Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (17535)	11/20/2007 7:07:20 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36921

It was about ice melting and historical temperatures not costs of policies to limit CO2 emissions. Really?? If the author had made a similarly stupid analysis of Social Security by looking at past population/immigration trends, and income/expenses, what would you think of him? The idea that it poses some additional level of risk to people who are frequently around smokers isn't junk science, even if it isn't as well qualified as people who push the idea hard might claim. OTOH those who claim that any level of exposure however mild or short term is a serious health risk are indeed promoting junk science. Try pointing that out to LindyBill, or any other fan of Milloy's. Nobody is claiming that ANY level of exposure however mild or short is a SERIOUS health risk. Where the hell do you come up with such nonsense. I asked a reasonable question, whether it is junk science to claim that kids raised for 18 years in an environment with a couple packs of cigs smoked per day (i.e. one per parent) inside the house are at risk for significant health problems. Yes or no?