While I was penning my little scribble yesterday, a thought crossed my mind.
There are a lot of similarities between the Global Warming scare and the Tobacco scare.
For a start, both rely on fabricated science. By fabricated, I mean science that does not come directly from experimentation but rather on mathematical computer models and on people’s opinions via questionnaires.
The Global Warming “experts” rely on computer simulations which in turn are based on a variety of sources such as tree rings, ice-cores and actual measurements which have only been accurate in the last couple of decades, and even then a lot of the latter are false as the readings tend to be skewed by readings that are taken in cities or other hotspots.
The Tobacco “experts” have even less to go on. All they can rely on is questionnaires which by their nature tend to be inaccurate – which of us hasn’t given an honest answer but the answer we know they want? To compound matters, the Anti-Tobacco movement then relies on combining these questionnaires into a report where they have neatly cherry-picked the data, ignoring the papers that don’t support their theories and combining the ones that do.
This method of cherry-picking data is common to both camps. The Global Warmists conveniently overlook such minor details as the Medieval Warm Period or the fact that both temperatures and CO2 levels have vastly exceeded current levels in the past, while the Tobacco mom completely ignore two of the biggest studies in the history of smoking – the WHO Report and the BMJ Report.
In both cases, any study to be undertaken in either field is guaranteed large funding [provided the outcome is the one expected]. In both cases though, there are billions to be made by the people funding “research”. In both cases, governments can glean rich rewards as they have the perfect excuse for high taxation. In both cases, billions can be made in profits by the likes of wind-farm and “eco-friendly” companies on the back of the Global Warming scare and by the Pharmaceutical Industry on the back of the tobacco scare.
Turning myth to fact
Both cases rely heavily on “science by press release”. This simply involves publishing so called facts to the press, and the more sensational the better, in order to scare people into their way of thinking. How many times have we heard that coastal cities are soon to be swamped under rising sea levels? How many times have we been told that the merest whiff of tobacco smoke can cause cancer [particularly in children]?
The Sheeple tend not to read beyond snappy headlines and the more outrageous the headline the better. They rarely if ever question those headlines as “if it’s in the paper, it must be true”.
As the master of propaganda, Goebbels said
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Meet the Sheeple.
It did cross my mind that it would only be a matter of time before people started claiming that smoking causes global warming.
It turns out they already have.
You can deny science all you want. It's still true.
You can claim it's true all you want but it still isn't science.
And more madness:
CO2 seems to have become the great mantra of the GW Church all right. They ignore the simple facts that wind farms and electric cars probably produce more CO2 in the long run. They all seem to want us to live in mud huts lit by a pile of smouldering camel dung. Ooops, no. Can't smolder camel dung – that might produce CO2?
Yep GD, facts don't really need your approval to remain being facts. Global warning is a fact. As for the smoking thing, I guess you relate to second hand smoke? Or do you actually claim that smoking cigarettes is harmless for the smoker?
What facts need is proper science to back them up. The Warming crowd have singularly failed to predict anything accurately and it is a known fact that their computer models have been "tweaked" to produce the results that fit their theories.
As an example, Einstein predicted that gravity bends light – a theory that was mocked in some quarters. Since then measurements have proved that not only was Einstein right, but his formulae were spot on. In other words, experimentation proved the theory. That is science.
The same goes for smoking. While the jury is out on the direct effects of smoking, I should point out that no one has ever been able to induce cancer in animals under laboratory conditions, no matter how hard they try. The whole theory of smoking causing cancer is still based entirely on questionnaires made under highly suspect conditions. With regard to "second hand" smoke, again all the figures quoted are cherry picked from epidemiological studies while ignoring the two biggest studies ever undertaken which both showed no conclusive link between tobacco smoke and ill health.
That was a terrible example. You can't be seriously comparing climatology, which is an observation, to a physical theory.
GD, I like your writing a lot. But there are few topics where you really make me angry – climate change is one of them. You keep repeating the same mantra for years, completely oblivious to the facts. Climate change is an established fact. Nothing will change that, no matter how many times you wil close your eyes and repeat otherwise.
