AGW, Smoking, and Slavery.

I’m always interested when the global warming controversy gets linked with the smoking controversy. Here’s someone who’s comparing both of them with the abolition of slavery.

Addressing climate change requires a shift in cultural attitudes about greenhouse gas emissions on a scale similar to the rise of abolitionism in the 19th century, according to a new study.

The conversation over climate disruption, in other words, must morph from a collection of scientific or moral facts to a set of established social facts, said University of Michigan researcher Andy Hoffman, professor of sustainable enterprise at the Ross School of Business.

Hoffman’s analysis, published in the journal Organizational Dynamics, compares current cultural norms on climate science to historical societal views on smoking and slavery.

“At core, this is a cultural question,” Hoffman said via Skype from Oxford University, where he is on sabbatical. The change in attitudes about smoking in the 20th century is similar. “The issue was not just whether cigarettes cause cancer. It was whether people believed it. The second process is wholly different from the first.”

For years, Hoffman noted, researchers raised the alarm over data linking smoking to lung cancer, only to see the public ignore it. Gradually awareness shifted, and now the public widely accepts the fact that smoking and second-hand smoke causes cancer, with bans on public smoking increasing and smoking rates and deaths on decline.

“They have become ‘social facts,’ and with that shift, action becomes possible,” he said.

Abolition offers an even more telling example of the difficulties associated with changing deeply set economic structures.

In the 1700s slavery was a primary source of energy and wealth worldwide, especially for the British Empire. Abolitionism challenged that way of life and threatened to trigger economic collapse. It took more than 100 years, several uprisings and a civil war to change cultural norms and abolish slavery.

Just as few people saw a moral problem with slavery in the 18th century, Hoffman said, few in the 21st century see a moral problem with burning fossil fuels.

The shift in value requires a new cultural perspective, he added.

Is that all it’s about: changing cultural attitudes?

As I see it, the global warming controversy is primarily a matter of science, not cultural values. Either carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is causing catastrophuc global warming, or it isn’t. If it is, we’ll have to do something about it. If it isn’t, we don’t. I don’t see where cultural attitudes come into it. Or rather, cultural attitudes would seem to be lagging indicators rather than leading indicators. If catastrophic global warming is real, we will change our attitudes and outlook as we change our ways.

The same is true of smoking. Either smoking causes lung cancer, or it doesn’t. And either passive smoking causes a smaller amount of lung cancer, or it doesn’t. It’s a question for science to answer. Cultural attitudes don’t come into it. Or, cultural values will slowly shift in response to the established science.

Unfortunately, in both cases, we no longer have anything that can be called an impartial and objective science. Tobacco research is entirely dominated by antismoking zealots, and their ‘scientific studies’ reflect their antismoking prejudices. And climate science is more or less entirely dominated by environmentalist zealots who use the science to further their particular ideology. In both areas, ideology drives science, rather than the other way round. Neither science can’t be trusted as being objective..

Part of the problem with the global warming debate is the strong suspicion that cause and effect may have been swapped. For the while the global warming alarmists say that it is the rise in carbon dioxide levels which causes global warming, the climate sceptics point out that historical records from ice cores suggest that it’s the other way round, and global warming causes an increase in carbon dioxide levels, as the warming oceans outgas dissolved CO2.

The same substitution of cause for effect may even be true in the smoking controversy. It may be that, far from smoking causing lung cancer, smoking actually acts to prevent lung cancer (as Sir Ronald Fisher argued using the data from the 1950 London Hospitals study, and which a variety of subsequent researchers have also suggested).

And is the abolition of slavery comparable to either of these? The way it’s talked about and written about, you’d think that slavery was abolished because a lot of kind-hearted people suddenly recognised, as nobody before them in the entirety of human history, that the institution of slavery was a social evil. There was, in short, a shift in values or cultural values, and then a change in behaviour.

But I suspect that it wasn’t like that at all. The abolition of slavery coincided with the appearance of large numbers of steam and water power machines. The machines were the new iron slaves, that were increasingly replacing the old human slaves in performing hard labour, because it was economically more efficient to do so. The shift in moral values, by which slavery became abhorrent, was simply economic virtue dressing itself in the clothes of moral virtue. As steam engines and railways began marching across Britain, it no longer made economic sense to employ labourers to perform most heavy work, and what was economic sense rapidly became moral sense as well.

Much the same would appear to have been true in the USA on the eve of the American Civil War. It was the North which had become newly industrialised, while the South remained a traditional agricultural society. In the North, slavery had become economically unnecessary, and had therefore come to be seen as a social evil. In the South, slavery remained economically necessary, and was therefore seen as morally blameless.

In fact, the really great emancipation which took place at the same time was the emancipation of horses and oxen, which were animal slaves, from the task of drawing ploughs and carts and carriages. Yet nobody claims that this happened because of a change in moral outlook towards animals that preceded their emancipation. Instead our modern, sentimental, touchy-feely, environmentalist attitude towards animals is one that has only become possible now that we no longer need animals to do the ‘donkey work’, and can see them as fluffy pets to be looked after. So we now have an Animal Liberation Front which has arrived 100 years after animals were liberated from slavery.

Cause and effect have been exchanged. It’s not that moral change spearheaded economic change, but that economic change permitted and encouraged a concomitant moral change: our contemporary smug and braying righteous can only be righteous because they can afford to be.

And it follows that, should our righteous environmentalists ever succeed in returning us to a pre-industrial era, reversing the economic developments of the past few centuries, the almost certain result would be the re-appearance of both human and animal slavery, followed rapidly by a parallel shift in social values to make slavery morally and socially acceptable once again. Which is probably not quite what they had in mind.

Underlying Hoffman’s idea of society is the mistaken belief that change happens when enough people want it to happen, and that it only took enough people to want to abolish slavery for it to be abolished. Thinking of this sort leads naturally to attempts at social engineering in order to change attitudes and norms. For it is believed that if people can just be ‘re-educated’, in schools and through mass media propaganda campaigns, real social change will follow. But if people’s beliefs and outlooks simply mirror the reality in which they find themselves, such re-education is bound to fail, because it will provide people with a set of values and expectations which is not in accord with that reality.

Looking at all these possible examples of cause being swapped with effect, I wonder whether it may be that all our modern political disputes, whether about smoking or AGW or slavery or anything else, are all too often more debates about the logic of cause and effect than anything else.

For example, was it the sexual permissiveness of the 1960s that caused the contraceptive pill to come into widespread use? Or was it the contraceptive pill that caused the sexual permissiveness, as sex ceased to be fraught with the danger of unwanted pregnancy? Did changing morality drive changes in social reality, or did changing social reality drive changes in morality?

