Lindaland
  Global Unity 2.0
  Who Are the Greens, Really? (Page 1)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!
This topic is 2 pages long:   1  2 
next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Who Are the Greens, Really?
jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 3289
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 22, 2011 10:23 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
While most of us see the Greens as basically, the "tree hugger" set. Nothing wrong with hugging trees. I like trees and have planted some myself. After all, it's trees and other flora which are the CO2/Oxygen exchange units on earth.

But, who are the "Greens" really. Where did they come from, who are their leaders and how does one reconcile the benign tree hugger image with the extreme violence perpetrated by members of their "groups"?

"Certainly James Cameron loathes the mythical Hitler of the modern leftist imagination that trumpets the Nazis as an extreme right wing movement thanks to 80 years of Marxist and Socialist propaganda. On the other hand, do we really believe Cameron does not know Hitler was called "Avatar" by Savitri Devi in her 1958 Neo-Nazi manifesto called "The Lightning and the Sun?" Put in another way, can the shift to New Age indigenous environmentalism atone for the racist political biology of the Nazi past like getting out of a previous bad marriage? While James Cameron certainly thinks so, the verdict is still out with regard to that particular ecological question.

Indeed, Luc Ferry, the author of "The New Ecological Order" wrote that "we have to be ignorant or prejudiced not to see it: Nazism contains within it, for reasons that are in no way accidental, the beginnings of an authentic concern for preserving ‘natural,' which is to say, here again, ‘original' peoples." Ferry then goes on to establish the surprising link between Nazi authenticity and modern environmental multiculturalism, "like the aesthetics of sentiment and deep ecology, which also place new value on primitive peoples, mountain folk, or American Indians, the National Socialist conception of ecology encompasses the notion that the Naturvolker, the ‘natural peoples,' achieve a perfect harmony between their surroundings and their customs. This is even the most certain sign of the superiority of their ways over the liberal world of uprootedness and perpetual mobility. Their culture, similar to animal ways of life, is a prolongation of nature." Thus, the distinction between National Socialism and a multicultural national geographic is not as big of a repentance as many would like to presume."
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/04/the_green_nazis.html

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 3289
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 22, 2011 12:38 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Hey, come on. It's Earth Day!!

Now, here's a little tidbit.

Contrary to the peaceful, loving, compassionate, flower child, tree hugger image cultivated by the environmental set; Earth Day founder Ira Einhorn, murdered his girlfriend.

Dubbed the Unicorn killer, old Ira loved the Earth. People on earth, apparently, not so much.
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/04/22/earth-day-co-founder-loved-planet-murder ed-girlfriend/

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 3289
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 22, 2011 01:01 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Oh, I forgot to mention that Ira Einhorn "composted" his girlfriend's body in a trunk in his closet...for 7 years.

Sounds like old Ira is a real environmentalist after all.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/04/earth_day_cofounder_killed_com.html

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 6271
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 22, 2011 01:09 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
yes sadly a large proportion of the population confuse passion with aggression. shoot the messenger, in fact. amazing how often opposite sides are mirror images of each other. and how often abusiveness is equated with strength.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 3289
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 22, 2011 02:03 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Somehow katatonic, I doubt that when I look at Ira Einhorn, environmental anarchist terrorists who burn down buildings and attempt to sink ships at sea....that I'd see the mirror image of myself.

Sorry!

IP: Logged

AbsintheDragonfly
Knowflake

Posts: 2287
From: Gaia
Registered: Apr 2010

posted April 22, 2011 02:12 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AbsintheDragonfly     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Those are the small aliens...greens.

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 6271
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 22, 2011 03:33 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
of course not jwhop! but you consciously chose to mirror those whose "behaviour" (albeit verbal) you detested here...right? i have done it too, so not trying to be the lilywhite here!

the greens - and i disagree with them as much as you when it comes to method - do what they do in order to be taken seriously by people they consider murderous ba'tards. just as we felt justified in dropping a-bombs on the "japs".

hating is hating and as far as i can see all it causes is more hate, whether the perps think they're justified or not..

