Why do people deny science?

[Bfgrn]

Who I may or may not be hired by is irrelevant to WHO's and EPA's fraudulence.

You really suck at this, Gomer.

Hey Jethro, it is time to step up to the plate. I hear all these accusations with ZERO documentation, links, articles or proof.

 

[Oddball]

I posted the documentation and links....You refuse to accept the truth.

Your problem.

 

[Bfgrn]

I posted the documentation and links....You refuse to accept the truth.

Your problem.

Post #?

 

[flacaltenn]

I posted the documentation and links....You refuse to accept the truth.

Your problem.

Post #?

Here comes the IRS audit OddBall.. Assume the position... Links and Post #s... Next he's gonna want your reading list and library card..

 

[Bfgrn]

I posted the documentation and links....You refuse to accept the truth.

Your problem.

Post #?

Here comes the IRS audit OddBall.. Assume the position... Links and Post #s... Next he's gonna want your reading list and library card..

Oddball is not one to post anything but emotes in ebonics. I don't recall seeing any documentation, links or proof of his accusations.

Hey, maybe Oddball has some anecdotal evidence from years ago that is unsubstantiated like you?

 

[Oddball]

I posted the documentation and links....You refuse to accept the truth.

Your problem.

Post #?

180

You attacked the source, not the facts uncovered by that source.

Fact remains that the WHO and EPA "studies" were smoked out as straight-up frauds years and years ago.....But nanny state agenda driven hacks like you don't give a ****....Once the lie gets published, it's instantly accepted as gospel.

There's a reason I use the term "Goebbels warming".

 

[flacaltenn]

Hey BFGrn::

The Second-Hand Smoke Charade | Cato Institute

Can we just call all that junk science and be done with it??

Judge Osteen determined that the EPA had “cherry picked” its data and had grossly manipulated “scientific procedure and scientific norms” in order to rationalize the agency’s own preconceived conclusion that passive smoking caused 3,000 lung cancer deaths a year. In addition, Osteen ruled that the EPA had violated the Radon Act, which was the agency’s authority for disseminating its “de facto regulatory scheme” that intended to prohibit passive smoking. The agency responded, embarrassingly, with an ad hominem attack on the judge, not on the cold logic of his arguments. [[Does that sound familiar to anyone on USMB??? ]]

.......... In fact, the EPA did not even evaluate the studies on smoking in public places. Instead, the EPA’s analysis was based on 11 U.S. studies that examined the risks of contracting lung cancer to nonsmoking spouses married to smokers, a different matter altogether. Yet none of the studies in the original sample reported a strong relative cancer risk associated with ETS.

Still, the EPA was determined to prove that ETS was a serious carcinogen that justified stringent regulation. To do that, it simply set aside 19 of the original constellation of 30 ETS studies and then, defying all scientific standards, simply changed the “confidence levels” in the statistical analysis from 95 percent to 90 percent. When the highly manipulated smaller sample finally “confessed” that passive smoking was a health risk, the EPA proudly announced it had “proven” its preconceived conclusions.

And the sordid tale gets worse. The EPA chose to omit entirely from its analysis two recent U.S. ETS studies that had determined that passive smoking was NOT a statistically significant health risk. Worse for the EPA, including those studies with the “cherry-picked” 11 produces a result that shows no statistically significant health risks associated with passive smoking, even at reduced confidence levels. In short, even employing the EPA’s own corrupt methodology, ETS was simply not a “Group A Carcinogen,” as the agency had boldly asserted.

Holy Cow Batman --- we've got a SCIENCE DENIAL problem here.. B4 you object. I ADORE CATO, I TRUST CATO, and I donate reguarly to CATO.. Don't like?? Tough shit. It still happened. Go find it elsewhere..

 

[Bfgrn]

I posted the documentation and links....You refuse to accept the truth.

Your problem.

Post #?

180

You attacked the source, not the facts uncovered by that source.

Fact remains that the WHO and EPA "studies" were smoked out as straight-up frauds years and years ago.....But nanny state agenda driven hacks like you don't give a ****....Once the lie gets published, it's instantly accepted as gospel.