About Frank Davis

smoker
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

61 Responses to AGW, Smoking, and Slavery.

  1. Anonymous says:

    From Junican.
    As regards slavery, I wonder to what extent we have been ‘conditioned’ in our understanding by those who had control over the ‘media’ in the 18th century. I wonder to what extent the Africans who permitted themselves to be transported to America were quite happy with the arrangement. We have all been lead to believe that, on every boat crossing the Atlantic, people were enchained and that many perished – but, does that make sense? It hardly seems rational that the ‘slave traders’ would wish that many of the people that they went to the trouble of transporting perished on the journey. Would it not be much more sensible to treat them well and feed them reasonably (if only to prevent ‘mutiny’)? The classic picture of slaves in chains cannot reasonably be true. Also, how is it possible to know whether or not the ‘slaves’ were much better off in America than living off the land in Africa? In the 1700s, it may well be that the ‘slaves’ were very happy to have a safe and secure way of life. How are we to know? We think in terms of money and wealth and property today, but is that the way that people (even in England at the time) thought? I very much doubt it. Shelter, clothing, warmth, food and drink would have been the be all and end all.
    It may sound as though I am advocating slavery. Of course, I am not. And yet, for many people in this country, ‘shelter, clothing, warmth, food and drink’ is the be all and end all.
    Taking a massive leap, there is no doubt in my mind that the anti-smoking lobby is akin to the anti-slavery lobby. Wow! What an awful thing to say! What I mean is that ASH and co are creating a sort of slavery when the fact of the matter is that the majority of smokers, even if they theoretically want to stop smoking, simply want to be left alone to decide for themselves. Of course, there will be the odd idiot who will say that he is glad that the government has forced him to stop.
    I really, really hate the situation in which we find ourselves, and that is why I am determined to fight on. I think that I mentioned my letter to Lansley about the ‘take 7 steps out’ adverts. The reply from his representative was, well, childish: “The cessation program has been immensely successful”.
    Somehow or other, it must be revealed that Sir This and Lord That (I am talking about the fact that they all recommend each other for honours – deserved or not) have organised a scheme designed to fool the nation. These people are able to block access to the facts, just as Professor (can’t remember his name) was able to ‘lose’ the original data upon which the global warming hypothesis was based.
    It is horrible to say, but I see no alternative explanation. Science has been subjugated to the opinions of several women who constitute the staff of ASH Scotland (85% of the 27 staff of ASH Scotland are female).
    In other words, hysterical, female, propaganda does not need to be backed up with facts because the originators are female.
    Horrible, innit?

  2. Anonymous says:

    From Junican.
    As regards slavery, I wonder to what extent we have been ‘conditioned’ in our understanding by those who had control over the ‘media’ in the 18th century. I wonder to what extent the Africans who permitted themselves to be transported to America were quite happy with the arrangement. We have all been lead to believe that, on every boat crossing the Atlantic, people were enchained and that many perished – but, does that make sense? It hardly seems rational that the ‘slave traders’ would wish that many of the people that they went to the trouble of transporting perished on the journey. Would it not be much more sensible to treat them well and feed them reasonably (if only to prevent ‘mutiny’)? The classic picture of slaves in chains cannot reasonably be true. Also, how is it possible to know whether or not the ‘slaves’ were much better off in America than living off the land in Africa? In the 1700s, it may well be that the ‘slaves’ were very happy to have a safe and secure way of life. How are we to know? We think in terms of money and wealth and property today, but is that the way that people (even in England at the time) thought? I very much doubt it. Shelter, clothing, warmth, food and drink would have been the be all and end all.
    It may sound as though I am advocating slavery. Of course, I am not. And yet, for many people in this country, ‘shelter, clothing, warmth, food and drink’ is the be all and end all.
    Taking a massive leap, there is no doubt in my mind that the anti-smoking lobby is akin to the anti-slavery lobby. Wow! What an awful thing to say! What I mean is that ASH and co are creating a sort of slavery when the fact of the matter is that the majority of smokers, even if they theoretically want to stop smoking, simply want to be left alone to decide for themselves. Of course, there will be the odd idiot who will say that he is glad that the government has forced him to stop.
    I really, really hate the situation in which we find ourselves, and that is why I am determined to fight on. I think that I mentioned my letter to Lansley about the ‘take 7 steps out’ adverts. The reply from his representative was, well, childish: “The cessation program has been immensely successful”.
    Somehow or other, it must be revealed that Sir This and Lord That (I am talking about the fact that they all recommend each other for honours – deserved or not) have organised a scheme designed to fool the nation. These people are able to block access to the facts, just as Professor (can’t remember his name) was able to ‘lose’ the original data upon which the global warming hypothesis was based.
    It is horrible to say, but I see no alternative explanation. Science has been subjugated to the opinions of several women who constitute the staff of ASH Scotland (85% of the 27 staff of ASH Scotland are female).
    In other words, hysterical, female, propaganda does not need to be backed up with facts because the originators are female.
    Horrible, innit?

  3. Anonymous says:

    From Junican.
    As regards slavery, I wonder to what extent we have been ‘conditioned’ in our understanding by those who had control over the ‘media’ in the 18th century. I wonder to what extent the Africans who permitted themselves to be transported to America were quite happy with the arrangement. We have all been lead to believe that, on every boat crossing the Atlantic, people were enchained and that many perished – but, does that make sense? It hardly seems rational that the ‘slave traders’ would wish that many of the people that they went to the trouble of transporting perished on the journey. Would it not be much more sensible to treat them well and feed them reasonably (if only to prevent ‘mutiny’)? The classic picture of slaves in chains cannot reasonably be true. Also, how is it possible to know whether or not the ‘slaves’ were much better off in America than living off the land in Africa? In the 1700s, it may well be that the ‘slaves’ were very happy to have a safe and secure way of life. How are we to know? We think in terms of money and wealth and property today, but is that the way that people (even in England at the time) thought? I very much doubt it. Shelter, clothing, warmth, food and drink would have been the be all and end all.
    It may sound as though I am advocating slavery. Of course, I am not. And yet, for many people in this country, ‘shelter, clothing, warmth, food and drink’ is the be all and end all.
    Taking a massive leap, there is no doubt in my mind that the anti-smoking lobby is akin to the anti-slavery lobby. Wow! What an awful thing to say! What I mean is that ASH and co are creating a sort of slavery when the fact of the matter is that the majority of smokers, even if they theoretically want to stop smoking, simply want to be left alone to decide for themselves. Of course, there will be the odd idiot who will say that he is glad that the government has forced him to stop.
    I really, really hate the situation in which we find ourselves, and that is why I am determined to fight on. I think that I mentioned my letter to Lansley about the ‘take 7 steps out’ adverts. The reply from his representative was, well, childish: “The cessation program has been immensely successful”.
    Somehow or other, it must be revealed that Sir This and Lord That (I am talking about the fact that they all recommend each other for honours – deserved or not) have organised a scheme designed to fool the nation. These people are able to block access to the facts, just as Professor (can’t remember his name) was able to ‘lose’ the original data upon which the global warming hypothesis was based.
    It is horrible to say, but I see no alternative explanation. Science has been subjugated to the opinions of several women who constitute the staff of ASH Scotland (85% of the 27 staff of ASH Scotland are female).
    In other words, hysterical, female, propaganda does not need to be backed up with facts because the originators are female.
    Horrible, innit?