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 3289
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 22, 2011 04:04 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
"but you consciously chose to mirror those whose "behaviour" (albeit verbal) you detested here...right?"

Wrong.

Am I seeing the beginnings of a new way in which some are going to attempt to shut others up?

Can't rip O'Bomber for his lying, fiscal insanity, collusion, breaches of the Constitution and laws of the US....and non-existent foreign policy; that's the actions of a terrorist...murderer!

Not to be, so...forget about it.

AD, I thought it was the little gray folks who were the space aliens.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 3289
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 22, 2011 05:21 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Hey, we can all see how serious they are about this "Save the Earth" stuff.

Earth Day Ends Obama's 53,300 Gallon Trip
By Paul Bedard
April 22, 2011

President Obama declared today's 41st annual Earth Day proof of America's ecological and conservation spirit—then completed a three-day campaign-style trip logging 10,666 miles on Air Force One, eating up some 53,300 gallons at a cost of about $180,000. And that doesn't include the fuel consumption of his helicopter, limo, or the 29 other vehicles that travel with that car.....
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/04/22/earth-day-ends-obamas-53300-gallon-trip

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 6271
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 22, 2011 05:45 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
gollee, now he EATS GAS?

no one is trying to shut you up, jwhop. however a "new way" of talking might produce a "new way" of interrelating and the old ways are not working are they? divided we fall..

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 3289
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 22, 2011 06:10 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Please excuse me. I didn't know it was forbotten to question the amount of jet fuel the prez uses to campaign...and then charge off to US taxpayers.

I guess you better have a talk with democratic underground. They didn't seen to know the topic was off limits either.

Every Bush flight is costly (Air Force One fuel costs 6k/hour)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x18094 90

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 6271
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 23, 2011 12:04 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
lol no i don't want to get my knickers twisted arguing over who uses more resources. obama is a taxpayer too, and i bet he paid for three such trips with his return last month....

i told you i'm not much a fan of the greens. i do my bit not to waste fuel or anything else, and i think the greens helped make more people conscious of - if not respect for the earth we live on, then at least respect for how much we depend on the planet - but i don't like their tactics either.

i have no doubt that given the money, manpower and graft that runs this country, the greens would be every bit as nasty. that is what i mean by two wrongs making a third.

IP: Logged

Rogue Guru
Knowflake

Posts: 154
From: Pleasantville, State of Euphoria, USA
Registered: Jan 2011

posted April 23, 2011 04:40 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Rogue Guru     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
"forbotten"... lol...it's "verboten" you illiterate twit

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 3289
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 23, 2011 08:28 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
OMG, in addition to all the other obvious faults, he's also a music hater!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKLy2IFjWag

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 3289
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 23, 2011 09:22 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The Sustainable Development Hoax
By S. Fred Singer

"Sustainable Development" (SD) is basically a slogan without a specific meaning. Linked to Earth Day (April 22), it masquerades as a call for clean air, green energy, and suggests a pristine bucolic existence for us and our progeny -- forever. But in reality, it has become immensely useful to many groups who use the slogan to advance their own special agenda, whatever they may be.

The term itself was invented by Gro Harlem Bruntlandt, a Norwegian socialist politician and former prime minister. After her term there, she landed in Paris and, together with Club of Rome veteran Alexander King, began publicizing SD. Indeed, the concept is a successor to the neo-Malthusian theme of the Club of Rome, which began to take hold around 1970 and led to the notorious book "Limits to Growth." In turn, the "Limits to Growth" concept was developed a few years earlier by US geologists like Preston Cloud and King Hubbert. In a report published by a panel of the National Academy, they promoted the view that the world was running out of resources: food, fuels, and minerals. According to their views, and those of the Club of Rome and Limits to Growth, most important metals should have become unavailable before the end of the 20th century.

(King Hubbert, of course, is best known for the concept of "Peak Oil" which achieved wide-spread popularity in the past few years. Princeton geologist Kenneth Deffeyes gained fleeting fame for his book "Hubbert's Peak," which predicted that world oil production would peak in 2008. Of course, it must peak sometime, but the date will be set by economic and technological factors that are difficult to predict.)