There's a reason I use the term "Goebbels warming".

You link says passive smoke is a non-danger. Is that your belief Jethro?

 

[Oddball]

Hey BFGrn::

The Second-Hand Smoke Charade | Cato Institute

Can we just call all that junk science and be done with it??

Judge Osteen determined that the EPA had “cherry picked” its data and had grossly manipulated “scientific procedure and scientific norms” in order to rationalize the agency’s own preconceived conclusion that passive smoking caused 3,000 lung cancer deaths a year. In addition, Osteen ruled that the EPA had violated the Radon Act, which was the agency’s authority for disseminating its “de facto regulatory scheme” that intended to prohibit passive smoking. The agency responded, embarrassingly, with an ad hominem attack on the judge, not on the cold logic of his arguments. [[Does that sound familiar to anyone on USMB??? ]]

.......... In fact, the EPA did not even evaluate the studies on smoking in public places. Instead, the EPA’s analysis was based on 11 U.S. studies that examined the risks of contracting lung cancer to nonsmoking spouses married to smokers, a different matter altogether. Yet none of the studies in the original sample reported a strong relative cancer risk associated with ETS.

Still, the EPA was determined to prove that ETS was a serious carcinogen that justified stringent regulation. To do that, it simply set aside 19 of the original constellation of 30 ETS studies and then, defying all scientific standards, simply changed the “confidence levels” in the statistical analysis from 95 percent to 90 percent. When the highly manipulated smaller sample finally “confessed” that passive smoking was a health risk, the EPA proudly announced it had “proven” its preconceived conclusions.

And the sordid tale gets worse. The EPA chose to omit entirely from its analysis two recent U.S. ETS studies that had determined that passive smoking was NOT a statistically significant health risk. Worse for the EPA, including those studies with the “cherry-picked” 11 produces a result that shows no statistically significant health risks associated with passive smoking, even at reduced confidence levels. In short, even employing the EPA’s own corrupt methodology, ETS was simply not a “Group A Carcinogen,” as the agency had boldly asserted.

Holy Cow Batman --- we've got a SCIENCE DENIAL problem here.. B4 you object. I ADORE CATO, I TRUST CATO, and I donate reguarly to CATO.. Don't like?? Tough shit. It still happened. Go find it elsewhere..

CATO is just a lemonade stand storefront for Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and the shadow gubmint operating in the basement of the Wal-Mart in Annandale, Virginia!

 

[Oddball]

Post #?

180

You attacked the source, not the facts uncovered by that source.

Fact remains that the WHO and EPA "studies" were smoked out as straight-up frauds years and years ago.....But nanny state agenda driven hacks like you don't give a ****....Once the lie gets published, it's instantly accepted as gospel.

There's a reason I use the term "Goebbels warming".

You link says passive smoke is a non-danger. Is that your belief Jethro?

My belief is irrelevant....Bring facts, chump.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Why do people deny science?
Because science no longer deals with the data and theory. It has a political agenda that it must push, without pushing their agenda they may lose their government funding.

 

[Bfgrn]

Hey BFGrn::

The Second-Hand Smoke Charade | Cato Institute

Can we just call all that junk science and be done with it??

Judge Osteen determined that the EPA had “cherry picked” its data and had grossly manipulated “scientific procedure and scientific norms” in order to rationalize the agency’s own preconceived conclusion that passive smoking caused 3,000 lung cancer deaths a year. In addition, Osteen ruled that the EPA had violated the Radon Act, which was the agency’s authority for disseminating its “de facto regulatory scheme” that intended to prohibit passive smoking. The agency responded, embarrassingly, with an ad hominem attack on the judge, not on the cold logic of his arguments. [[Does that sound familiar to anyone on USMB??? ]]

.......... In fact, the EPA did not even evaluate the studies on smoking in public places. Instead, the EPA’s analysis was based on 11 U.S. studies that examined the risks of contracting lung cancer to nonsmoking spouses married to smokers, a different matter altogether. Yet none of the studies in the original sample reported a strong relative cancer risk associated with ETS.