  4. Anonymous says:

    “Social Facts”
    “They have become ‘social facts,’ and with that shift, action becomes possible.”
    There’s a lot to criticize, but I’ll start by saying that I think that Hoffman has a distorted view of what he calls “slavery”. “Indentured servitude” is probably a more accurate term. I know that this is loaded, but I’ll leave it alone for the moment.
    The internal war of America, The Civil War, killed more Americans than any war before or since. Nearly 700,000 American men died. America’s Founders, many decades earlier, purposely left the question of slavery alone because they knew that it would immediately divide what they’d just fought to create.
    Slave-owning Thomas Jefferson wrote the words “life, liberty, and property” into his Declaration of Independence. It was Benjamin Franklin who struck out the word “property” and replaced it with “the pursuit of happiness”. Franklin knew that the southern states wouldn’t come on board if there was an affront to “property”. At the time, “property” meant slaves. To put it simply, creating America and abolishing slavery were mutually exclusive, despite the best intentions of the wisest of minds.
    It’s difficult to express how ignorant it is to equate our modern political bickering to a time long ago past that was so different from our own.
    There is no such thing as “social facts”. The idea that we should all follow “social facts” implies that, according to the very same logic, black people in the 19th century were inferior and only worthy of servitude.
    While people like Hoffman call for the destruction of our current cultural norms, it’s more than important to notice that they never divulge specifics regarding what will replace these norms. The message is that the current world is bad, and supposedly needs to be destroyed. It’s always all about destruction.
    My hope is that people who call for such destruction know how the future, alternative Utopia is supposed to work. Somehow, though, these idealists seem to have a tendency to leave that part out.
    In our time, right now, it’s hard to see how we don’t live in the best of all possible worlds. We live in the very world that generations before were willing to die for. We always miss the fact that this is an entirely wonderful world. This is because of the busybodies who have a problem with, well, anything they can conjure up at the moment.

  5. Anonymous says:

    “Social Facts”
    “They have become ‘social facts,’ and with that shift, action becomes possible.”
    There’s a lot to criticize, but I’ll start by saying that I think that Hoffman has a distorted view of what he calls “slavery”. “Indentured servitude” is probably a more accurate term. I know that this is loaded, but I’ll leave it alone for the moment.
    The internal war of America, The Civil War, killed more Americans than any war before or since. Nearly 700,000 American men died. America’s Founders, many decades earlier, purposely left the question of slavery alone because they knew that it would immediately divide what they’d just fought to create.
    Slave-owning Thomas Jefferson wrote the words “life, liberty, and property” into his Declaration of Independence. It was Benjamin Franklin who struck out the word “property” and replaced it with “the pursuit of happiness”. Franklin knew that the southern states wouldn’t come on board if there was an affront to “property”. At the time, “property” meant slaves. To put it simply, creating America and abolishing slavery were mutually exclusive, despite the best intentions of the wisest of minds.
    It’s difficult to express how ignorant it is to equate our modern political bickering to a time long ago past that was so different from our own.
    There is no such thing as “social facts”. The idea that we should all follow “social facts” implies that, according to the very same logic, black people in the 19th century were inferior and only worthy of servitude.
    While people like Hoffman call for the destruction of our current cultural norms, it’s more than important to notice that they never divulge specifics regarding what will replace these norms. The message is that the current world is bad, and supposedly needs to be destroyed. It’s always all about destruction.
    My hope is that people who call for such destruction know how the future, alternative Utopia is supposed to work. Somehow, though, these idealists seem to have a tendency to leave that part out.
    In our time, right now, it’s hard to see how we don’t live in the best of all possible worlds. We live in the very world that generations before were willing to die for. We always miss the fact that this is an entirely wonderful world. This is because of the busybodies who have a problem with, well, anything they can conjure up at the moment.

  6. Anonymous says:

    “Social Facts”
    “They have become ‘social facts,’ and with that shift, action becomes possible.”
    There’s a lot to criticize, but I’ll start by saying that I think that Hoffman has a distorted view of what he calls “slavery”. “Indentured servitude” is probably a more accurate term. I know that this is loaded, but I’ll leave it alone for the moment.
    The internal war of America, The Civil War, killed more Americans than any war before or since. Nearly 700,000 American men died. America’s Founders, many decades earlier, purposely left the question of slavery alone because they knew that it would immediately divide what they’d just fought to create.
    Slave-owning Thomas Jefferson wrote the words “life, liberty, and property” into his Declaration of Independence. It was Benjamin Franklin who struck out the word “property” and replaced it with “the pursuit of happiness”. Franklin knew that the southern states wouldn’t come on board if there was an affront to “property”. At the time, “property” meant slaves. To put it simply, creating America and abolishing slavery were mutually exclusive, despite the best intentions of the wisest of minds.
    It’s difficult to express how ignorant it is to equate our modern political bickering to a time long ago past that was so different from our own.
    There is no such thing as “social facts”. The idea that we should all follow “social facts” implies that, according to the very same logic, black people in the 19th century were inferior and only worthy of servitude.
    While people like Hoffman call for the destruction of our current cultural norms, it’s more than important to notice that they never divulge specifics regarding what will replace these norms. The message is that the current world is bad, and supposedly needs to be destroyed. It’s always all about destruction.
    My hope is that people who call for such destruction know how the future, alternative Utopia is supposed to work. Somehow, though, these idealists seem to have a tendency to leave that part out.
    In our time, right now, it’s hard to see how we don’t live in the best of all possible worlds. We live in the very world that generations before were willing to die for. We always miss the fact that this is an entirely wonderful world. This is because of the busybodies who have a problem with, well, anything they can conjure up at the moment.