In turn, these neo-Malthusian concerns were opposed by the so called "Cornucopians." Their leading apostle was certainly the late Julian Simon, who went somewhat overboard in the other direction. Many will remember Julian Simon's famous bet with Paul Ehrlich, the noted Stanford University doomsday prophet, concerning the unavailability of minerals by 1990. Simon won the bet but he was certainly off-base in predicting that there would be no end to crude oil on this planet. Fossil fuels, of course, are essentially non-renewable. No matter how slowly they are used up, once used up, they are gone and not replenished over any reasonable time periods.

But in a certain sense this does not matter. Oil may become depleted -- at least low-cost oil -- but its essential function is to produce energy. And there we have a variety of ways to create energy for many millennia or even longer -- based on nuclear fission.

The debate between neo-Malthusians and Cornucopians came to a head in a 1969 symposium of the AAAS, published as a book titled "Is there an optimal level of population?" Both sides recognized that population levels and growth rates are equally important in discussing the possible depletion of resources. Those proposing larger populations, like Julian Simon, seemed oblivious also to the environmental costs that would rise rapidly as the natural ability of the environment to absorb waste is exceeded.

But all this is history. SD lives on because it is useful in selling various policies. Some examples are:

•1) Restrictions on the use of fossil fuels, under the guise of "saving the climate"
•2) Transfers of resources to less developed nations - now justified for climate resons (but of course, quite contrary to resource conservation)
•3) Striving for world government and UN sovereignty -- all for "sustainability",
•4) Promoting a green energy future, using a solar and wind,
•5) Advocating negative population growth, etc.

Among the worst policies being pushed with the help of SD is a scheme called Contraction and Convergence (C & C). The idea is that every human is entitled to emit the same amount of CO2. This of course translates into every being on earth using the same amount of energy -- and, by inference, having the same income. In other words, C & C is basically a policy for a giant global income redistribution.

Since the SD concept has been popularized, it has become a fashionable topic for research papers, especially in the social sciences. We may yet live to see the day when trendy universities establish programs to teach SD -- and eventually even departments of SD and endowed academic chairs. Never underestimate the drive for expansion in the academic world.

For Earth Day 2011, the National Association of Scholars, composed mostly of Conservative-leaning academics, released a Statement that critiques the campus sustainability movement. NAS president Peter Wood said:

"Sustainability sounds like a call for recycling and clean drinking water. But its proponents are much more ambitious. For them, a sustainable society is one that replaces the market economy with top-down regulation. They present students a frightening story in which the earth is on the brink of disaster and immediate action is needed. This is a tactic aimed at silencing critics, shutting down debate, and mobilizing students who never get the opportunity to hear opposing views."

Here are some excerpts from the Statement itself:

"Sustainability" is one of the key words of our time. We are six years along in the United Nations' "Decade of Education for Sustainable Development." In the United States, 677 colleges and universities presidents have committed themselves to a sustainability-themed "Climate Commitment." Sustainability is, by a large measure, the most popular social movement today in American higher education. It is, of course, not just a campus movement, but also a ubiquitous presence in the K-12 curriculum, and a staple of community groups, political platforms, appeals to consumers, and corporate policy.

The sustainability movement arrived on campuses mainly at the invitation of college presidents and administrative staff in areas such as student activities and residence life. That means that it largely escaped the scrutiny of faculty members and that it continues to enjoy a position of unearned authority. In many instances, the movement advances by administrative fiat, backed up by outside advocacy groups and students recruited for their zeal in promoting the cause. Agenda-driven organizations-such as the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE) and the American College and University Presidents' Climate Commitment(ACUPCC)-have taken advantage of academic sensibilities to turn sustainability into what is in many cases, a campus fetish. Sustainability also gets promoted by resort to pledges, games, competitions, and a whole variety of psychological gimmicks that bypass serious intellectual inquiry.

Some results are relatively trivial. For example, at certain institutions, cafeteria trays have been banned to save food, water, and energy, leaving students and staff to juggle dishes, cups, and utensils as they move between counters and tables. Many campuses have also banned the sale of disposable to reduce plastic waste. Yet however laughable, such petty annoyances have a sinister penumbra. They advertise a willingness to bully that creates a more generalized climate of intimidation, spilling over into other domains.

