rushmc 23 #101 October 30, 2006 QuoteGo look in your mirror.. and be sure to have on Lush Rimjob while doing so. Come on, you can do better than that!!!! Seeing how insults are all you have!"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #102 October 30, 2006 Nice PA.. yet again from you.. and you are STILL here........ but see I would rather be here to torture the right wing robotic minds than to get banned..... its lots more fun... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #103 October 30, 2006 >. . .there is no reasonable argument against human causes of the ozone hole depletion. A determined industry representative could find dozens of 'studies' showing that CFC's cannot possibly reach the ozone layer, that if they did they wouldn't cause any damage, and even if they did cause damage, it wouldn't affect anyone. People with a political/financial stake in that industry might easily decide such research is valid. Never underestimate the power of belief - especially when someone's job or fortune depends on it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #104 October 30, 2006 Me a PA???? The following is your post! Go look in your mirror.. and be sure to have on Lush Rimjob while doing so."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #105 October 30, 2006 Quote One post and you are baaaaaaaccckkkkkkkk Gee.. I guess serious answers are not needed huh...oh that is right its only a serious answer if you get it from Michael Thavage.. or Lush Rimjob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #106 October 30, 2006 QuoteMost scientists agree that it will. Here is that bullshit blanket statment again. Nice Right, it SHOULD say most UNBIASED and COMPETENT scientists agree... We'll exlude those in the pay of the oil companies and big tobacco.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #107 October 30, 2006 QuoteQuote I got no problem with conservation and efficancy improvments. I have a problem being forced under false pretenses. . You had no problem going to war under false pretenses.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,150 #108 October 30, 2006 QuoteQuoteSo we have had a hole in ozone layer before? There is a big difference between the ozone hole and global warming in that there is no reasonable argument against human causes of the ozone hole depletion. While natural processes are utilized for ozone opening and healing, it's the presence of haloalkanes that are the catalyst. But it was the ozone hole that put the lie to the claim that humans cannot change the dynamics of the atmosphere. Very clearly humans can. And the quantity of CFCs was tiny compared to the quantities of CO2.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #109 October 31, 2006 Quote>. . .there is no reasonable argument against human causes of the ozone hole depletion. A determined industry representative could find dozens of 'studies' showing that CFC's cannot possibly reach the ozone layer, that if they did they wouldn't cause any damage, and even if they did cause damage, it wouldn't affect anyone. People with a political/financial stake in that industry might easily decide such research is valid. Never underestimate the power of belief - especially when someone's job or fortune depends on it. This is true on both sides, bill. And with the environment, far more fortunes are being made than lost. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #110 October 31, 2006 I guess they are only unbiased if they agree with you huh......"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #111 October 31, 2006 QuoteI guess they are only unbiased if they agree with you huh...... BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA I had to look three times at the name just to make sure who posted that.... BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH That there be some really funny shit... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,150 #112 October 31, 2006 QuoteI guess they are only unbiased if they agree with you huh...... No, they are unbiased if not in the pay of the big energy industries. Maybe you recall that scientists in the pay of big tobacco companies produced study after study showing no ill effects of smoking. In 1993 Philip Morris set up a “grass roots coalition” to “cast doubt on studies showing that second-hand tobacco smoke is dangerous for health.” In order not to raise suspicion that the company was involved, Philip Morris decided to “‘link the tobacco issue with other more politically correct products’ and campaign on issues like global warming.” (source - internal company memo). The result was the Advancement of Sound Science (sic) Coalition , which was “one of the first organizations to throw a smokescreen over global warming.”... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #113 October 31, 2006 QuoteBetter check your facts. There is reasearch that says we have had hotter periods in our past. There are still many current highs that are yet to be beaten. Also consider the fact that Mars is in a current heating cycle The suns activities are said to be doing that. Would we not see the same effect here? No, rush... Mars warming is due to our greenhouse gases, too... as well as the HORRENDOUS hurricane season that all the scientists said would happen, too. Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #114 October 31, 2006 QuoteQuoteI guess they are only unbiased if they agree with you huh...... No, they are unbiased if not in the pay of the big energy industries. Maybe you recall that scientists in the pay of big tobacco companies produced study after study showing no ill effects of smoking. In 1993 Philip Morris set up a “grass roots coalition” to “cast doubt on studies showing that second-hand tobacco smoke is dangerous for health.” In order not to raise suspicion that the company was involved, Philip Morris decided to “‘link the tobacco issue with other more politically correct products’ and campaign on issues like global warming.” (source - internal company memo). The result was the Advancement of Sound Science (sic) Coalition , which was “one of the first organizations to throw a smokescreen over global warming.” We all know that if you agree with the org or company there must be no bias then right? Black helocopters and tin foil hats are the call for the day..........."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NCclimber 0 #115 October 31, 2006 QuoteQuoteI guess they are only unbiased if they agree with you huh...... No, they are unbiased if not in the pay of the big energy industries. Maybe you recall that scientists in the pay of big tobacco companies produced study after study showing no ill effects of smoking. In 1993 Philip Morris set up a “grass roots coalition” to “cast doubt on studies showing that second-hand tobacco smoke is dangerous for health.” In order not to raise suspicion that the company was involved, Philip Morris decided to “‘link the tobacco issue with other more politically correct products’ and campaign on issues like global warming.” (source - internal company memo). The result was the Advancement of Sound Science (sic) Coalition , which was “one of the first organizations to throw a smokescreen over global warming.” Meanwhile, the two largest, long term studies on secondhand smoke have shown the negative effects of SHS to be statistically insignificant. It was interesting to watch the anti-smoking partisans attack those two studies. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,150 #116 October 31, 2006 The American Lung Association disagrees.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NCclimber 0 #117 October 31, 2006 QuoteThe American Lung Association disagrees. I went to that link, but could find where they mentioned either of those studies. They do a good job of ignoring the elephant in the room. I'm still waiting the hear about a single death, where the official cause of death was "secondhand smoke". With the 10s of thousands of Americans who supposed die from this every year, I'm still waiting to read about a single death where this was the cause. Just one person. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,150 #118 October 31, 2006 QuoteQuoteThe American Lung Association disagrees. I went to that link, but could find where they mentioned either of those studies. They do a good job of ignoring the elephant in the room. I'm still waiting the hear about a single death, where the official cause of death was "secondhand smoke". With the 10s of thousands of Americans who supposed die from this every year, I'm still waiting to read about a single death where this was the cause. Just one person. All things considered, I'd believe the ALA position over your opinion on this topic.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,119 #119 October 31, 2006 In another thread you said: >Open depbate is not encouraged with one side labeling the other with devicive names. Your last post: >Black helocopters and tin foil hats are the call for the day........... You go Rush! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,119 #120 October 31, 2006 >I'm still waiting the hear about a single death, where the official >cause of death was "secondhand smoke". I'm waiting to hear about a single death from the WTC where the official cause was "terrorism." Check out the death certificates - death due to impact, to crushing, to extensive burns. Terrorism isn't mentioned AT ALL! And all you silly people are claiming that terrorism is a threat. Geez. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NCclimber 0 #121 October 31, 2006 Quote>I'm still waiting the hear about a single death, where the official >cause of death was "secondhand smoke". I'm waiting to hear about a single death from the WTC where the official cause was "terrorism." Check out the death certificates - death due to impact, to crushing, to extensive burns. Terrorism isn't mentioned AT ALL! And all you silly people are claiming that terrorism is a threat. Geez. Speaking of crappy analogies. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #122 October 31, 2006 QuoteSpeaking of crappy analogies. An analogy is like a shuttlecock and a dart. each flies, some just have more 'throw' therefore, swoopers should get out first, right after the DZO after counting the fleas on Kallend's dog. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #123 October 31, 2006 QuoteI'm still waiting the hear about a single death, where the official cause of death was "secondhand smoke". Don't think there are too many death certificates that have smoking as the offcial cause of death either. Just like there aren't too many death certificates with "fell of a bridge" or "car accident". Generally the death certificates do not list what action lead to the death. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,119 #124 October 31, 2006 >Speaking of crappy analogies. Your whole argument is that there is no "secondhand smoke" listed as a cause of death on any death certificates. If that's the best you can do, then terrorism, airplane crashes and motor vehicle accidents don't kill anyone, either. In reality, of course, such things can kill you, and everyone knows that. I have SIA as a result of secondhand smoke I breathed when I was a kid - but I got out of the house (fortunately) before it progressed to emphysema, COPD or heart disease. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NCclimber 0 #125 October 31, 2006 Okay. How about some producing examples where the unofficial cause of death was secondhand smoke. Every year, there are hundreds of thousands of deaths that can be directly, easily linked to smoking cigarettes. Conversely, I've yet to see a study on ETS that produces actual deaths directly linked to to secondhand smoke. They all use statistical probabilities, but none (that I've seen) contain actual cases. Why? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Page 5 of 7 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
kallend 2,150 #108 October 30, 2006 QuoteQuoteSo we have had a hole in ozone layer before? There is a big difference between the ozone hole and global warming in that there is no reasonable argument against human causes of the ozone hole depletion. While natural processes are utilized for ozone opening and healing, it's the presence of haloalkanes that are the catalyst. But it was the ozone hole that put the lie to the claim that humans cannot change the dynamics of the atmosphere. Very clearly humans can. And the quantity of CFCs was tiny compared to the quantities of CO2.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #109 October 31, 2006 Quote>. . .there is no reasonable argument against human causes of the ozone hole depletion. A determined industry representative could find dozens of 'studies' showing that CFC's cannot possibly reach the ozone layer, that if they did they wouldn't cause any damage, and even if they did cause damage, it wouldn't affect anyone. People with a political/financial stake in that industry might easily decide such research is valid. Never underestimate the power of belief - especially when someone's job or fortune depends on it. This is true on both sides, bill. And with the environment, far more fortunes are being made than lost. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #110 October 31, 2006 I guess they are only unbiased if they agree with you huh......"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #111 October 31, 2006 QuoteI guess they are only unbiased if they agree with you huh...... BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA I had to look three times at the name just to make sure who posted that.... BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH That there be some really funny shit... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #112 October 31, 2006 QuoteI guess they are only unbiased if they agree with you huh...... No, they are unbiased if not in the pay of the big energy industries. Maybe you recall that scientists in the pay of big tobacco companies produced study after study showing no ill effects of smoking. In 1993 Philip Morris set up a “grass roots coalition” to “cast doubt on studies showing that second-hand tobacco smoke is dangerous for health.” In order not to raise suspicion that the company was involved, Philip Morris decided to “‘link the tobacco issue with other more politically correct products’ and campaign on issues like global warming.” (source - internal company memo). The result was the Advancement of Sound Science (sic) Coalition , which was “one of the first organizations to throw a smokescreen over global warming.”... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #113 October 31, 2006 QuoteBetter check your facts. There is reasearch that says we have had hotter periods in our past. There are still many current highs that are yet to be beaten. Also consider the fact that Mars is in a current heating cycle The suns activities are said to be doing that. Would we not see the same effect here? No, rush... Mars warming is due to our greenhouse gases, too... as well as the HORRENDOUS hurricane season that all the scientists said would happen, too. Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #114 October 31, 2006 QuoteQuoteI guess they are only unbiased if they agree with you huh...... No, they are unbiased if not in the pay of the big energy industries. Maybe you recall that scientists in the pay of big tobacco companies produced study after study showing no ill effects of smoking. In 1993 Philip Morris set up a “grass roots coalition” to “cast doubt on studies showing that second-hand tobacco smoke is dangerous for health.” In order not to raise suspicion that the company was involved, Philip Morris decided to “‘link the tobacco issue with other more politically correct products’ and campaign on issues like global warming.” (source - internal company memo). The result was the Advancement of Sound Science (sic) Coalition , which was “one of the first organizations to throw a smokescreen over global warming.” We all know that if you agree with the org or company there must be no bias then right? Black helocopters and tin foil hats are the call for the day..........."