  7. Frank Davis says:

    As regards slavery, I wonder to what extent we have been ‘conditioned’ in our understanding by those who had control over the ‘media’ in the 18th century.
    I suspect we have a rather distorted understanding of slavery throughout history, and not just the 18th C. As you say, it doesn’t make sense to treat slaves badly. One might wonder how different a slave was from a modern “wage slave”.
    I’ve read that, after the American Civil war, and the emancipation of the slaves, the former slaves were very often worse off than they had been as slaves, when they’d had roofs over their heads and food to eat, provided by the slave owners. They were free, but they were very often destitute.
    In Roman times, there was a famous case where the poor mother of a slave managed to successfully petition for his manumission – only for the slave to refuse the offer, because he had a very nice job working in the emperor’s library, and didn’t want to swap that for a life of poverty in southern Italy.
    And there was another famous story told of the emperor Augustus in respect of slaves. Augustus was visiting one of his fellow patricians, who had a collection of rare glasses. While Augustus was visiting, a slave dropped one of the pieces of glass and broke it. The patrician flew into a rage, and was going to have the slave brutally murdered on the spot, when Augustus intervened. He had the slave freed. And then he personally smashed the entire collection of glass.
    And the Romans, on one of their periodic feasts (Saturnalia or Lupercalia or something), would also swap places with their slaves for a day, so that the masters became slaves, and the slaves masters. This rather suggests a different idea of slavery than we commonly carry around.
    just as Professor (can’t remember his name)
    Phil Jones of CRU?
    Frank

  8. Frank Davis says:

    As regards slavery, I wonder to what extent we have been ‘conditioned’ in our understanding by those who had control over the ‘media’ in the 18th century.
    I suspect we have a rather distorted understanding of slavery throughout history, and not just the 18th C. As you say, it doesn’t make sense to treat slaves badly. One might wonder how different a slave was from a modern “wage slave”.
    I’ve read that, after the American Civil war, and the emancipation of the slaves, the former slaves were very often worse off than they had been as slaves, when they’d had roofs over their heads and food to eat, provided by the slave owners. They were free, but they were very often destitute.
    In Roman times, there was a famous case where the poor mother of a slave managed to successfully petition for his manumission – only for the slave to refuse the offer, because he had a very nice job working in the emperor’s library, and didn’t want to swap that for a life of poverty in southern Italy.
    And there was another famous story told of the emperor Augustus in respect of slaves. Augustus was visiting one of his fellow patricians, who had a collection of rare glasses. While Augustus was visiting, a slave dropped one of the pieces of glass and broke it. The patrician flew into a rage, and was going to have the slave brutally murdered on the spot, when Augustus intervened. He had the slave freed. And then he personally smashed the entire collection of glass.
    And the Romans, on one of their periodic feasts (Saturnalia or Lupercalia or something), would also swap places with their slaves for a day, so that the masters became slaves, and the slaves masters. This rather suggests a different idea of slavery than we commonly carry around.
    just as Professor (can’t remember his name)
    Phil Jones of CRU?
    Frank

  9. Frank Davis says:

    As regards slavery, I wonder to what extent we have been ‘conditioned’ in our understanding by those who had control over the ‘media’ in the 18th century.
    I suspect we have a rather distorted understanding of slavery throughout history, and not just the 18th C. As you say, it doesn’t make sense to treat slaves badly. One might wonder how different a slave was from a modern “wage slave”.
    I’ve read that, after the American Civil war, and the emancipation of the slaves, the former slaves were very often worse off than they had been as slaves, when they’d had roofs over their heads and food to eat, provided by the slave owners. They were free, but they were very often destitute.
    In Roman times, there was a famous case where the poor mother of a slave managed to successfully petition for his manumission – only for the slave to refuse the offer, because he had a very nice job working in the emperor’s library, and didn’t want to swap that for a life of poverty in southern Italy.
    And there was another famous story told of the emperor Augustus in respect of slaves. Augustus was visiting one of his fellow patricians, who had a collection of rare glasses. While Augustus was visiting, a slave dropped one of the pieces of glass and broke it. The patrician flew into a rage, and was going to have the slave brutally murdered on the spot, when Augustus intervened. He had the slave freed. And then he personally smashed the entire collection of glass.
    And the Romans, on one of their periodic feasts (Saturnalia or Lupercalia or something), would also swap places with their slaves for a day, so that the masters became slaves, and the slaves masters. This rather suggests a different idea of slavery than we commonly carry around.
    just as Professor (can’t remember his name)
    Phil Jones of CRU?
    Frank

  10. Anonymous says:

    CO2 rise is the problem, not simply Global Warming
    CO2 rise alone will kill us. Nearing 1000ppm in a century, nearing 5000ppm in two centuries time.
    You are quite wrong to express CO2 as just Global Warming because there are other consequences of CO2 rise. CO2 alone can kill us, not to mention the other problems, ocean acidification, desertification etc.
    To quote you: “Either carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is causing catastrophuc global warming, or it isn’t. If it is, we’ll have to do something about it. If it isn’t, we don’t.”
    That is a completely misleading, erroneous and blinkered assertion, on which your whole argument rests. And because of that, your article misses the important point, CO2 itself is the real killer.
    What is 5000ppm like? What would happen if we got there?
    We must stop CO2 rise because CO2 alone will kill us, with or without global warming.

  11. Anonymous says:

    CO2 rise is the problem, not simply Global Warming
    CO2 rise alone will kill us. Nearing 1000ppm in a century, nearing 5000ppm in two centuries time.
    You are quite wrong to express CO2 as just Global Warming because there are other consequences of CO2 rise. CO2 alone can kill us, not to mention the other problems, ocean acidification, desertification etc.
    To quote you: “Either carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is causing catastrophuc global warming, or it isn’t. If it is, we’ll have to do something about it. If it isn’t, we don’t.”
    That is a completely misleading, erroneous and blinkered assertion, on which your whole argument rests. And because of that, your article misses the important point, CO2 itself is the real killer.
    What is 5000ppm like? What would happen if we got there?
    We must stop CO2 rise because CO2 alone will kill us, with or without global warming.

  12. Anonymous says:

    CO2 rise is the problem, not simply Global Warming
    CO2 rise alone will kill us. Nearing 1000ppm in a century, nearing 5000ppm in two centuries time.
    You are quite wrong to express CO2 as just Global Warming because there are other consequences of CO2 rise. CO2 alone can kill us, not to mention the other problems, ocean acidification, desertification etc.
    To quote you: “Either carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is causing catastrophuc global warming, or it isn’t. If it is, we’ll have to do something about it. If it isn’t, we don’t.”
    That is a completely misleading, erroneous and blinkered assertion, on which your whole argument rests. And because of that, your article misses the important point, CO2 itself is the real killer.
    What is 5000ppm like? What would happen if we got there?
    We must stop CO2 rise because CO2 alone will kill us, with or without global warming.