In practice, this means that sustainability is used as a means of promoting to students a view that capitalism and individualism are "unsustainable," morally unworthy, and a present danger to the future of the planet.

Fascination with decline and ruin are nothing new in Western thought. The sustainability movement combines a bureaucratic and regulatory impulse with an updated version of the Romantics' preoccupation with the end of civilization, and with hints of the Christian apocalyptic tradition. These are the "end times" in the view of some sustainability advocates-or potentially so in the eyes of many others. The movement has its own versions of sin and redemption, and in many other respects has a quasi-religious character. For some of the adherents, the earth itself is treated as a sentient deity; others content themselves with the search for the transcendent in Nature.

As a creed among creeds, sustainability constitutes an upping of the ideological ante. Feminism, Afro-centrism, gay-liberation, and various other recent fads and doctrines, whatever else they were, were secular, speaking merely to politics and culture. The sustainability movement reaches beyond that, having nothing less than the preservation of life on earth at its heart.

The religious creeds of faculty members and students are their own business, but we have reason for concern when dogmatic beliefs are smuggled into the curriculum and made a basis for campus programs as though they were mere extensions of scientific facts.

The sustainability movement is, in a word, unsustainable. It runs too contrary to the abiding purposes of higher education; it is too rife with internal contradictions; and it is too contrary to the environmental, economic, and social facts to endure indefinitely.

Atmospheric physicist S. Fred Singer is Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia and founding director of the US Weather Satellite Service. His book "Unstoppable Global Warming - Every 1500 Years" (Rowman & Littlefield, 2007) presents the evidence for natural climate cycles of warming and cooling and became a New York Times best-seller. He is the organizer and chairman of NIPCC (Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change), whose reports reach conclusions that contradict those of the UN-supported IPCC. Other books he has written or edited, including a monograph on the price of world oil, deal with energy and similar resource topics.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/04/the_sustainable_development_ho.html

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 5219
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 23, 2011 10:36 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
A former mouthpiece for the tobacco industry, the 85-year-old Singer is the granddaddy of fake "science" designed to debunk global warming. The retired physicist — who also tried to downplay the danger of the hole in the ozone layer — is still wheeled out as an authority by big polluters determined to kill climate legislation. For years, Singer steadfastly denied that the world is heating up: Citing satellite data that has since been discredited, he even made the unhinged claim that "the climate has been cooling just slightly." Last year, Singer served as a lead author of "Climate Change Reconsidered" — an 880-page report by the right-wing Heartland Institute that was laughably presented as a counterweight to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world's scientific authority on global warming. Singer concludes that the unchecked growth of climate-cooking pollution is "unequivocally good news." Why? Because "rising CO2 levels increase plant growth and make plants more resistant to drought and pests." Small wonder that Heartland's climate work has long been funded by the likes of Exxon and reactionary energy barons like Charles Koch and Richard Mellon Scaife. ~ Rolling Stone Magazine, January 2010

According to David Biello and John Pavlus in Scientific American, Singer is best known for his denial of the health risks of passive smoking.[44] He was involved in 1994 as writer and reviewer of a report on the issue by the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, where he was a senior fellow.[45] The report criticized the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for their 1993 study about the cancer risks of passive smoking, calling it "junk science".

Rachel White Scheuering writes that, when SEPP began, it was affiliated with the Washington Institute for Values in Public Policy, a think tank run by Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church.[50] A 1990 article for the Cato Institute identifies Singer as the director of the science and environmental policy project at the Washington Institute for Values in Public Policy, on leave from the University of Virginia.[52] Scheuering writes that Singer cut ties with Moon, and is funded by foundations and oil companies.[50] She writes that he has been a paid consultant for many years for ARCO, ExxonMobil, Shell, Sun Oil Company, and Unocal, and that SEPP has received grants from ExxonMobil. Singer has said his financial relationships do not influence his research. Scheuering argues that his conclusions concur with the economic interests of the companies that pay him, in that the companies want to see a reduction in environmental regulation.[53]