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #115 October 31, 2006 QuoteQuoteI guess they are only unbiased if they agree with you huh...... No, they are unbiased if not in the pay of the big energy industries. Maybe you recall that scientists in the pay of big tobacco companies produced study after study showing no ill effects of smoking. In 1993 Philip Morris set up a “grass roots coalition” to “cast doubt on studies showing that second-hand tobacco smoke is dangerous for health.” In order not to raise suspicion that the company was involved, Philip Morris decided to “‘link the tobacco issue with other more politically correct products’ and campaign on issues like global warming.” (source - internal company memo). The result was the Advancement of Sound Science (sic) Coalition , which was “one of the first organizations to throw a smokescreen over global warming.” Meanwhile, the two largest, long term studies on secondhand smoke have shown the negative effects of SHS to be statistically insignificant. It was interesting to watch the anti-smoking partisans attack those two studies. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #116 October 31, 2006 The American Lung Association disagrees.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #117 October 31, 2006 QuoteThe American Lung Association disagrees. I went to that link, but could find where they mentioned either of those studies. They do a good job of ignoring the elephant in the room. I'm still waiting the hear about a single death, where the official cause of death was "secondhand smoke". With the 10s of thousands of Americans who supposed die from this every year, I'm still waiting to read about a single death where this was the cause. Just one person. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #118 October 31, 2006 QuoteQuoteThe American Lung Association disagrees. I went to that link, but could find where they mentioned either of those studies. They do a good job of ignoring the elephant in the room. I'm still waiting the hear about a single death, where the official cause of death was "secondhand smoke". With the 10s of thousands of Americans who supposed die from this every year, I'm still waiting to read about a single death where this was the cause. Just one person. All things considered, I'd believe the ALA position over your opinion on this topic.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #119 October 31, 2006 In another thread you said: >Open depbate is not encouraged with one side labeling the other with devicive names. Your last post: >Black helocopters and tin foil hats are the call for the day........... You go Rush! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #120 October 31, 2006 >I'm still waiting the hear about a single death, where the official >cause of death was "secondhand smoke". I'm waiting to hear about a single death from the WTC where the official cause was "terrorism." Check out the death certificates - death due to impact, to crushing, to extensive burns. Terrorism isn't mentioned AT ALL! And all you silly people are claiming that terrorism is a threat. Geez. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #121 October 31, 2006 Quote>I'm still waiting the hear about a single death, where the official >cause of death was "secondhand smoke". I'm waiting to hear about a single death from the WTC where the official cause was "terrorism." Check out the death certificates - death due to impact, to crushing, to extensive burns. Terrorism isn't mentioned AT ALL! And all you silly people are claiming that terrorism is a threat. Geez. Speaking of crappy analogies. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #122 October 31, 2006 QuoteSpeaking of crappy analogies. An analogy is like a shuttlecock and a dart. each flies, some just have more 'throw' therefore, swoopers should get out first, right after the DZO after counting the fleas on Kallend's dog. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #123 October 31, 2006 QuoteI'm still waiting the hear about a single death, where the official cause of death was "secondhand smoke". Don't think there are too many death certificates that have smoking as the offcial cause of death either. Just like there aren't too many death certificates with "fell of a bridge" or "car accident". Generally the death certificates do not list what action lead to the death. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #124 October 31, 2006 >Speaking of crappy analogies. Your whole argument is that there is no "secondhand smoke" listed as a cause of death on any death certificates. If that's the best you can do, then terrorism, airplane crashes and motor vehicle accidents don't kill anyone, either. In reality, of course, such things can kill you, and everyone knows that. I have SIA as a result of secondhand smoke I breathed when I was a kid - but I got out of the house (fortunately) before it progressed to emphysema, COPD or heart disease. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #125 October 31, 2006 Okay. How about some producing examples where the unofficial cause of death was secondhand smoke. Every year, there are hundreds of thousands of deaths that can be directly, easily linked to smoking cigarettes. Conversely, I've yet to see a study on ETS that produces actual deaths directly linked to to secondhand smoke. They all use statistical probabilities, but none (that I've seen) contain actual cases. Why? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
