the right think it isn't worth doing at all. These people would love to see our society go back to 1791!!!

Really the more I think about things, the more I want to stay away from the extremes. Left or right!!!


----------



## westwall (Jun 12, 2013)

Matthew said:


> Many on the right think it isn't worth doing at all. These people would love to see our society go back to 1791!!!
> 
> Really the more I think about things, the more I want to stay away from the extremes. Left or right!!!








You're wrong Matthew, it's the libs who want to see us back to the STONE AGE.  Take a look around you.  Every method of dealing with the "problem" consists of lowering the First Worlds standard of living.  They are the true Luddites here. 

Every project they have reduces the ability of the average person to travel and meet their neighbors, to go out into the wilderness to see what it is like, to interact with critters other than at a zoo (and there are those who want to end that), to breathe free.

No, their solution is to return the people back to the level of serfdom.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 14, 2013)

Matthew said:


> Many on the right think it isn't worth doing at all. These people would love to see our society go back to 1791!!!
> 
> Really the more I think about things, the more I want to stay away from the extremes. Left or right!!!



Absolutely - being extreme means one has to follow doctrine, as we see on this board every day. 

It amazes me how many posters, particularly right wing but also one or two on the left, will back a position they do not believe in, purely and simply because their political views demand it. 

No one should be so committed to their understanding of climate that they can not change their position based on available evidence.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 15, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Many on the right think it isn't worth doing at all. These people would love to see our society go back to 1791!!!
> ...


Textbook SEZ...........


2a. Freudian Projection

The following is a collection of definitions of projection from orthodox psychology texts. In this system the distinct mechanism of projecting own unconscious or undesirable characteristics onto an opponent is called Freudian Projection.


 "A defense mechanism in which the individual attributes to other people impulses and traits that he himself has but cannot accept. It is especially likely to occur when the person lacks insight into his own impulses and traits."

 "The externalisation of internal unconscious wishes, desires or emotions on to other people. So, for example, someone who feels subconsciously that they have a powerful latent homosexual drive may not acknowledge this consciously, but it may show in their readiness to suspect others of being homosexual."

 "Attributing one's own undesirable traits to other people or agencies, e.g., an aggressive man accuses other people of being hostile."

 "The individual perceives in others the motive he denies having himself. Thus the cheat is sure that everyone else is dishonest. The would-be adulterer accuses his wife of infidelity."

 "People attribute their own undesirable traits onto others. An individual who unconsciously recognises his or her aggressive tendencies may then see other people acting in an excessively aggressive way."

 "Projection is the opposite defence mechanism to identification. We project our own unpleasant feelings onto someone else and blame them for having thoughts that we really have."


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 15, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Many on the right think it isn't worth doing at all. These people would love to see our society go back to 1791!!!
> ...



LMHAO -- at that last line bud.. Some are so committed to "their" understanding, that they can IGNORE evidence to the contrary placed right in their lap... And "their" understanding has more to do with polling and Press Releases than the science..


----------



## westwall (Jun 15, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Many on the right think it isn't worth doing at all. These people would love to see our society go back to 1791!!!
> ...








Pot meet kettle...  

Where oh where in science is it ever wrong to question the paradigm?  Where oh where is it ever wrong to be a sceptic?  Only in the minds of the AGW fanatics where skepticism is tantamount to holocaust denial.

You Sir, are hoist on your own petard...


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 15, 2013)

Wake said:


> If people are to consider the discussion of global warming, scientists should strive to simplify their claims by providing succinct, undeniable evidence. No theories or speculation. Most people accept that blood contains iron. People need to be able feel feel that same kind of certainty regarding the notion of global warming. Create a neat little package of undeniable scientific proof focusing on showing exactly how carbon can increase the temperature of our atmosphere. Break it down, and make it so that nothing can be dismissed without sounding like a Holocaust denier.





You are exactly right......been saying it for years. These people need a Plan B.....and the perpetual bomb thrwing has only hurt their cause. In a huge way. All these dozens of predictions of doom that have fallen flat on their face......yet they still lob the bombs. Its fucking hysterical.


Heres the poop......people might pay attention to this stuff if, and only if, we see a TRULY freaky anomoly......like waterskiiing on an Alaskan lake in mid-January during a 3 week wave of 60-70 degrees. Not a moment sooner Im afraid.


