explod
explod
- Joined
- 4 March 2007
- Posts
- 7,341
- Reactions
- 1,198
What about the hats GG?
Never follow me as have been known to frequently follow the wrong path
sfa comes from a particularly nice verse in Virgil from memory.
Sic fundit amitus.
What did you think it meant?, or am I on the way to the lock up already?
It is used quite frequently in pubs of low repute.
gg
Let's not go down the ad hominem route again... nothing wrong with normal conversational language or acronyms thereof.
EGO eram magis sollicitus super ceterus vir , ut exsisto pia... Or something like that.Rumex, pro meus ad hominem ineo.
En marias negras prodigo plures hora .
gg
EGO eram magis sollicitus super ceterus vir , ut exsisto pia... Or something like that.
So we are all on the same page, can you provide some links to this 'junk science' you keep referring to? The term seems contradictory to me.
All this is now well known to climate scientists and environmentalists. But what I have discovered while researching this issue is that the corporate funding of lobby groups denying that manmade climate change is taking place was initiated not by Exxon, or by any other firm directly involved in the fossil fuel industry. It was started by the tobacco company Philip Morris.
In December 1992, the US Environmental Protection Agency published a 500-page report called Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking. It found that "the widespread exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) in the United States presents a serious and substantial public health impact. In adults: ETS is a human lung carcinogen, responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths annually in US non-smokers. In children: ETS exposure is causally associated with an increased risk of lower respiratory tract infections such as bronchitis and pneumonia. This report estimates that 150,000 to 300,000 cases annually in infants and young children up to 18 months of age are attributable to ETS."
Had it not been for the settlement of a major class action against the tobacco companies in the US, we would never have been able to see what happened next. But in 1998 they were forced to publish their internal documents and post them on the internet.
Within two months of its publication, Philip Morris, the world's biggest tobacco firm, had devised a strategy for dealing with the passive-smoking report. In February 1993 Ellen Merlo, its senior vice-president of corporate affairs, sent a letter to William I Campbell, Philip Morris's chief executive officer and president, explaining her intentions: "Our overriding objective is to discredit the EPA report ... Concurrently, it is our objective to prevent states and cities, as well as businesses, from passive-smoking bans."
To this end, she had hired a public relations company called APCO. She had attached the advice it had given her. APCO warned that: "No matter how strong the arguments, industry spokespeople are, in and of themselves, not always credible or appropriate messengers."
So the fight against a ban on passive smoking had to be associated with other people and other issues. Philip Morris, APCO said, needed to create the impression of a "grassroots" movement - one that had been formed spontaneously by concerned citizens to fight "overregulation". It should portray the danger of tobacco smoke as just one "unfounded fear" among others, such as concerns about pesticides and cellphones. APCO proposed to set up "a national coalition intended to educate the media, public officials and the public about the dangers of 'junk science'. Coalition will address credibility of government's scientific studies, risk-assessment techniques and misuse of tax dollars ... Upon formation of Coalition, key leaders will begin media outreach, eg editorial board tours, opinion articles, and brief elected officials in selected states."
APCO would found the coalition, write its mission statements, and "prepare and place opinion articles in key markets". For this it required $150,000 for its own fees and $75,000 for the coalition's costs.
By May 1993, as another memo from APCO to Philip Morris shows, the fake citizens' group had a name: the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition. It was important, further letters stated, "to ensure that TASSC has a diverse group of contributors"; to "link the tobacco issue with other more 'politically correct' products"; and to associate scientific studies that cast smoking in a bad light with "broader questions about government research and regulations" - such as "global warming", "nuclear waste disposal" and "biotechnology". APCO would engage in the "intensive recruitment of high-profile representatives from business and industry, scientists, public officials, and other individuals interested in promoting the use of sound science"
The Consumers Union (US) wrote that "as far as we have been able to trace, the phrase "junk science" has been coined by those practicing public relations and lobbying activities on behalf of some companies in certain industries--particularly the plastics, chemical, biotechnology, and pesticide industries. While its coiners may have legitimate grounds for debate on some issues, the phrase has been used far too often to discredit honest public interest organizations and legitimate scientists who express concerns about consumer safety and environmental risks." [1]
While the phrase "junk science" is used by corporations, governments and front groups to discredit public interest and consumer activists, the phrase "sound science" is employed to describe the research said to back-up industry's own claims on safety and risk
after considering all the evidence I have concluded that there is no global warming as a result of human activity.
In the unlikely case there is, it's insignificant.
Global warming is a good thing and we should strive toward that end. Within reason.
Global warming fanatics should put their money where their mouth is and sell all waterfront property to us sceptics. I don't see that happening. In fact those properties just keep appreciating.
The Arabs are building artificial islands one metre above water knowing full well that the oceans won't rise for a very very very long time. They are betting trillions on it.
after considering all the evidence I have concluded that there is no global warming as a result of human activity.
In the unlikely case there is, it's insignificant.
Global warming is a good thing and we should strive toward that end. Within reason.
Global warming fanatics should put their money where their mouth is and sell all waterfront property to us sceptics. I don't see that happening. In fact those properties just keep appreciating.
The Arabs are building artificial islands one metre above water knowing full well that the oceans won't rise for a very very very long time. They are betting trillions on it.
Global warming is a good thing and we should strive toward that end. Within reason.
Hehehe, well I'm just being light hearted about it. But still it's a valid point. The markets don't lie. Waterfront houses will continue to increase in price.
If I Wanted to be serious about it I would point toward the EU socialists, protectionsts, unions, and other dark and shady forces wanting to impose a justification for their protectionist policies especially against the developing world.
Eg, unless you don't conform to our rules and buy our expensive technology we won't trade with you and will impose duties and taxes to offset your more competitive and lower cost production.
The greens are reds In Disguise.
Hehehe, well I'm just being light hearted about it.
Careful Slim. Humour to an alarmist is like a red rag to a bull. They regard their mission to educate the heretics as sacred, and will not take kindly to anyone not taking them seriously.
The time may come (if not already here) when to criticise them will be regarded as politically incorrect
You cant educate those from the shallow end of the gene pool. And nowhere have I observed evidence of greens supporting arms and aggression. Sense of humour, well if the argument is being lost some resort to crap way off topic. Stirring, love the motivation guys, go for it.
Judging from the quality posts of heretics we are more likely to be brought before HREOC for mistreating the intellectually impaired.The time may come (if not already here) when to criticise them will be regarded as politically incorrect
Judging from the quality posts of heretics we are more likely to be brought before HREOC for mistreating the intellectually impaired.
Secondly , I find greenies have an excess of testosterone and a deficiency of final commitment to either congress or nation building.
That bearded bloke chasing the japs in the Southern Ocean is a case in point.
there is nothing half so much worth doing as mucking about in boats.
Firstly explod the shallow end is where one is most likely to spread ones genes, think back to your golden days, in the local swimming pool.
Secondly , I find greenies have an excess of testosterone and a deficiency of final commitment to either congress or nation building.
That bearded bloke chasing the japs in the Southern Ocean is a case in point.
Thirdly have a Happy Christmas mate.
gg
You and yours too for the festive.
Waiting for your final take on the hats though old pal.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?