  13. Frank Davis says:

    Re: “Social Facts”
    There is no such thing as “social facts”. The idea that we should all follow “social facts” implies that, according to the very same logic, black people in the 19th century were inferior and only worthy of servitude.
    Indeed.
    While people like Hoffman call for the destruction of our current cultural norms, it’s more than important to notice that they never divulge specifics regarding what will replace these norms.
    I think that the idea is simply to destroy. It’s not as if they have any clear idea of what they want to replace it with.
    And it may be connected with institutions like slavery. It may well be that many Americans are deeply ashamed of an American history of slavery, and so deeply ashamed of America, and wish to punish it by destroying it. A similar attitude may apply to the Indian wars. When people feel ashamed of their history in this way, they won’t be supportive of the traditional culture.
    A similar kind of thing has happened in Britain, but in different ways. These days nobody mentions the British Empire, which is now regarded as so much theft and slavery and warmongering. It’s something to be rather ashamed of. And yet not 50 years ago, most people were very proud of it! And once again, when you’ve been taught to be ashamed of your country’s history (and there are plenty of other things in British history that can be made shameful), you are not going to be very supportive of anything traditional, because it will all have become soiled. In fact, you may want to smash the whole thing down.
    Frank

  14. Frank Davis says:

    Re: “Social Facts”
    There is no such thing as “social facts”. The idea that we should all follow “social facts” implies that, according to the very same logic, black people in the 19th century were inferior and only worthy of servitude.
    Indeed.
    While people like Hoffman call for the destruction of our current cultural norms, it’s more than important to notice that they never divulge specifics regarding what will replace these norms.
    I think that the idea is simply to destroy. It’s not as if they have any clear idea of what they want to replace it with.
    And it may be connected with institutions like slavery. It may well be that many Americans are deeply ashamed of an American history of slavery, and so deeply ashamed of America, and wish to punish it by destroying it. A similar attitude may apply to the Indian wars. When people feel ashamed of their history in this way, they won’t be supportive of the traditional culture.
    A similar kind of thing has happened in Britain, but in different ways. These days nobody mentions the British Empire, which is now regarded as so much theft and slavery and warmongering. It’s something to be rather ashamed of. And yet not 50 years ago, most people were very proud of it! And once again, when you’ve been taught to be ashamed of your country’s history (and there are plenty of other things in British history that can be made shameful), you are not going to be very supportive of anything traditional, because it will all have become soiled. In fact, you may want to smash the whole thing down.
    Frank

  15. Frank Davis says:

    Re: “Social Facts”
    There is no such thing as “social facts”. The idea that we should all follow “social facts” implies that, according to the very same logic, black people in the 19th century were inferior and only worthy of servitude.
    Indeed.
    While people like Hoffman call for the destruction of our current cultural norms, it’s more than important to notice that they never divulge specifics regarding what will replace these norms.
    I think that the idea is simply to destroy. It’s not as if they have any clear idea of what they want to replace it with.
    And it may be connected with institutions like slavery. It may well be that many Americans are deeply ashamed of an American history of slavery, and so deeply ashamed of America, and wish to punish it by destroying it. A similar attitude may apply to the Indian wars. When people feel ashamed of their history in this way, they won’t be supportive of the traditional culture.
    A similar kind of thing has happened in Britain, but in different ways. These days nobody mentions the British Empire, which is now regarded as so much theft and slavery and warmongering. It’s something to be rather ashamed of. And yet not 50 years ago, most people were very proud of it! And once again, when you’ve been taught to be ashamed of your country’s history (and there are plenty of other things in British history that can be made shameful), you are not going to be very supportive of anything traditional, because it will all have become soiled. In fact, you may want to smash the whole thing down.
    Frank

  16. Frank Davis says:

    Re: CO2 rise is the problem, not simply Global Warming
    Nonsense!
    Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen by about 100 parts per million over the past century, not 1000 parts. We are now living at a time in earth’s history when it has one of the lowest levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. At times, several million years ago, it was 10 times higher than it is now.
    Certainly if the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere rose to very high levels, it would kill off all animal life. But the same would be true if the levels of oxygen in the atmosphere were to become very high (there’d be spontaneous combustion). Or nitrogen. Or any other gas you care to mention.
    My argument, anyway, was about swapping cause and effect. CO2 was incidental.
    Frank

  17. Frank Davis says:

    Re: CO2 rise is the problem, not simply Global Warming
    Nonsense!
    Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen by about 100 parts per million over the past century, not 1000 parts. We are now living at a time in earth’s history when it has one of the lowest levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. At times, several million years ago, it was 10 times higher than it is now.
    Certainly if the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere rose to very high levels, it would kill off all animal life. But the same would be true if the levels of oxygen in the atmosphere were to become very high (there’d be spontaneous combustion). Or nitrogen. Or any other gas you care to mention.
    My argument, anyway, was about swapping cause and effect. CO2 was incidental.
    Frank

  18. Frank Davis says:

    Re: CO2 rise is the problem, not simply Global Warming
    Nonsense!
    Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen by about 100 parts per million over the past century, not 1000 parts. We are now living at a time in earth’s history when it has one of the lowest levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. At times, several million years ago, it was 10 times higher than it is now.
    Certainly if the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere rose to very high levels, it would kill off all animal life. But the same would be true if the levels of oxygen in the atmosphere were to become very high (there’d be spontaneous combustion). Or nitrogen. Or any other gas you care to mention.
    My argument, anyway, was about swapping cause and effect. CO2 was incidental.
    Frank