People arent stupid......they know this weather stuff prediction business is a joke. Just Thursday, New York was bracing for this imminent Dorecho weather event.......forcast was for "100% chance of rain" in the metropolitan area starting around noon and going through the night. It was sunny almost all the day and finally had some hard rain around 8:30pm for a couple of hours. Thats it. People take notice and say WTF??? So......what? They are going to believe these meatheads predicting shit 10.....20.....40 years from now..............*I DONT THINK SO.*


----------



## Saigon (Jun 16, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > No one should be so committed to their understanding of climate that they can not change their position based on available evidence.
> ...



Exactly. 

Everyone should be willing to step back from what they might 'like' to believe, and look at what the science and numbers suggest. It applies equally to left and right. 

And yet we still have posters on this board who deny that 97% of the world's glaciers are in decline, and others who claim that is completely normal.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 16, 2013)

Saigon said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



The ice has been melting back for 14,000 years,  what's your point


----------



## Saigon (Jun 16, 2013)

SSDD -  



> The ice has been melting back for 14,000 years, what's your point



Thanks for proving my point. 

Your are presenting a position held by virtually no one at all, and one contradicted by virtually all research conducted into glaciers during the past 50 years. We saw years of net increase in ice as recently as the 1980's. 

Given that you must know this, the only reason that I can imagine for you to be backing a claim you know to be false is politics. 

I think a single chart here will suffice to establish how off-base your claim is:







http://www.nichols.edu/departments/glacier/glacier_retreat.htm

Anyone unclear about the acceleration of glacial decline could do worse than read through this site - it's excellent.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 16, 2013)

Saigon said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...


Everyone, it seems, except yourself and the rest of the warmerists.


----------



## Sunshine (Jun 16, 2013)

Saigon said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



If you are going to 'apply' something like warming, then you need to apply it to China, the EU, the Middle East, and every other industrialized country on the plant.  Sadly, Europeans see themselves and the rest of the world as exempt from the problem.  And they are not, they are as much a part of it as anyone else.  I personally have been sickened by the brown air in Cairo and Beijing.  Never saw brown air in the US, and I've covered most of it.


SS


----------



## Stephanie (Jun 16, 2013)

You notice "science" has become some peoples "god"

It's not like they haven't BEEN WRONG before...

good grief


----------



## Saigon (Jun 16, 2013)

Sunshine said:


> If you are going to 'apply' something like warming, then you need to apply it to China, the EU, the Middle East, and every other industrialized country on the plant.  Sadly, Europeans see themselves and the rest of the world as exempt from the problem.  And they are not, they are as much a part of it as anyone else.  I personally have been sickened by the brown air in Cairo and Beijing.  Never saw brown air in the US, and I've covered most of it.



I couldn't agree more -  although given the EU has much tighter restrictions on emissions than any other region on earth, I don't know why you say Europeans see themselves as exempt!!

It's a global issue, and all countries have their role to play. 

btw. You never saw brown air flying into LA? Really?


----------



## Stephanie (Jun 16, 2013)

Does this sound familiar?



SNIP:
The Green Nazis: Environmentalism in the Third Reich


It has been elaborately pointed out how the device of environmentalism is especially favoured by tyrants as a means of controlling their subjects. The current 'green' movement, as we know, is no exception. It has been nurtured from its very conception as a systematic eugenics operation by the deep pockets of the Rockefeller- and Ford Foundations. Throughout the 20th century there have been multiple examples of tyrants implementing a very strict environmental policy to which their subjects had to conform, sometimes through the collection of taxes, sometimes at the barrel of a gun; usually a subtle mixture of the two.* It is a well documented though seldom highlighted fact that the Nazis were very much into environmentalism- not for environmentalism's sake of course, but rather as a means of oppression and control. As it turns out, environmentalism fits the form of tyranny like a well tailored suit.*

all of it here
The Green Nazis: Environmentalism in the Third Reich - Minnesotans For Global Warming

Hitler&#8217;s Green Killing Machine 
http://www.aim.org/aim-report/hitlers-green-killing-machine/

SOUND FAMILAR PEOPLE?

snip:
Obama Tells Keystone Foes He Will Unveil Climate Measures




By Lisa Lerer

June 14, 2013
With his administration under pressure from environmentalists to reject the Keystone XL pipeline project, President Barack Obama plans to unveil a package of separate actions next month focused on curbing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. 