I read about this topic for years. Unfortunately I do that with Polish web community (for example: http://doskonaleszare.blox.pl/html on the right – links to tons of data), so I can't really provide a single link to something in english that would explain why we can say that climate chage is a fact. But I'm also bored – believe me, at this point denying climate change is equivalent to denying evolution. Yep. There are a lot of creationists out there and I'm sorry to say, you sound just like them in those posts.
VENEVIDI is spot on. You make my blood boil too. On certain issues you really are embarrasingly foolish.
Just because you believe in the GW scam does not make you right. Nor does it automatically make other people who are not so easily conned wrong. There are currently more than 30,000 scientists who have signed the petition to get the US government to reject all GW propaganda.
The science is settled. Yeah, right. Wankers.
I don't know the exact percentage but 90-95% of climatologists will tell you that climate change (the result of global warming for you asswipes to stupid to understand the difference) is real and is man made.The others are paid off by the fossil fuel corporations. So quit being such a dumb twat and get on board.
Surely you can do better than that, tt? That is the classic Straw Man argument – in the pay of Big Oil if you disagree with the Climate thing or Big Tobacco if you refute the second hand smoke scam.
90-95% of climatologists ARE asswipes who base all their stupid predictions on flawed computer models and have brought the credibility of Science and scientists generally into disrepute. The UK met office used to do real forecasting 25 years ago and were accurate to a much greater degree than now… The difference being that they jumped on the GW bandwagon, use the same flawed models and now find it difficult to predict tomorrow's weather, so why would anybody believe what they say may happen in even one year's time?
Real scientists use real data which shows that many times in the planet's history both temperatures and CO2 have been much higher than present… Did we cause that as well?
Take your GW religion and shove it up your arse…. It's not science.
That is why they now use Climate Change instead of Global Warming. They want it both ways, but all the proposed solutions are for Global Warming.
I always like to read "fire and ice" article specially the "Climate Change: Unpredictable Results". (page 12)
And for those who want to check both side of the debate.
Quite right. In fact I'd go further and say that the anti-smoking template is the model for the CO2 con.
The template goes like this:
Never debate scientific matters with opponents.
Claim that the science is settled.
Use ad-hominem attacks on opponents. Claim they are in the pay of Big Tobacco', 'Big Oil' etc.
Claim that you're saving thousands of lives.
Claim that it is 'for the children'.
Infiltrate and take over scientific/medical journals and societies. Then silence the mainstream media.
Oh yes, and you on the other hand provide tons of facts which allow you call something, asamatteroffactedly, a con.
I tend to call it the CO2 con. But others are (arguably) more polite. There's no point in my trying to post 'facts' here. The internet is your friend in this regard. However I'll suggest a good starting point is 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' documentary:
"Never debate scientific matters with opponents." NO! Never debate scientific matters with scientists unless you happen to be one. Otherwise shut the fuck up.
Are scientists above debating with mere mortals? Or are you suggesting that scientists should only debate with people who agree with them?
If you ever need an operation. Something taken out? Feel free to have a debate with the surgeon. Tell him his diagnosis is wrong.
Damn sure I would if his entire knowledge was based on flaky computer projections.
I have done this twice, about 20 years ago when I was wrongly suspected to have breast cancer and felt it was wrong, a second opinion proved me right. More recently for an operation for Glaucoma which again I felt was wrong and it was, another second opinion and I had a cataract now sorted. So not taking a surgeon's word as gospel isn't a bad idea.
Of course there is climate change, the climate has always changed, ice ages, warm periods etc.
The theory that it is all caused by man is purely a bandwagon jumped on by government which sees another opportunity to raise taxes in the name of 'saving the planet'.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken
A very elegant and practical solution to "Global Warming".
A fun little stand up piece.
George Carlin on Global Warming
Mt response to any 'expert' now is why are you lying and who is paying you?
This scam is all part of the agenda.
The Club of Rome was an influential think tank, advocating among other things worldwide population reduction and global environmental governance. In a Report by the Council of The Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution, it is written…
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution,the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
Get it?? The Controllers say we caused it, it's promoted from the top down, and they will not deviate from this stance because it is another great method of control and de-population…through carbon tax, limited energy and food, etc
And useful idiots serve the system well.