Originally Posted by
N2264J
I've seen all this before.
In the 50s and 60s, big tobacco spent billions of dollars to discredit the peer reviewed science linking cigarette smoking and lung cancer.
Serious question: Do you believe there's a link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer? I'm not being frivolous here. I think this goes to the very core of one's willingness to think this through.
The stakes are monumentally higher now.
I have seen this all before, and I love it when you talk about cigarettes.
Governments around the world started to use the health risk as an ideal excuse to generate huge amounts of revenue. In many places they made ten times what cigarette producers made on the product. Partners in crime?
Did it solve the problem? Not at all, but they got rich on the habits of others in the war on some drugs.
A lovely chapter in the melding of science and government.
Just as carbon taxes will not cure the problem, but they will make a lot of people richer and generate huge amounts of government revenue on the backs of honest citizens.
Next up- carbon, fat people, risky people, etc. It is a game played for revenue and wealth. The problems never get solved.
In many cases there is no real problem at all, just a chance to make money.
Still not a single example of an accurate forecast, a single reasonable solution or a single accurate cause and effect relationship in the climate game? I wonder why?