At closed-door fundraisers held over the past few weeks, the president has been telling Democratic party donors that he will unveil new climate proposals in July, according to people who have attended the events or been briefed. 

Obama&#8217;s promise frequently comes in response to pleas from donors to reject TransCanada Corp (TRP).&#8217;s proposed Keystone XL project, a $5.3 billion pipeline that would carry tar-sands oil from Canada to U.S. refineries. Opponents of the pipeline say it would increase greenhouse-gas emissions by encouraging use of the tar sands. 

While Obama has not detailed the specifics of his plan to the donors, pipeline opponents anticipate the package will include final rules from the Environmental Protection Agency to limit greenhouse-gas emissions from new power plants. In April, the EPA delayed issuing the rule after the electric-power industry said the initial proposal was unworkable. Since then, the agency has been revising the rules, and environmental groups are urging the EPA not to scale back its initial plan. 

Power Plants 

all of it here
http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...e-foes-he-will-unveil-climate-package-in-july


----------



## Oddball (Jun 16, 2013)

Stephanie said:


> Does this sound familiar?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Scratch an environmentalist whackaloon and watch a eugenicist bleed.


----------



## Stephanie (Jun 16, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Does this sound familiar?
> ...





the similarities of the green Nazi and the Democrat party is damn scary..


----------



## Stephanie (Jun 16, 2013)

FORWARD


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 16, 2013)

Saigon said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



I dont know if it's a cultural barrier (what with you living in Finland and all ) or you are truly oblivious to the fact that we are all laughing at that statement.. You really seem to have no idea ---- even AFTER OddBall gave you free psychoanalyisis, and WestWall gave you a universal hint from Classical Literature -- that that statement is one of the most funny examples of "defensive psychological projection" ever witnessed in a public place.. 

Lemme help you again.. From the Wiki on Psychological Projection.. 



> Psychological projection was first conceptualized by Sigmund Freud as a defence mechanism in which a person unconsciously rejects his or her own unacceptable attributes by ascribing them to objects or persons in the outside world instead. Thus, projection involves psychically expelling one's negative qualities onto others, and is a common psychological process.[1][2] Theoretically, projection and the related projective identification reduces anxiety by allowing the unconscious expression of the unwanted unconscious impulses or desires through displacement



But whatever you do --- PLEASE keep up badgering us and lecturing us about being closed minded and not moved by the facts of the real world.. If is wasn't entertaining -- you'd be on IGNORE a year ago "when the grapes were DYING of Global Warming in Australia"..


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 16, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > If you are going to 'apply' something like warming, then you need to apply it to China, the EU, the Middle East, and every other industrialized country on the plant.  Sadly, Europeans see themselves and the rest of the world as exempt from the problem.  And they are not, they are as much a part of it as anyone else.  I personally have been sickened by the brown air in Cairo and Beijing.  Never saw brown air in the US, and I've covered most of it.
> ...



The first European explorer to set foot in Los Angeles saw it too... 

San Pedro « California Pioneer Heritage Foundation



> The Portuguese navigator sailing under the commission of Spain, Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo, arrived in the area on October 8, 1542. The ships log recorded:  The Sunday followingthey came to the mainland in a large bay, which they named Bahia de los Fumos [Bay of Smokes] on account of the many smokes they saw there. Here they engaged in intercourse with some Indians they captured in a canoe. The bay is thirty-five degrees latitude; it is an excellent harbor and the country is good with many plains and groves of trees.3 Although it is uncertain as to which bay he had reference, most local historians ignore the ambiguity of this account and state that San Pedro is this bay.4 5 1821-1921, PhD Thesis, University of Minnesota, 1963, p. 16. The strengths of the different points of view are presented. The smokes could have been from small fires the Indians used to drive small game into the open6 or perhaps from burning huts.7 Cabrillo only spent a day in the harbor before heading north.



Probably glad to get out of the smog..


