Justice Department ‘Discussed’ Legal Action Against Climate Skeptics

And that's silly of course, too, because "eventually"... at that time we can be sure there were real smoking deniers as well, and not just the liars in tobacco whose profits were threatened.
There are still smoking deniers. But the science is so overwhelming they get no more respect for their protestations than today's flat Earth people. The data behind the dangers of second hand cigarette smoke is less convincing, but the logic behind it is still strong. In fact, logic would tell us that anything we breathe into our lungs other than clean air has the potential to cause damage if we breathe enough of it. Do you remember the days when teenage girls would start their day with their heads in a cloud of micron sized particles produced by a freon charged canister of lacquer? I do.

I worked with an extremely bright colleague who was a chain smoker. He insisted, always, that cigarettes do not cause lung cancer! He was not allowed to smoke anywhere in the building except in his private office with the door shut. Nevertheless you could get a wiff of stale smoke just passing by the closed door. Inside his office everything was amber colored from condensed smoke. During brief occasions when I could not avoid entering his office, I felt as though I were in the bowels of an empty but well used oil tanker. Mercifully, he was able to destroy his liver with Tylenol and whiskey long before his lungs gave out.
 
Every day... we see more and more proof of the weaponization of govt against the people.
If this is not concrete proof govt needs to be downsized rapidly... you are naive.

First they came for the conservatives and those who supported Isreal with the IRS.
Next they they came for those who spoke up against the administration with tax audits.
Then they discussed those who dare question AGW although there is zero peer reviewed science showing man made co2 causes warming.

Next a a fake conservative will get in office and come for you.
 
AGW is bunk, a complete scam designed to enrich leftist investors in solar, wind and other "green" technologies who happen to be buddies with the Obama regime. The Global Warming Scam (GWS) is being illegally promoted by government agencies like NOAA and NASA who have been forced to alter data products in order to support the flawed science behind the GWS premise in violation of the Data Quality Act.

Barrack Obama is a climate scammer and a criminal. Lorretta Lynch is a corrupt ambulance chaser who has failed to uphold law and order and used her department for political purposes.
 
There are still smoking deniers. But the science is so overwhelming they get no more respect for their protestations than today's flat Earth people.
Yep, and the AAGW crowd's day is coming, too.

I posted this before, I'll post it again. Only one in six smokers ever develops lung cancer, but of all people who develop lung cancer, over 90% are smokers. So, does smoking cause lung cancer?
 
You act as if there is data showing that man made co2 could be a the cause.
The data we have shows that as temps go up co2 rises and as temps go down co2 decreases.

Does change in temps cause co2 to change is the real question?

There is no science or even data showing man made co2 causes warming.

Yep, and the AAGW crowd's day is coming, too.

I posted this before, I'll post it again. Only one in six smokers ever develops lung cancer, but of all people who develop lung cancer, over 90% are smokers. So, does smoking cause lung cancer?
 
Yep, and the AAGW crowd's day is coming, too.

I posted this before, I'll post it again. Only one in six smokers ever develops lung cancer, but of all people who develop lung cancer, over 90% are smokers. So, does smoking cause lung cancer?
No fair! It's a rhetorical question, and you provided the answer. Sixteen percent chance! Wow, that's scary, considering the ones that didn't are 100% dead from other causes before they could develop lung cancer! :D
 
No fair! It's a rhetorical question, and you provided the answer. Sixteen percent chance! Wow, that's scary, considering the ones that didn't are 100% dead from other causes before they could develop lung cancer! :D
Shrug. Based on what we know, should a smoker try to quit?
 
You act as if there is data showing that man made co2 could be a the cause.
The data we have shows that as temps go up co2 rises and as temps go down co2 decreases.

Does change in temps cause co2 to change is the real question?

There is no science or even data showing man made co2 causes warming.
You would not know what the science looks like anyway.
 
Shrug. Based on what we know, should a smoker try to quit?
It is a personal decision I guess. I would certainly try. When you combine all the health risks, the chance of developing one or more maladies that can be traced to lifetime smoking approach certainty as you age and as your cigarette consumption per day increases. And too, Cigarettes are expensive. The Surgeon General's study showed that there was a big break in risk at a pack a day. Stay below that and your chances of suffering ill effects go down significantly, but that is going to be a function of longevity as well. The risk is definitely a function of how much you smoke. That is something hidden in the composite data typically quoted. It's been many years since I looked at the study, it's in my library, but if I recall correctly, the data did not show any effect significantly different from a non-smoker once you dropped below 10 cigarettes per day. If you're a smoker and you want to know for sure where the statistical break falls let me know. I'll be happy to look it up for you. I probably have the page dog eared.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top