Still, the EPA was determined to prove that ETS was a serious carcinogen that justified stringent regulation. To do that, it simply set aside 19 of the original constellation of 30 ETS studies and then, defying all scientific standards, simply changed the “confidence levels” in the statistical analysis from 95 percent to 90 percent. When the highly manipulated smaller sample finally “confessed” that passive smoking was a health risk, the EPA proudly announced it had “proven” its preconceived conclusions.

And the sordid tale gets worse. The EPA chose to omit entirely from its analysis two recent U.S. ETS studies that had determined that passive smoking was NOT a statistically significant health risk. Worse for the EPA, including those studies with the “cherry-picked” 11 produces a result that shows no statistically significant health risks associated with passive smoking, even at reduced confidence levels. In short, even employing the EPA’s own corrupt methodology, ETS was simply not a “Group A Carcinogen,” as the agency had boldly asserted.

Holy Cow Batman --- we've got a SCIENCE DENIAL problem here.. B4 you object. I ADORE CATO, I TRUST CATO, and I donate reguarly to CATO.. Don't like?? Tough shit. It still happened. Go find it elsewhere..

So, is it your belief that passive smoke is a non-danger?

 

[Oddball]

So, is it your belief that passive smoke is a non-danger?

Belief isn't science.....The one operating on belief is you, Gomer.

 

[Bfgrn]

180

You attacked the source, not the facts uncovered by that source.

Fact remains that the WHO and EPA "studies" were smoked out as straight-up frauds years and years ago.....But nanny state agenda driven hacks like you don't give a ****....Once the lie gets published, it's instantly accepted as gospel.

There's a reason I use the term "Goebbels warming".

You link says passive smoke is a non-danger. Is that your belief Jethro?

My belief is irrelevant....Bring facts, chump.

You are a yellow bellied coward. You squealed that I attacked your source. Well, your source SAYS:

This list should put an end to the diatribe on passive smoke since it conclusively demonstrates, step by step and in extremely simple language accessible, to all the incredible misrepresentation of evidence used to transform a non-danger into an "epidemic" and into a collective hysteria phenomenon.

Do you stand by YOUR source, or should we disregard your source?

 

[Bfgrn]

So, is it your belief that passive smoke is a non-danger?

Belief isn't science.....The one operating on belief is you, Gomer.

Then your source isn't science. Because your source believes that passive smoke is a non-danger.

 

[Oddball]

You link says passive smoke is a non-danger. Is that your belief Jethro?

My belief is irrelevant....Bring facts, chump.

You are a yellow bellied coward. You squealed that I attacked your source. Well, your source SAYS:

This list should put an end to the diatribe on passive smoke since it conclusively demonstrates, step by step and in extremely simple language accessible, to all the incredible misrepresentation of evidence used to transform a non-danger into an "epidemic" and into a collective hysteria phenomenon.

Do you stand by YOUR source, or should we disregard your source?

Disprove the source, hysterical dickweed.

 

[flacaltenn]

Hey BFGrn::

The Second-Hand Smoke Charade | Cato Institute

Can we just call all that junk science and be done with it??

Judge Osteen determined that the EPA had “cherry picked” its data and had grossly manipulated “scientific procedure and scientific norms” in order to rationalize the agency’s own preconceived conclusion that passive smoking caused 3,000 lung cancer deaths a year. In addition, Osteen ruled that the EPA had violated the Radon Act, which was the agency’s authority for disseminating its “de facto regulatory scheme” that intended to prohibit passive smoking. The agency responded, embarrassingly, with an ad hominem attack on the judge, not on the cold logic of his arguments. [[Does that sound familiar to anyone on USMB??? ]]

.......... In fact, the EPA did not even evaluate the studies on smoking in public places. Instead, the EPA’s analysis was based on 11 U.S. studies that examined the risks of contracting lung cancer to nonsmoking spouses married to smokers, a different matter altogether. Yet none of the studies in the original sample reported a strong relative cancer risk associated with ETS.

