lung cancer years ago lung cancer today therefore you have the burden to show that people lung cancer is caused by tobacco.... response... here are the studies and science showing the links. vs... we have been warming since the last ice age. we have been cycling for millions of years between warming (to this level) and cooling. co2 has always trailed warming and cooling in the oceans. temps have gone up recently a relatively small amount. therefore you have have the burden of showing man man co2 is causing warming. response... just take our word for it.
Cigarette giant to deny cancer link Imperial uses unprecedented defence to fight claim by smoker's widow Jamie Doward, social affairs editor The Observer, Sunday 5 October 2003 "A giant British tobacco company is to take the unprecedented step this week of denying there is a proven causal link between smoking and lung cancer in the first case against a cigarette firm to go to a UK court. "The unique defence, to be heard in Scotland's Court of Session, challenges decades of scientific proof of such a link, which was accepted by the Government in 1957. "Imperial Tobacco is being sued for £500,000 by Margaret McTear whose husband Alf, a 60-a-day smoker, from Beith near Glasgow, died of lung cancer in 1993. The case, which starts on Tuesday, will be scrutinised across Europe by lawyers who want to bring similar actions against tobacco firms. "Margaret McTear's lawyers will call scientist Sir Richard Doll, 91, as an expert witness. It was Doll whose work in the Fifties is credited with establishing the link. "Yet Imperial says in documents filed into court and seen by The Observer: 'Cigarette smoking has not been scientifically established as a cause of lung cancer. The cause or causes of lung cancer are unknown.' "The company will argue that studies, such as those carried out by Doll, 'report a statistical association between cigarette smoking', not complete proof. The studies 'also report cancer to be statistically associated with many other factors. These include race, ethnicity, religion, sex, personality, low socio-economic status, occupation, diet, stress, education... It is not known which, if any, of these plays a role in the causation of lung cancer'." Continue >>
what a joke... but we know the reason for this tangent. one of professors once said. when you have the law on your side argue the law when you have the facts on your side argue the facts when you have neither... bang the table and make a lot of noise.
I guess the 97% of climate scientists never thought of that. Brilliant. By that I mean fucking stupid. I still want to know what about the term "greenhouse gas" you do not understand. Did you EVER understand what it means? I don't think righties can grasp the concept for some reason.
Or the science that "shows" , remember it has to be one single paper incorporating the entire knowledge base, evolution. Oh that's right, bad example, the righties are so ignorant they don't believe that either.
Hey how's it going? Do you know what a greenhouse gas and how it works? If not read this.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
baloney.. a feeble dishonest excuse... lets start with any papers showing man made co2 causes warming... that don't reference now failed models... the term greenhouse gas is not dispositive of this issue in any way. why do you keep asking that chicken brained question. greenhouse gases warm and cool... just because co2 is a greenhouse gas does not mean man made co2 warms the earth. I have showed you water vapor also cools and co2 also cools.
Like I thought. You don't have slightest clue what a greenhouse gas is or how it works. Like I said. Righties are incapable of comprehending the term.
Like I said a hypocritical leftist big govt loving troll who sells greenhouse gases for a living. Who did not even realize the gas he sells is 2000 times more powerful than co2. Who also can't produce any science showing man made co2 causes warming.