  19. Anonymous says:

    Re: CO2 rise is the problem, not simply Global Warming
    Hi Frank,
    I understand the point that you are making, questioning the effects of motive on reasoning. With CO2, there is one overriding motive, human survival, on which we should all be on the same team. Alas, we are not, we all know that big oil funds the big denialist lie for big profit.
    No, the explicit CO2 rise danger is not nonsense, you just have to understand exponentials.
    You have to realise that CO2 is rising exponentially. Most people make that mistake. Just saying that CO2 has risen 100ppm in the last 100 years (as you say) does not describe the trend.
    The exponential is actually quite severe. We were adding around 0.7/0.8ppm in 1959, we are now adding 2/2.5ppm annually now. In other words, the pace of rise is accelerating. That is the exonential factor.
    So, in 50 years, we have roughly tripled the increase (0.75 to 2.25). In another 50 years (2060), that will be perhaps 7ppm annually (700ppm per century), and by 2110, that will be perhaps 21ppm annually (2100 per century). As you see, CO2 is rising fast and will get to dangerous levels sooner than we think, forgetting anything to do with global warming.
    The exact trend is that the extra piece added each year rises by 2.3% annually. MIT has projected 866ppm by 2095 using a slightly lowered trend of 1.9%. Tending towards a doubling every 30/40 years.
    So, by 2100, we are trending to near 1000ppm. By 2200, we are approaching 5000ppm.
    These are the impacts of CO2 rise on breathing:
    CARBON DIOXIDE – PARTS PER MILLION
    280 ppm – Atmospheric CO2 in 1850
    381 ppm – Atmospheric CO2 in 2006
    350 – 400 ppm – fresh air
    500 – 600 ppm – NYC/LA on a muggy day
    <600 ppm – few indoor air complaints
    1,000 ppm – Inadequate indoor ventillation
    >1,000 ppm – discomfort in 20% of occupants
    2,000 ppm – significant discomfort in >50% of occupants: Headache, Nausea, Reduced activity level
    4,000 ppm – cigar bar
    5,000 ppm – OSHA limit for adult 8-hr work day
    30,000 ppm – 10 minute exposure limit
    40,000 ppm – immediate danger to life
    45,000 ppm – human exhallation
    80,000 ppm – unconsciousness in a few minutes
    960,000 ppm – Atmospheric CO2 on Mars
    Ok, so “headache, nausea, reduced activity level” is the first impact that we will see around the end of this century and worse to follow through the next. Remember, due to lack of ventilation, indoor levels will be much higher. 1000ppm outdoors may well mean 1500ppm or 2000ppm indoors.
    Yes, CO2 has been higher in Earth’s past, just not when human’s were around. That should not be a comfort, it should be a warning. The planet can go back there, and is doing so, solely because of us this time.
    Can man cause it’s own extinction through CO2 rise? Yes, of course. Cut down or destroy the sinks (forests/oceans/plants) and release CO2 (cars, power stations, planes, factories, in fact most of modern society) and we can do it. Is that really what we want as our legacy, human extinction?

  20. Anonymous says:

    Re: CO2 rise is the problem, not simply Global Warming
    Hi Frank,
    I understand the point that you are making, questioning the effects of motive on reasoning. With CO2, there is one overriding motive, human survival, on which we should all be on the same team. Alas, we are not, we all know that big oil funds the big denialist lie for big profit.
    No, the explicit CO2 rise danger is not nonsense, you just have to understand exponentials.
    You have to realise that CO2 is rising exponentially. Most people make that mistake. Just saying that CO2 has risen 100ppm in the last 100 years (as you say) does not describe the trend.
    The exponential is actually quite severe. We were adding around 0.7/0.8ppm in 1959, we are now adding 2/2.5ppm annually now. In other words, the pace of rise is accelerating. That is the exonential factor.
    So, in 50 years, we have roughly tripled the increase (0.75 to 2.25). In another 50 years (2060), that will be perhaps 7ppm annually (700ppm per century), and by 2110, that will be perhaps 21ppm annually (2100 per century). As you see, CO2 is rising fast and will get to dangerous levels sooner than we think, forgetting anything to do with global warming.
    The exact trend is that the extra piece added each year rises by 2.3% annually. MIT has projected 866ppm by 2095 using a slightly lowered trend of 1.9%. Tending towards a doubling every 30/40 years.
    So, by 2100, we are trending to near 1000ppm. By 2200, we are approaching 5000ppm.
    These are the impacts of CO2 rise on breathing:
    CARBON DIOXIDE – PARTS PER MILLION
    280 ppm – Atmospheric CO2 in 1850
    381 ppm – Atmospheric CO2 in 2006
    350 – 400 ppm – fresh air
    500 – 600 ppm – NYC/LA on a muggy day
    <600 ppm – few indoor air complaints
    1,000 ppm – Inadequate indoor ventillation
    >1,000 ppm – discomfort in 20% of occupants
    2,000 ppm – significant discomfort in >50% of occupants: Headache, Nausea, Reduced activity level
    4,000 ppm – cigar bar
    5,000 ppm – OSHA limit for adult 8-hr work day
    30,000 ppm – 10 minute exposure limit
    40,000 ppm – immediate danger to life
    45,000 ppm – human exhallation
    80,000 ppm – unconsciousness in a few minutes
    960,000 ppm – Atmospheric CO2 on Mars
    Ok, so “headache, nausea, reduced activity level” is the first impact that we will see around the end of this century and worse to follow through the next. Remember, due to lack of ventilation, indoor levels will be much higher. 1000ppm outdoors may well mean 1500ppm or 2000ppm indoors.
    Yes, CO2 has been higher in Earth’s past, just not when human’s were around. That should not be a comfort, it should be a warning. The planet can go back there, and is doing so, solely because of us this time.
    Can man cause it’s own extinction through CO2 rise? Yes, of course. Cut down or destroy the sinks (forests/oceans/plants) and release CO2 (cars, power stations, planes, factories, in fact most of modern society) and we can do it. Is that really what we want as our legacy, human extinction?

  21. Anonymous says:

    Re: CO2 rise is the problem, not simply Global Warming
    Hi Frank,
    I understand the point that you are making, questioning the effects of motive on reasoning. With CO2, there is one overriding motive, human survival, on which we should all be on the same team. Alas, we are not, we all know that big oil funds the big denialist lie for big profit.
    No, the explicit CO2 rise danger is not nonsense, you just have to understand exponentials.
    You have to realise that CO2 is rising exponentially. Most people make that mistake. Just saying that CO2 has risen 100ppm in the last 100 years (as you say) does not describe the trend.
    The exponential is actually quite severe. We were adding around 0.7/0.8ppm in 1959, we are now adding 2/2.5ppm annually now. In other words, the pace of rise is accelerating. That is the exonential factor.
    So, in 50 years, we have roughly tripled the increase (0.75 to 2.25). In another 50 years (2060), that will be perhaps 7ppm annually (700ppm per century), and by 2110, that will be perhaps 21ppm annually (2100 per century). As you see, CO2 is rising fast and will get to dangerous levels sooner than we think, forgetting anything to do with global warming.
    The exact trend is that the extra piece added each year rises by 2.3% annually. MIT has projected 866ppm by 2095 using a slightly lowered trend of 1.9%. Tending towards a doubling every 30/40 years.
    So, by 2100, we are trending to near 1000ppm. By 2200, we are approaching 5000ppm.
    These are the impacts of CO2 rise on breathing:
    CARBON DIOXIDE – PARTS PER MILLION
    280 ppm – Atmospheric CO2 in 1850
    381 ppm – Atmospheric CO2 in 2006
    350 – 400 ppm – fresh air
    500 – 600 ppm – NYC/LA on a muggy day
    <600 ppm – few indoor air complaints
    1,000 ppm – Inadequate indoor ventillation
    >1,000 ppm – discomfort in 20% of occupants
    2,000 ppm – significant discomfort in >50% of occupants: Headache, Nausea, Reduced activity level
    4,000 ppm – cigar bar
    5,000 ppm – OSHA limit for adult 8-hr work day
    30,000 ppm – 10 minute exposure limit
    40,000 ppm – immediate danger to life
    45,000 ppm – human exhallation
    80,000 ppm – unconsciousness in a few minutes
    960,000 ppm – Atmospheric CO2 on Mars
    Ok, so “headache, nausea, reduced activity level” is the first impact that we will see around the end of this century and worse to follow through the next. Remember, due to lack of ventilation, indoor levels will be much higher. 1000ppm outdoors may well mean 1500ppm or 2000ppm indoors.
    Yes, CO2 has been higher in Earth’s past, just not when human’s were around. That should not be a comfort, it should be a warning. The planet can go back there, and is doing so, solely because of us this time.
    Can man cause it’s own extinction through CO2 rise? Yes, of course. Cut down or destroy the sinks (forests/oceans/plants) and release CO2 (cars, power stations, planes, factories, in fact most of modern society) and we can do it. Is that really what we want as our legacy, human extinction?