----------



## Saigon (Jun 16, 2013)

Flac - 

Do you consider yourself open minded?

My guess is that you do. 

However, pelting anyone who holds a different opinion from yours with condescension and abuse might not be the best way to prove anything but your own myopia.

And yes - Australian wine producers did destroy their own grape crops after the impact of climate change/droughts rendered wine production in the district non-viable. It's a fact. Laugh all you like, Mr Open Minded.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 17, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Flac -
> 
> Do you consider yourself open minded?
> 
> ...



Bumper wine crops were delivered from Australia in the years you quoted.. The Australian Wine associations worried about "overproduction".. If ANY farmers destroyed ANY fields it was because of a GLUT of wine on the market in those years.. 

Can't change your OPINIONS pal -- but I DONT have to suffer your ignorance or bad facts..


----------



## SSDD (Jun 17, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving my point.



Proving your point?  Are you crazy?  I say that the ice has been melting for 14,000 years which puts your idea that man is somehow responsible into the dumpster where it belongs and you show a chart showing ice since 1980?  Again, what's your point?



Saigon said:


> Your are presenting a position held by virtually no one at all, and one contradicted by virtually all research conducted into glaciers during the past 50 years. We saw years of net increase in ice as recently as the 1980's.



Again, the ice has been melting back for 14,000 years now.  There have been periods where it was melted back much further than the present as evidenced by the number of human settlements exposed by the melting...it comes and goes..that is what happens to ice on earth.  We are not responsible for its advance or retreat.



Saigon said:


> Given that you must know this, the only reason that I can imagine for you to be backing a claim you know to be false is politics.



If glaciers have never melted back further than they are at present, how do you explain human settlements being revealed by the melting?  How did they get there?



Saigon said:


> I think a single chart here will suffice to establish how off-base your claim is:



A chart that goes all the way back to the 1980's?  How stupid are you?


----------



## Wake (Jun 17, 2013)

Science doesn't irrefutably rule out the existence of a god(s). It doesn't prove it, either. 

The only gods science has proven thus far are the Higgs Boson (God) particles.


----------



## westwall (Jun 17, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Flac -
> 
> Do you consider yourself open minded?
> 
> ...









Pot, meet kettle.....


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 17, 2013)

Wake said:


> Science doesn't irrefutably rule out the existence of a god(s). It doesn't prove it, either.
> 
> The only gods science has proven thus far are the Higgs Boson (God) particles.



Since you brought Him into it....   I always find it amazing that folks who knock people of faith, have NO PROBLEM with things like the Big Bang Theory (a fine TV show and one of the few things that gets me to laugh nowadays). 

So --- believing that ALL of the mass and energy in the entire universe fit into a space smaller than a pinhead prior to ignition --- takes NO faith at all.. I'd sooner believe that Moses parted the Red Sea.. That's not the ONLY accepted science that's usually consumed mostly on faith...


----------



## Wake (Jun 17, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Since you brought Him into it....   I always find it amazing that folks who knock people of faith, have NO PROBLEM with things like the Big Bang Theory (a fine TV show and one of the few things that gets me to laugh nowadays).
> 
> So --- believing that ALL of the mass and energy in the entire universe fit into a space smaller than a pinhead prior to ignition --- takes NO faith at all.. I'd sooner believe that Moses parted the Red Sea.. That's not the ONLY accepted science that's usually consumed mostly on faith...



You may be making an assumption, if you assume I'm either religious, agnostic, or atheistic. One doesn't have to have a stake in either of them to bring thoughts on this issue to the table.

Religions require faith. Theories require speculation. Some things are beyond knowing.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 18, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Wake said:
> 
> 
> > Science doesn't irrefutably rule out the existence of a god(s). It doesn't prove it, either.
> ...



Or that for just a little while the speed of light was suspended...among other things.  The big bang requires more miracles than the Genesis creation.


----------



## Bfgrn (Jun 18, 2013)

Oddball said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Does this sound familiar?
> ...



Scratch the calls of 'Godwin' when you right wing turds do it...


----------



## westwall (Jun 18, 2013)

And when the lefties have really lost the plot they claim Godwins law to try and cover there ass and here we have it!  So typical, and so, so predictable.

Must suck to be an anti-science global warming kook....


----------

