Comments for Climate Smokescreen At The New York Times at http://www.rightsidenews.com , comment 1 to 4 out of 4 comments http://www.rightsidenews.com Tue, 16 Mar 2010 22:37:38 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.rightsidenews.com/200911277498/energy-and-environment/climate-smokescreen-at-the-new-york-times.html#comment-4635 SECOND HAND SMOKE IS A JOKE. Ask the anti-tobacco folks to tell you what truly is in second hand smoke...when it burns from the coal its oxygenated and everything is burned and turned into water vapor..................thats right water..........you ever burned leaves in the fall...know how the heavy smoke bellows off.......thats the organic material releasing the moisture in the leaves the greener the leaves/organic material the more smoke thats made......thats why second hand smoke is classified as a class 3 irritant by osha and epa as of 2006........after that time EPA decided to change the listing of shs as a carcinogen for political reasons.......because it contained a trace amount of 6 chemicals so small even sophisticated scientific equipment can hardly detect it ........they didnt however use the normal dose makes the poison computation when they made this political decision. However osha still maintains shs/ets as an irritant only and maintains the dose makes the poison position.......as osha is in charge of indoor air quality its decisions are based on science not political agendas as epa's is. We can see this is true after a federal judge threw out the epa's study on shs as junk science......... Wednesday, March 12, 2008 British Medical Journal & WHO conclude secondhand smoke "health hazard" claims are greatly exaggerated The BMJ published report at: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057 concludes that "The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer are considerably weaker than generally believed." What makes this study so significant is that it took place over a 39 year period, and studied the results of non-smokers who lived with smokers..... meaning these non-smokers were exposed to secondhand smoke up to 24 hours per day; 365 days per year for 39 years. And there was still no relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality. In light of the damage to business, jobs, and the economy from smoking bans the BMJ report should be revisited by lawmakers as a reference tool and justification to repeal the now unnecessary and very damaging smoking ban laws. Also significant is the World Health Organization (WHO) study: Passive smoking doesn't cause cancer-official By Victoria Macdonald, Health Correspondent " The results are consistent with their being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer. The summary, seen by The Telegraph, also states: 'There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood.' " And if lawmakers need additional real world data to further highlight the need to eliminate these onerous and arbitrary laws, air quality testing by Johns Hopkins University proves that secondhand smoke is up to 25,000 times SAFER than occupational (OSHA) workplace regulations. The Chemistry of Secondary Smoke About 94% of secondary smoke is composed of water vapor and ordinary air with a slight excess of carbon dioxide. Another 3 % is carbon monoxide. The last 3 % contains the rest of the 4,000 or so chemicals supposedly to be found in smoke… but found, obviously, in very small quantities if at all.This is because most of the assumed chemicals have never actually been found in secondhand smoke. (1989 Report of the Surgeon General p. 80). Most of these chemicals can only be found in quantities measured in nanograms, picograms and femtograms. Many cannot even be detected in these amounts: their presence is simply theorized rather than measured. To bring those quantities into a real world perspective, take a saltshaker and shake out a few grains of salt. A single grain of that salt will weigh in the ballpark of 100 million picograms! (Allen Blackman. Chemistry Magazine 10/08/01). - (Excerpted from "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains" with permission of the author.) The Myth of the Smoking Ban ‘Miracle’ Restrictions on smoking around the world are claimed to have had a dramatic effect on heart attack rates. It's not true. http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/7451/ As for secondhand smoke in the air, OSHA has stated outright that: "Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded." -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec'y, OSHA, To Leroy J Pletten, PHD, July 8, 1997 -harleyrider1978 - harleyrider1978 Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:46:15 +0100 http://www.rightsidenews.com/200911277498/energy-and-environment/climate-smokescreen-at-the-new-york-times.html#comment-4629 Virtually all scientists agree that the Earth has warmed a small amount since the year 1000 or, if you choose, since 1850, when instrumented temperature records became reasonably accurate and distributed in key areas of the world. An increasing number believe that any warming is so small it is indistinguishable from the noise in the environmenal data sets, and that the data have not been properly adjusted for such things as urban heat island effects (are the city temps warmer than the suburbs where you live? Has the city grown since 1850? Have the runways increased near the temp gage at your airport since 1920?), and instrument calibration. This is particularly true of the global data set, even though "urbanization has caused regional increases in temperature that exceed those measured on a global scale, leading to urban heat islands as much as 