Singer set up the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) after a 2004 United Nations climate conference in Milan. NIPCC organized an international climate workshop in Vienna in April 2007,[60] to provide what they called an independent examination of the evidence for climate change.[61] Singer prepared an NIPCC report called "Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate," published in March 2008 by the Heartland Institute, a conservative think tank.[60] ABC News said the same month that unnamed climate scientists from NASA, Stanford, and Princeton who spoke to ABC about the report dismissed it as "fabricated nonsense." In a letter of complaint to ABC News, Singer said their piece used "prejudicial language, distorted facts, libelous insinuations, and anonymous smears."[56]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 3289
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 23, 2011 12:00 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I'll bet you still believe in the Tooth Fairy and other myths acoustic.

Singer performed some controlled research for the tobacco institute. In that research, no harmful effects were in evidence from second hand smoke from tobacco products. Nor has any other credible research found second hand smoke to have a direct link with human health risks.

Now, I'm going to light up a nice Cohiba and blow some smoke your way. I guarantee it will smell much better than the smoke you've been trying to blow up everyone's ass here.

Siegfried Fred Singer (born September 27, 1924) is an Austrian-born American physicist and emeritus professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia.[1] Singer trained as an atmospheric physicist and is known for his work in space research, atmospheric pollution, rocket and satellite technology, and as an outspoken critic of the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. He is the author or editor of several books including Global Effects of Environmental Pollution (1970), The Ocean in Human Affairs (1989), Global Climate Change (1989), The Greenhouse Debate Continued (1992), and Hot Talk, Cold Science (1997). He has also co-authored Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years (2007) with Dennis Avery, and Climate Change Reconsidered (2009) with Craig Idso.[2]

Singer has had a varied career, serving in the armed forces, government, and academia. He designed mines for the U.S. Navy during World War II, before completing his Ph.D. in physics from Princeton University in 1948 and working as a scientific liaison officer in the U.S. Embassy in London.[3] He became a leading figure in early space research, was involved in the development of earth observation satellites, and in 1962 established the National Weather Bureau's Satellite Service Center. He was the founding dean of the University of Miami School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences in 1964, and held several government positions, including deputy assistant administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency, and chief scientist for the Department of Transportation. He held a professorship with the University of Virginia from 1971 until 1994, and with George Mason University until 2000.[4]

Singer has been an advocate of the skeptical stance in the global warming controversy for a number of years. In 1990 he founded the Science & Environmental Policy Project to advocate this position,[5] and in 2006 was named by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as one of a minority of scientists said to be creating a stand-off on a consensus on climate change.[6] Singer argues there is no evidence that global warming is attributable to human-caused increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide, and that humanity would benefit if temperatures do rise.[7] He is an opponent of the Kyoto Protocol, and has said of the climate models that scientists use to project future trends that "models are very nice, but they are not reality and they are not evidence."[8]

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 6271
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 23, 2011 12:57 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
nothing wrong with a little gratitude for what we have been given. personally i think the earth will outlive us all.

but the green/sustainable "movement" has helped bring in cleaner air in los angeles, cleaner water in the hudson, and a conciousness that the earth is our home as much as our house is. i see nothing wrong with that. i LIKE a walk in the woods where i don't have to wade through cans and bags...

i would have preferred if shock and violent tactics had not been used...but apparently they got a lot of people's attention, didn't they?


i do agree, jwhop, that it is annoying beyond boring to listen to 24/7 hectoring on the subject. it seems plain old commonsense to me to clean up your dog's poop, not through cigarette butts in the gutter to enter the water supply, etc...but "the world is my ashtray" still seems to apply to a large portion of the population.

i remember travelling through trail, BC, whose chief industry was tin refining. the surrounding area was DEAD from pollution. the locals forced the refineries to revive the environment...most times this can be done but NOT always. trail is a much nicer, healthier place now than it was in the late 60s. whether or not we can survive a polluted environment i prefer "sustainable" to "ravaged" any day. it's no skin off my nose to take a little care daily to see this happen, why should industry be excused?

