Facebook
Google
GitHub
Linkedin
Last edited:
But, science!
- Thread starter joeyd999
- Start date
- Status
Are you really pointing to the UK's version of the "National Inquirer" as a source of scientific journalism? Brilliant.
The Brothers 'T'.
The author's assumption is that soft wood lumber (pine, fir, ..) is exported by Canada with the assumption the buyer burns it? Look up the use of lumber, my friend, It is not for fireplaces.
Lookup the word lumber, my friend. It does not appear once in that article, which was all about oil.
Well, at least my headache is gone...
Mine's in the room down the hall.
I've always believed AGW (a.k.a. Catastrophic Human-Caused Climate Change) was a myth.
But, as it turns out, even the concept of GW may be a myth as well.
Source article.
But, as it turns out, even the concept of GW may be a myth as well.
Source article.
Zero for four.
Yet they turn a blind eye to a growing problem in the Bearing Straight, a pile of Plastic bigger than Texas. For the amount of money spent each year studying Global Warming we could have paid Fisherman in their off season to collect it.
Why would I want to do that, hmm I wonder how many units of energy is in the sun thus Heat Exchange by Plastic then transfers the Oceans conveyer belt cold water and warm water. Elevating it by 1˚ is harmful and above that devastating, while this increase in temperature melts polar ice allowing more and more water to release into the Ocean and further complicating the system as more water lay at the surface to be reheated, recycling the heat load back to the Ice Sheets.
The offset year after year would contribute heat load to the overall system thus creating our current problem, why fix something if I can stand by and make comments on it while pointing the finger at someone else.
kv
Edit: All the Scientist on the forum can correct me. If you live on the coast, remember where you put your plastic first and then comment.
I can't comment on all four, but he was right if he questioned the second-hand smoke hysteria. It was bad science and has been debunked long ago. http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...ondhand_smoke_isn_t_as_bad_as_we_thought.html
https://www.forbes.com/sites/daniel...een-secondhand-smoke-and-cancer/#2f0873e665d4
Rather than respond to and argue the data and analysis, they'd rather just try to impeach the person via ad hominem attacks. It's the way of the left. They have no arguments.
The can't respond to the data otherwise it would show how little of it or the concepts it resent they understand which would just discredit them further. Playing stupid and avoiding the topics that can be proven wrong on is largely all they have as several on the forum have shown.
The scary part is at some point a person has to question if they are actually playing stupid to avoid answering or if they are truly that stupid. Yet logically someone who is as stupid as some show themselve to be should have near zero justification in their views and feelings since it's clear they understand nothing of the very subject they feel so strongly about which for any rational minded person in order to feel strongly about something they have to actually have a working grasp of the pros and cons of it to base their opinions and views on.
BTW,
I baked a hotdish in my oven at 400F for 30 minutes then I baked a pie after that at 325 F for 37 minutes.
which is 'hotter'?
There is more to do with smoking than heart attacks.
Conclusion
In conclusion, there is a substantial amount of information pertinent to second hand smoke exposure that can be gained from an understanding of animal models of disease. It is important to understand the limitations of each model of smoke exposure. Rodents, while widely used, have several limitations, including strain differences in disease susceptibility, and relatively mild forms of emphysema. However, there is significant information that can be gained from the use of mouse models, especially in an era of transgenic manipulation. The most attractive alternative smoke exposure animal models are guinea pigs and rabbits, both developing clear evidence of inflammation and emphysema. A better understanding of the benefits and drawbacks of these models will assist researchers in best choosing the appropriate species and exposure model prior to conducting smoke exposure experiments.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Your standards for ignoring someone are higher than mine.
I just cut the line at his having proven that he rather enjoys being a pathetic troll just a bit too much when proven wrong to be worth wasting any more of my time reading his nonsense any longer.
I can respect a person's opinion but I can't respect a person who takes the idiot troll way out every time he backs himself into a corner.
- Status