  22. Frank Davis says:

    Re: CO2 rise is the problem, not simply Global Warming
    Alas, we are not, we all know that big oil funds the big denialist lie for big profit.
    You’re talking to the wrong guy here. I don’t ‘know’ that at all. Furthermore, I’m very strongly applaud ‘big profit’. Profit is absolutely essential for economic growth, and for increasing human freedom and prosperity and security. Without profit there’d be none of it.
    You have to realise that CO2 is rising exponentially. Most people make that mistake. Just saying that CO2 has risen 100ppm in the last 100 years (as you say) does not describe the trend.
    Even if you accept that CO2 is rising exponentially, that doesn’t mean it’s always going to continue to do so. There are lots of reasons to suppose why it won’t. Increasing efficiencies of fuel usage is one. But also shifts away from using transportation, as people work using dispersed computing systems, shop online, etc. Also the adoption of other non-CO2-emitting fuel technologies – e.g. nuclear, solar, wind, geothermal -. The exponential scenario relies on there being no technological innovations over the next 200 years – and in a time when humans have never been so innovative -.
    It’s also something of a dogma that increased technological development means increased energy usage (and increased CO2 emissions). I can construct an argument that in the long run exactly the opposite happens.
    4,000 ppm – cigar bar
    Thanks for that nugget of information. I love cigar bars.
    Anyway, you’re putting forward an argument which is new to me. Most global warmists don’t raise concerns about the direct effect of rising CO2 in the atmosphere, but instead claim that it will lead to global warming, sea level rise, increased storms, etc.
    Frank

  23. Frank Davis says:

    Re: CO2 rise is the problem, not simply Global Warming
    Alas, we are not, we all know that big oil funds the big denialist lie for big profit.
    You’re talking to the wrong guy here. I don’t ‘know’ that at all. Furthermore, I’m very strongly applaud ‘big profit’. Profit is absolutely essential for economic growth, and for increasing human freedom and prosperity and security. Without profit there’d be none of it.
    You have to realise that CO2 is rising exponentially. Most people make that mistake. Just saying that CO2 has risen 100ppm in the last 100 years (as you say) does not describe the trend.
    Even if you accept that CO2 is rising exponentially, that doesn’t mean it’s always going to continue to do so. There are lots of reasons to suppose why it won’t. Increasing efficiencies of fuel usage is one. But also shifts away from using transportation, as people work using dispersed computing systems, shop online, etc. Also the adoption of other non-CO2-emitting fuel technologies – e.g. nuclear, solar, wind, geothermal -. The exponential scenario relies on there being no technological innovations over the next 200 years – and in a time when humans have never been so innovative -.
    It’s also something of a dogma that increased technological development means increased energy usage (and increased CO2 emissions). I can construct an argument that in the long run exactly the opposite happens.
    4,000 ppm – cigar bar
    Thanks for that nugget of information. I love cigar bars.
    Anyway, you’re putting forward an argument which is new to me. Most global warmists don’t raise concerns about the direct effect of rising CO2 in the atmosphere, but instead claim that it will lead to global warming, sea level rise, increased storms, etc.
    Frank

  24. Frank Davis says:

    Re: CO2 rise is the problem, not simply Global Warming
    Alas, we are not, we all know that big oil funds the big denialist lie for big profit.
    You’re talking to the wrong guy here. I don’t ‘know’ that at all. Furthermore, I’m very strongly applaud ‘big profit’. Profit is absolutely essential for economic growth, and for increasing human freedom and prosperity and security. Without profit there’d be none of it.
    You have to realise that CO2 is rising exponentially. Most people make that mistake. Just saying that CO2 has risen 100ppm in the last 100 years (as you say) does not describe the trend.
    Even if you accept that CO2 is rising exponentially, that doesn’t mean it’s always going to continue to do so. There are lots of reasons to suppose why it won’t. Increasing efficiencies of fuel usage is one. But also shifts away from using transportation, as people work using dispersed computing systems, shop online, etc. Also the adoption of other non-CO2-emitting fuel technologies – e.g. nuclear, solar, wind, geothermal -. The exponential scenario relies on there being no technological innovations over the next 200 years – and in a time when humans have never been so innovative -.
    It’s also something of a dogma that increased technological development means increased energy usage (and increased CO2 emissions). I can construct an argument that in the long run exactly the opposite happens.
    4,000 ppm – cigar bar
    Thanks for that nugget of information. I love cigar bars.
    Anyway, you’re putting forward an argument which is new to me. Most global warmists don’t raise concerns about the direct effect of rising CO2 in the atmosphere, but instead claim that it will lead to global warming, sea level rise, increased storms, etc.
    Frank

