Al Gore on his new environmental-collapse-movie: it's fake but accurate.
"In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis." -- Al Gore
So basically... he has had to exaggerate the truth in order to scare people into doing... something.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
Lost two grandparents to cancer. Grandpa smoked, grandma never did. Gramps was a heavy smoker. Again, they both died of cancer and there was no history of cancer before them. I can't prove second hand smoke killed grandma, but, I believe it did. I guess it could all be one big coincidence too.
Lost two grandparents to cancer. Grandpa smoked, grandma never did. Gramps was a heavy smoker. Again, they both died of cancer and there was no history of cancer before them. I can't prove second hand smoke killed grandma, but, I believe it did. I guess it could all be one big coincidence too.
One of my good friends growing up lost his mom to lung cancer, but she didn't smoke, his dad did. I'm not saying I don't believe second hand smoke is dangerous, I just was pointing out that the WHO has never found a link to it. Maybe their tests are setup incorrectly?
Now to go along with this point, has anyone seen the commercials that are adjusted to fit whatever city they are running in that are anti-smoking?
"Donald Fox of Toledo died of throat cancer at the age of 38. He didn't even smoke!" - That's a direct quote from the commercial. I want to see the science behind that statement.
Cancer doesn't just attack lungs. Nor is a cancer only caused by smoke. So if this guy died of throat cancer, how did they tie it to smoking or second hand smoke? Where is the proof?
“Every record been destroyed or falsified, books rewritten, pictures repainted, statues, street building renamed, every date altered. The process is continuing day by day. History stops. Nothing exists except endless present in which the Party is right.”
Lost two grandparents to cancer. Grandpa smoked, grandma never did. Gramps was a heavy smoker. Again, they both died of cancer and there was no history of cancer before them. I can't prove second hand smoke killed grandma, but, I believe it did. I guess it could all be one big coincidence too.
The California EPA (study from 1997) believes in the dangers of second-hand smoke too.
I read some of it, but damn it was long and boring.
I am immediately dubious of anything and everything that comes out of California.
Ditto.
In fact, at lunch today San Francisco was brought up during a discussion on small town America. Basically, their morally and intellectually superior attitude towards the rest of the nation was brought up when discussing lifestyles of the farmers and such.
The following comment was made: "If they're so fucking smart, why'd they built their city on an unstable fault line."
Good point.
“Every record been destroyed or falsified, books rewritten, pictures repainted, statues, street building renamed, every date altered. The process is continuing day by day. History stops. Nothing exists except endless present in which the Party is right.”
Cancer occurs in animals in the wild that are nowhere near humans or their second hand smoke. Whenever a strand of DNA breaks and bonds back together in the wrong place there's a chance that it will become a cancer cell.
That's all cancer is.
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren
That is a little... parable? about people who don't know all of the factors of a situation before they decide they know all the facts.
If you look at one certain set of facts, it says elephants reproduce at X interval and take up Y amount of space. With only that set of data you can calculate exactly how long it would take for elephants to fill the universe, and according to the data and numbers within our set you'd be correct.
Problem is, there's more to it than that, and elephants can't fill the universe.
Hard core "we're destroying the planet" environmentalists are the "elephants will fill the universe" people. They don't have anywhere near all the facts to make the conclusion they have drawn. The recent "I wonder why the ozone hole is filling so fast" thread highlights that. As well as the absolute, known facts that the sun is hotter which in turn is heating up other planets like Jupiter, which was also discussed in another thread.
But fanatics don't want to hear that. Man is destroying the planet, and Bill Clinton is the priest saying the GOP is designing it.
All righty then. I hope I don;t get stuck in the kool-aide line when they start forcing peeps to drink.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