Still, the EPA was determined to prove that ETS was a serious carcinogen that justified stringent regulation. To do that, it simply set aside 19 of the original constellation of 30 ETS studies and then, defying all scientific standards, simply changed the “confidence levels” in the statistical analysis from 95 percent to 90 percent. When the highly manipulated smaller sample finally “confessed” that passive smoking was a health risk, the EPA proudly announced it had “proven” its preconceived conclusions.

And the sordid tale gets worse. The EPA chose to omit entirely from its analysis two recent U.S. ETS studies that had determined that passive smoking was NOT a statistically significant health risk. Worse for the EPA, including those studies with the “cherry-picked” 11 produces a result that shows no statistically significant health risks associated with passive smoking, even at reduced confidence levels. In short, even employing the EPA’s own corrupt methodology, ETS was simply not a “Group A Carcinogen,” as the agency had boldly asserted.

Holy Cow Batman --- we've got a SCIENCE DENIAL problem here.. B4 you object. I ADORE CATO, I TRUST CATO, and I donate reguarly to CATO.. Don't like?? Tough shit. It still happened. Go find it elsewhere..

So, is it your belief that passive smoke is a non-danger?

I'm glad you asked.. I go on the SCIENCE that I've read.. For instance,, I remember a study from one of the National Labs that ACTUALLY measured workplace SHSmoke to be equivalent to six cigarettes a YEAR. Not the 0.3 cigs per DAY that the EPA pulled out of it's ass. I don't believe, as public health hazards go, that THAT rises to a catastrophe by any measure.. Just doesn't fly when it takes 40 someodd unfiltered Camels a day for 20+ years to trigger a disease.

The RIDICULOUS proclamations like "ANY AMOUNT OF EXPOSURE to SHS is harmful" (which you repeated above) and the real winner --- "SHSmoke is MORE dangerous to bystanders than it is to smokers" are really not funny. THey pervert science. And I HATE perverted science and reason.

So what I believe is that science was perverted to promote over-hyped hysteria in order to lock-down the manuevering room for those who choose to smoke.. I CERTAINLY would abhor the thought of prosecuting parents for smoking in the presence of their children, or denying the ability of airports to provide filtered ventilated accomodations.

THe real alarm bells went off for me when I actually read that study years ago (the one with the 2 smoker family with the kid living there for 24 years). It was the clearest perversion of science that I had ever witnessed and it struck me deeply as a scientist and engineer. And I discovered that although the game was to claim SHS as a carcinogen and toxic YET -- none of the studies did any rigorous titration studies on DOSE or EXPOSURE. There is no other toxin or carcinogen treated in this distorted manner.

Horse shit? Not quite. But its' clearly a DENIAL OF SCIENCE in order to forward a public policy agenda... With a moderate dose of just pure wicked dickering with the facts.

 

[Oddball]

I'm glad you asked.. I go on the SCIENCE that I've read.. For instance,, I remember a study from one of the National Labs that ACTUALLY measured workplace SHSmoke to be equivalent to six cigarettes a YEAR. Not the 0.3 cigs per DAY that the EPA pulled out of it's ass. I don't believe, as public health hazards go, that THAT rises to a catastrophe by any measure.. Just doesn't fly when it takes 40 someodd unfiltered Camels a day for 20+ years to trigger a disease.

The RIDICULOUS proclamations like "ANY AMOUNT OF EXPOSURE to SHS is harmful" (which you repeated above) and the real winner --- "SHSmoke is MORE dangerous to bystanders than it is to smokers" are really not funny. THey pervert science. And I HATE perverted science and reason.

So what I believe is that science was perverted to promote over-hyped hysteria in order to lock-down the manuevering room for those who choose to smoke.. I CERTAINLY would abhor the thought of prosecuting parents for smoking in the presence of their children, or denying the ability of airports to provide filtered ventilated accomodations.

THe real alarm bells went off for me when I actually read that study years ago (the one with the 2 smoker family with the kid living there for 24 years). It was the clearest perversion of science that I had ever witnessed and it struck me deeply as a scientist and engineer. And I discovered that although the game was to claim SHS as a carcinogen and toxic YET -- none of the studies did any rigorous titration studies on DOSE or EXPOSURE. There is no other toxin or carcinogen treated in this distorted manner.