12°C hotter than their surroundings". Most scientists agree that warming is better than cooling and many believe CO2 provides important enhancements for forests and agriculture, even while also believing we should not be fouling our nest. Our [url=http://uk.bestessays.com]essay[/url] makes every effort to present the true science of climate change. When the news broke of the Arctic ice being at its 30 year low in 2007, the same source (U. of Illinois) reported the Antarctic at its record high, but this was not reported in the media. To show the imbalance, as one reads in the popular press, we have created a companion site that presents the evidence for global cooling, just as most newspapers and alarmists present only the science that supports warming. There are many reasons to be cautious about accepting CO2 as the causative agent if there really is warming. This is highlighted by 2 papers published in March 2008. Scafetta and West showed that up to 69% of observed warming is from the sun and Ramanathan and Carmichael show that soot has 60% of the warming power of CO2. They claim both factors are underappreciated by IPCC. Many scientists believe the temperature changes are more dependent on the sun than CO2, similar to the relationship in your home with your furnace. The soot may well explain much of the Arctic melting, as it has recently for Asian glaciers. - jennifer graham Fri, 27 Nov 2009 02:43:22 +0100 http://www.rightsidenews.com/200911277498/energy-and-environment/climate-smokescreen-at-the-new-york-times.html#comment-4625 For most of this week I like most minded people have been completely absorbed by the revelations coming from the e-mails from the Climate Research Unit at The University of East Anglia. Given the lack of reporting from the “trusted” alphabet soup of news organizations, ABC,CBS,CNN,BBC we have ourselves read the e-mails and inspected the notes in the code. My understanding is that the CRU headed by Dr Jones supplied the data in their possession to the United Nations IPCC to support the UN goal of implementing Cap and Trade legislation on the whole world in order to combat a man made contribution to the destruction of the world. A “if we do not act quickly there is no hope scenario” much like the financial bailouts No Time to Think Trust Us This is TOO BIG TO FAIL! Trust is what the e-mails from the CRU speak to and manifest. How can I trust the data used to create the theory that Global Warming was man made and not influenced more by an object 93 million miles away that constitutes 99% of the mass of the solar system and in which we live, in its “atmospheric influence”, recognizing that it only takes 8 min for the warm to reach us. All we ever asked for was Show Us the Math!, well we have seen the math and we have seen collusion, and we have seen stifling of criticism or inspection, and we have seen the trick of adding real temps where your code fails so that anyone else that has records from 1961 on cannot refute your algorithm, and we have seen willful and criminal misuse of US taxpayers money (Roger’s missed trip and all the stuff you did not buy that US hardworking and suffering taxpayers paid for through the NOAA), and we have seen the deliberate destruction of evidence in the face of Freedom of Information Act requests. I am more concerned about what we have not seen. I have not seen or heard a peep from Al Gore. I still see the President of the United States prepared to agree to putting a greater burden on the US taxpayer in the now unfounded belief that somehow man was responsible for this last period of warming that certainly ended more than 10YEARS AGO! Hide the decline my great-mother! I as a law abiding tax paying citizen of the United States Demand a Federal Investigation of this matter Climategate! - Bondservant1958 Thu, 26 Nov 2009 19:05:51 +0100 http://www.rightsidenews.com/200911277498/energy-and-environment/climate-smokescreen-at-the-new-york-times.html#comment-4623 Amazing! The data are in the faces of Man-Made Climate Change supporters and they still refuse to acknowledge the evidence. These same scientists threatened my job with the US Geological Survey when trying to publish a study showing with higher confidence that global temperature changes were natural and caused solely by Earth's physical processes. Additionally, these same scientists would not discuss or refute the science and facts presented. Instead, they took two days to personally insult and attack me. I always knew that when man-made global climate change was shown as insignificant that people would lose faith, note the word "FAITH", in science. But this event and exposure is by far worse for the science community; but "Truth is the daughter of Time (Francis Bacon)". Several USGS scientists got fired for the same thing when discussing data manipulation for models developed for the Nevada Nuclear Test Site. But no outcry and defense for those scientists? IF you see no problem with this and not wondering if the public has been misled by these scientists, then you are not scientists, you're in denial, and you stand for no moral principles. On 25 November 2009 at 12:15 PM, I tried to post comments on RealClimate.org concerning this matter. That website refused the posts because they know me; another attempt to silence objective parties and since they were the ones that threatened my job..... Now, Al Gore PUBLICLY states Mantle temperatures are MILLIONS of DEGREES. The man doesn't have the morality, decency, and/or courage to publicly admit he was WRONG. SO WHY SHOULD these scientists admit they are wrong? They can't, because if they do, the gig is up. - ehmoran Thu, 26 Nov 2009 18:33:48 +0100