IP: Logged

Randall
Webmaster

Posts: 7863
From: The Goober Galaxy
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 23, 2011 12:57 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randall     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Yeah, whether you smoke or not, though the smell might be offensive to nonsmokers, there's no evidence of second-hand smoking being harmful. You harm yourself more by eating a banana. Even Linda knew second-hand smoke can't harm you, as stated in Chapter 2 of Star Signs.

------------------
"All deaths are suicides, do you realize that? Every single one. The only distinction is that, with some people, suicide is a subconscious choice, and with others it's a conscious choice. Otherwise, those who commit suicide and those who succumb to accident, illness or "old age," die for exactly the same reason: belief in the inevitability of death." Linda Goodman

IP: Logged

Artemis
Newflake

Posts: 9
From:
Registered: Apr 2011

posted April 25, 2011 06:56 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Artemis     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Randall:
Yeah, whether you smoke or not, though the smell might be offensive to nonsmokers, there's no evidence of second-hand smoking being harmful. You harm yourself more by eating a banana. Even Linda knew second-hand smoke can't harm you, as stated in Chapter 2 of Star Signs.


You're kidding right?

I'm pretty damn certain the cough I had up until middle school was from the two packs a day my mother smoked. I could whip out a horrible cough at any time until I stopped living with her. And now that I live with her again, her smoking is confined to her bedroom which I can't bear to be in for more than 30 seconds because my eyes will tear up and I'll start coughing. It's not the smell, it's the smoke. I'd eat a lip-swelling banana over that any day.

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 5219
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 25, 2011 11:25 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Yes, cigarette smoke is harmful. Absolutely. Singer was paid to find otherwise by the tobacco industry.

Jwhop, as I said in the other thread, anyone doing a cursory search of Fred Singer will find his "science" career more suspiscious than any actual climate scientist.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 3289
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 25, 2011 12:00 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Dr Singer was contracted to do research. He wasn't "hired" to find any specific result.

You have Singer confused with the religionist fraudsters and hucksters Phil Jones and Micheal Mann. On the other hand, Dr Singer is a professional scientist.

Further acoustic, you are simply not qualified to opine on any scientific subject or findings....like second hand smoke for instance.

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 5219
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 25, 2011 01:07 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Oh come on...

Yeah, he wasn't hired by tobacco companies to come to some specific conclusion, and he hasn't taken money from Big Oil to come to any specific conclusion. He is completely above board. Yeah, right.

quote:
You have Singer confused with the religionist fraudsters and hucksters Phil Jones and Micheal Mann. On the other hand, Dr Singer is a professional scientist.

Phil Jones and Michael Mann actually work in the field of climate science. Both have received their credentials more recently than has Mr. Singer. Both have published far more peer-reviewed scientific papers than Singer.

quote:
Further acoustic, you are simply not qualified to opine on any scientific subject or findings....like second hand smoke for instance.

No more qualified than you are, and yet you're trying to push nonsense as science. Someone's got to be real here.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 3289
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 25, 2011 01:18 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
You're trying to beat a dead horse acoustic.

It's beyond question Phil Jones and Michael Mann got caught manipulating computer input data, hiding the fact of the temperature DECLINE, destroying computer input data...temperature input data, conspiring with other man made global warming religionists to hide their data, destroy emails and data and attempting to rig the "peer review process"...as well as violations of both British and American law by refusing to respond to FOIA requests.

These guys and the other so called "climate" scientists are clowns and pimples on the ass of the real scientific community.

Dr Singer is a professional scientist who doesn't attempt to slant the results of his research. It goes where it goes without steering.

IP: Logged

AbsintheDragonfly
Knowflake

Posts: 2287
From: Gaia
Registered: Apr 2010

posted April 25, 2011 01:25 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AbsintheDragonfly     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by jwhop:

AD, I thought it was the little gray folks who were the space aliens.


Nah there's more than one type out there. The green ones like cookies

Did you predict that was coming?

IP: Logged


This topic is 2 pages long:   1  2 

All times are Eastern Standard Time

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Linda-Goodman.com

Copyright © 2011

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a