Horse shit? Not quite. But its' clearly a DENIAL OF SCIENCE in order to forward a public policy agenda... With a moderate dose of just pure wicked dickering with the facts.

Yeahbbit....yeahbbit....yeahbbit...yeahbbit.......Where are your computer models?!?!?

 

[Bfgrn]

Hey BFGrn::

The Second-Hand Smoke Charade | Cato Institute

Can we just call all that junk science and be done with it??



Holy Cow Batman --- we've got a SCIENCE DENIAL problem here.. B4 you object. I ADORE CATO, I TRUST CATO, and I donate reguarly to CATO.. Don't like?? Tough shit. It still happened. Go find it elsewhere..

So, is it your belief that passive smoke is a non-danger?

I'm glad you asked.. I go on the SCIENCE that I've read.. For instance,, I remember a study from one of the National Labs that ACTUALLY measured workplace SHSmoke to be equivalent to six cigarettes a YEAR. Not the 0.3 cigs per DAY that the EPA pulled out of it's ass. I don't believe, as public health hazards go, that THAT rises to a catastrophe by any measure.. Just doesn't fly when it takes 40 someodd unfiltered Camels a day for 20+ years to trigger a disease.

The RIDICULOUS proclamations like "ANY AMOUNT OF EXPOSURE to SHS is harmful" (which you repeated above) and the real winner --- "SHSmoke is MORE dangerous to bystanders than it is to smokers" are really not funny. THey pervert science. And I HATE perverted science and reason.

So what I believe is that science was perverted to promote over-hyped hysteria in order to lock-down the manuevering room for those who choose to smoke.. I CERTAINLY would abhor the thought of prosecuting parents for smoking in the presence of their children, or denying the ability of airports to provide filtered ventilated accomodations.

THe real alarm bells went off for me when I actually read that study years ago (the one with the 2 smoker family with the kid living there for 24 years). It was the clearest perversion of science that I had ever witnessed and it struck me deeply as a scientist and engineer. And I discovered that although the game was to claim SHS as a carcinogen and toxic YET -- none of the studies did any rigorous titration studies on DOSE or EXPOSURE. There is no other toxin or carcinogen treated in this distorted manner.

Horse shit? Not quite. But its' clearly a DENIAL OF SCIENCE in order to forward a public policy agenda... With a moderate dose of just pure wicked dickering with the facts.

Does your beloved CATO Institute mention all the malfeasance of the tobacco industry? Do they mention all the documents gathered through litigation? The tobacco industry knew way back in the 1950's they were marketing and selling death. But they grossly manipulated or withheld information and data. They used obfuscation and hired pseudo-scientists to deceive the public. Or is that just capitalists being 'creative' entrepreneurs?

 

[Bfgrn]

My belief is irrelevant....Bring facts, chump.

You are a yellow bellied coward. You squealed that I attacked your source. Well, your source SAYS:

This list should put an end to the diatribe on passive smoke since it conclusively demonstrates, step by step and in extremely simple language accessible, to all the incredible misrepresentation of evidence used to transform a non-danger into an "epidemic" and into a collective hysteria phenomenon.

Do you stand by YOUR source, or should we disregard your source?

Disprove the source, hysterical dickweed.

I already did Jethro. Your 'scientific' source is founded on BELIEFS and doctrinaire.

WHO WE ARE

FORCES International is an organisation in support of human rights and - in particular, but not limited to - the defence of those who expect from life the freedom to smoke, eat, drink and, in general, to enjoy personal lifestyle choices without restrictions and state interference.

Philosophy and message

The message of FORCES is based on the values of liberty for every individual in his personal choices. In this, FORCES is aligned with those who fight the antismoking movement, which is essentially false and oppressive.

To FORCES belong those who consider what follows unacceptable:

public and private health - instead of general and individual liberty of choice, behaviour and enterprise - is the paramount value of society, to which any and all other values must submit.

The ideological equation of health with liberty.


What your 'scientific ' source is saying in plain English.

My right to smoke is more important than human life. If some kid dies because of my right to smoke anywhere I want, too ******* bad.