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.

 

And in the 70s all the kooks and the MSM were sweating (pun intended) global cooling, dont you thick that is a better analogy?

BTW have you seen the latest Arctic Ice Data?

 

New data as requested .
Arctic Sea Ice about to hit ?normal? ? what will the news say?

 

Steven Goddard is tainted. He's been caught before (in 2008) cherry picking data to draw the wrong conclusion.


Kevin Grandia | Arctic Ice melt media misinformation retracted

So tell us. Do you believe lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking?

 

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?

 

Bingo ! Point goes to Jungle.
BTW those smokers pay for a whole lot of programs that would not otherwise be paid for ,so the next time you see someone smoking say thank you to them .

On a side note ,my new avatar is supposed to be animated is there some reason as to why it is not working in here ?

 

People dying sooner meshes perfectly with the plans of those generating revenue on the agents of destruction. If you are running a monopoly on health care and retirement, what could possibly be better?

Science is a small time player in this game. Just enough to raise the fear is perfect for those selling the prevention of fear.


So tell us, if you can, how a carbon tax or cap and trade is going to fix the problem and to what degree? If I pay a man in China to be faithful to his wife, can I cheat? That is cap and trade. If I pay a man in China to be faithful to his wife while I cheat, that is a Carbon tax. The truth is ugly, isn't it? You still can't tell us what the net effect will be, but I can tell you. Zero, for us, big gains for the brokers and the governments seeking control.

The bottom line is that we could all do without the coercion and it would make almost no difference in our lives, except that we would be more free and wealthier. Perhaps Big Brother does know best? History shows us that is never the case. The best deal you will ever make will satisfy both parties in a completely voluntary trade. Anything else is a lie or exploitation.

 

One "Climategate" investigation is over. The rigor of peer reviewed science remains sound.

Climate Data Wasn?t Distorted, British Panel Finds - NYTimes.com

 

You don't have to dig very deep to find out why:





"There is a second inquiry into ClimateGate and Andrew Orlowski has discovered that the man in charge, Lord Oxburgh, is also a director of GLOBE, the Global Legislators Organisation for a Balanced Environment.


The peer leading the second Climategate enquiry at the University of East Anglia serves as a director of one of the most powerful environmental networks in the world, according to Companies House documents – and has failed to declare it.

James Delingpole and Bishop Hill have the wrap on the conflicts of interest and power plays in the second committee, and how the GLOBE company was set up to avoid FOI’s. It’s more brazen than you can imagine…It’s an organisation of legislators run as a private company, and funded by…wait for it…”International Organisations, Governments, Parliamentary Bodies and Industry, both financially and politically, with particular acknowledgement to United Nations, The Global Environment Facility, The World Bank, European Commission, the Governments of Canada and Great Britain, the Senate of Brazil and Globe Japan.”

In 2007, it had a budget of £850,000 and the 2007 accounts also refer to creating “a forum for legislators and business leaders to discuss the 2012 climate agreement, illegal logging and related issues”. What 2012 climate agreement?"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

What to make of it all? There has been no significant warming in the last 15 years according to the science. But of course, warming is always a threat. So is cooling.

 

That's incorrect.

What Phil Jones actually said was since 1995, the warming trend "is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level." Then he went on to say "I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed" and "there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity."

http://mediamatters.org/research/201002150015