• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Global Warming Happy Fun-Time

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

Angel of Ioren said:
Let me turn it around: LMAO: the Heartland Institute also had scientists supporting tobacco companies... so, are cigarettes good for you? YOU love CO2...
Click to expand...
pretty typical response. you can't supply answers or data or defend the corruptness so you change the subject. I do not care for cigarettes, I do LOVE CO2 tho. I emit it every time I exhale.
 
pixelsmith said:
pretty typical response. you can't supply answers or data or defend the corruptness so you change the subject. I do not care for cigarettes, I do LOVE CO2 tho. I emit it every time I exhale.
Click to expand...
Dude: You're the one holding up the Heartland Institute as a bastion of science. They defended the cigarette companies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

C'mon!
 
Heartlands stance on tobacco:

Heartland's long-standing position on tobacco is that smoking is a risk factor for many diseases; we have never denied that smoking kills. We argue that the risks are exaggerated by the public health community to justify their calls for more regulations on businesses and higher taxes on smokers, and that the risk of adverse health effects from second-hand smoke is dramatically less than for active smoking, with many studies finding no adverse health effects at all. These positions are supported by many prominent scientists and virtually all free-market think tanks.
We take these principled positions on tobacco control despite their being very politically incorrect and despite receiving little (and in some years no) funding from tobacco companies because they are freedom issues. The left uses junk science to demonize smokers, which then clears the way for higher taxes on smokers, restrictions on their personal freedoms, and restrictions on the property rights of the owners of bars and other businesses. This is why advocates of liberty must address tobacco control issues, even if it means losing financial support from potential donors who are anti-smoking.
Attacks on the reputations and ethics of the scientists we work, which frequently appear online, are uninformed and disheartening. Dr. Bruce Ames, Dr. James Enstrom, and Dr. Kip Viscusi, to name just three, are among the world's elite experts on cancer, epidemiology, and risk. Their accomplishments and personal integrity vastly exceed those of their critics. Just as importantly, their ideas and factual statements are readily available on our Web site and elsewhere, open to rebuttal and discussion.
You don't have to be a rocket scientist to read and understand the science of second-hand smoke and the economics of excise taxes and smoking bans. Our critics ought to actually read what Ames, Enstrom, and Viscusi have written and point out their errors, if they exist, rather than engage in ad hominem attacks. It's obvious that few of them have or can.
Click to expand...
 
Defending crooks that are trying to rip off the world is pathetic at best. Shame on you. I gotta go, I will watch for your proof and original data proving CAGW via the 3% CO2 humans contribute to the atmosphere.
 
This was enjoyable Pixel. You seem to end all of these discussions the same way - ignore everything presented and then ask everyone to present more info.

I just showed you that your "source" is completely garbage. I presented you with a link to a Canadian Government website - please, peruse that at your leisure and learn something from an unbiased source. Keep in mind - Canada is a HUGE exporter of oil.
 
Angel of Ioren said:
Dude: You're the one holding up the Heartland Institute as a bastion of science. They defended the cigarette companies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

C'mon!
Click to expand...
no, i am not.


just showed you that your "source" is completely garbage. I presented you with a link to a Canadian Government website - please, peruse that at your leisure and learn something from an unbiased source. Keep in mind - Canada is a HUGE exporter of oil.
Click to expand...

An unbiased government source... really Angelo?
 
Angel of Ioren said:
The Canadian government, yes. We are perfect here.
Click to expand...
Perfect? ... LMAO...
The City of Waterloo said it plans to spend as much as $90,000 studying whether to erect a wind turbine, despite a 2011 report that showed the city wasn’t windy enough to make the project financially feasible. Regardless of those findings, the federal government gave the city another $63,000 to keep studying its wind turbine project.
Click to expand...
 
yup. perfect. this is from "99 stupid things the (Canadian) government did with your money"

The Canadian federal government spent $1.5 million to maintain a massive 108,000-sq.-ft. warehouse known as Plouffe Park in Ottawa, which is set to be torn down next year. It has poured another $5.5 million into the former headquarters of Agriculture Canada, though the building has sat empty since 2009.
Click to expand...
 
pixelsmith said:
and the comment about an unbiased source was also sarcastic?
Click to expand...

Nope - although no Government is perfect, I trust the information that Environment Canada provides, as well as the studies done my several major Canadian Universities. I've provided you with links to those studies before.
Regardless, they are beyond the garbage provided by The Heartland Institute - Second hand smoke is not dangerous... LMAO!
 
So even tho humans contribute only 3% of the CO2 in the atmosphere and mother nature contributes 97% of the CO2 you want to demonize humans for breathing and also emitting CO2 via industrialization even tho actual science shows global temps have flatlined for 17 years while CO2 levels have risen? Don't you think that would suggest other variables are at work here? like say... ocean currents and the sun maybe?
 
dyingsun said:
Now, that global warming I hear so much about, any evidence?
Click to expand...
There is proof of global warming, cooling and climate change. There is NO evidence for a statistically significant anthropogenic influence causing any of it.
 
Back
Top