  25. Anonymous says:

    Re: CO2 rise is the problem, not simply Global Warming
    Hi Frank,
    Yes, profit is an important factor in this society, more to some than others. However, it always comes in third place after 1) Life, and 2) Force, then 3) Money (Profit).
    1) People will do anything to preserve their life, beyond force, profit or anything else.
    2) However, remove that and the threat of force is ultimately responsible for our current society so that 3) Money can exist beyond crime. Money has existed for a long time, always defended by force of one kind or another. Now, force has grown to such a degree that law is backed by force which defends money and creates our society.
    Regarding CO2, we are at the start of the CO2 rise. One way or another, it is going to affect us. I have expressed the direct impact of CO2, but there are others. People will begin to die as a result, one way or another. What happens then? How far will those people go? Never forget, without life there is no money, life is always more important than money.
    I took a look at some of your other articles, you have an interesting mind (and you love to talk about smoking!).
    To me, smoking is unhealthy, just look at the lungs of a smoker and you will see that damage that smoking does as compared to the lungs of a non-smoker. To me, that is the simple undeniable truth about it’s impact on physical health. For decades, the tobacco industry denied that truth, just as the oil industry is trying to do with CO2 rise today.
    There is a big difference, smoking will not kill us all, CO2 might.
    You can argue “so what, it’s my life”, and that is fair enough as long as it does not hurt the health of others. CO2 does.
    There is no doubt in CO2 rise. You seem to be saying that sometimes social ideas become truth, in other words, we want it to be true that global warming exists so that we can attack the greedy, wasteful industrialists. Maybe, for some who do not understand the facts, that may be the case.
    However, the reality is that CO2 rise is not an abstract idea, bourne of a dislike of those with more money than us, or more powerful than us, or more corrupt than us; it is simple, cold fact. As is it’s cause; CO2 is rising because of humans. If some do not understand CO2 rise and it’s effects and accidentally believe that CO2 rise is wrong because of other social ideas, then so be it.
    CO2 rising exponentially is real, so are it’s consequences, meaning death. The question becomes, how many and who?
    You’re right, the trend could temper as MIT has expressed, and so have the IPCC, and I. However, there are other factors that could increase it too.
    The truth is that no-one knows whether this trend will alter and which way, we do know that currently it is a very stark, non-wavering trend.
    We can either wait and see (the approach the world is taking) and take what comes even if that is extinction, or choose life and act, create jobs, wealth and opportunity on a scale never before seen.
    Big oil is lucky and manipulative for now. It can buy it’s profits through lobbying, protecting it’s subsidies and lies. I wonder how long that will last and what the recriminations will be like when the truth is revealed and ever more people are at mortal threat and die.

  26. Anonymous says:

    Re: CO2 rise is the problem, not simply Global Warming
    Hi Frank,
    Yes, profit is an important factor in this society, more to some than others. However, it always comes in third place after 1) Life, and 2) Force, then 3) Money (Profit).
    1) People will do anything to preserve their life, beyond force, profit or anything else.
    2) However, remove that and the threat of force is ultimately responsible for our current society so that 3) Money can exist beyond crime. Money has existed for a long time, always defended by force of one kind or another. Now, force has grown to such a degree that law is backed by force which defends money and creates our society.
    Regarding CO2, we are at the start of the CO2 rise. One way or another, it is going to affect us. I have expressed the direct impact of CO2, but there are others. People will begin to die as a result, one way or another. What happens then? How far will those people go? Never forget, without life there is no money, life is always more important than money.
    I took a look at some of your other articles, you have an interesting mind (and you love to talk about smoking!).
    To me, smoking is unhealthy, just look at the lungs of a smoker and you will see that damage that smoking does as compared to the lungs of a non-smoker. To me, that is the simple undeniable truth about it’s impact on physical health. For decades, the tobacco industry denied that truth, just as the oil industry is trying to do with CO2 rise today.
    There is a big difference, smoking will not kill us all, CO2 might.
    You can argue “so what, it’s my life”, and that is fair enough as long as it does not hurt the health of others. CO2 does.
    There is no doubt in CO2 rise. You seem to be saying that sometimes social ideas become truth, in other words, we want it to be true that global warming exists so that we can attack the greedy, wasteful industrialists. Maybe, for some who do not understand the facts, that may be the case.
    However, the reality is that CO2 rise is not an abstract idea, bourne of a dislike of those with more money than us, or more powerful than us, or more corrupt than us; it is simple, cold fact. As is it’s cause; CO2 is rising because of humans. If some do not understand CO2 rise and it’s effects and accidentally believe that CO2 rise is wrong because of other social ideas, then so be it.
    CO2 rising exponentially is real, so are it’s consequences, meaning death. The question becomes, how many and who?
    You’re right, the trend could temper as MIT has expressed, and so have the IPCC, and I. However, there are other factors that could increase it too.
    The truth is that no-one knows whether this trend will alter and which way, we do know that currently it is a very stark, non-wavering trend.
    We can either wait and see (the approach the world is taking) and take what comes even if that is extinction, or choose life and act, create jobs, wealth and opportunity on a scale never before seen.
    Big oil is lucky and manipulative for now. It can buy it’s profits through lobbying, protecting it’s subsidies and lies. I wonder how long that will last and what the recriminations will be like when the truth is revealed and ever more people are at mortal threat and die.

  27. Anonymous says:

    Re: CO2 rise is the problem, not simply Global Warming
    Hi Frank,
    Yes, profit is an important factor in this society, more to some than others. However, it always comes in third place after 1) Life, and 2) Force, then 3) Money (Profit).
    1) People will do anything to preserve their life, beyond force, profit or anything else.
    2) However, remove that and the threat of force is ultimately responsible for our current society so that 3) Money can exist beyond crime. Money has existed for a long time, always defended by force of one kind or another. Now, force has grown to such a degree that law is backed by force which defends money and creates our society.
    Regarding CO2, we are at the start of the CO2 rise. One way or another, it is going to affect us. I have expressed the direct impact of CO2, but there are others. People will begin to die as a result, one way or another. What happens then? How far will those people go? Never forget, without life there is no money, life is always more important than money.
    I took a look at some of your other articles, you have an interesting mind (and you love to talk about smoking!).
    To me, smoking is unhealthy, just look at the lungs of a smoker and you will see that damage that smoking does as compared to the lungs of a non-smoker. To me, that is the simple undeniable truth about it’s impact on physical health. For decades, the tobacco industry denied that truth, just as the oil industry is trying to do with CO2 rise today.
    There is a big difference, smoking will not kill us all, CO2 might.
    You can argue “so what, it’s my life”, and that is fair enough as long as it does not hurt the health of others. CO2 does.
    There is no doubt in CO2 rise. You seem to be saying that sometimes social ideas become truth, in other words, we want it to be true that global warming exists so that we can attack the greedy, wasteful industrialists. Maybe, for some who do not understand the facts, that may be the case.
    However, the reality is that CO2 rise is not an abstract idea, bourne of a dislike of those with more money than us, or more powerful than us, or more corrupt than us; it is simple, cold fact. As is it’s cause; CO2 is rising because of humans. If some do not understand CO2 rise and it’s effects and accidentally believe that CO2 rise is wrong because of other social ideas, then so be it.
    CO2 rising exponentially is real, so are it’s consequences, meaning death. The question becomes, how many and who?
    You’re right, the trend could temper as MIT has expressed, and so have the IPCC, and I. However, there are other factors that could increase it too.
    The truth is that no-one knows whether this trend will alter and which way, we do know that currently it is a very stark, non-wavering trend.
    We can either wait and see (the approach the world is taking) and take what comes even if that is extinction, or choose life and act, create jobs, wealth and opportunity on a scale never before seen.
    Big oil is lucky and manipulative for now. It can buy it’s profits through lobbying, protecting it’s subsidies and lies. I wonder how long that will last and what the recriminations will be like when the truth is revealed and ever more people are at mortal threat and die.

  28. Frank Davis says:

    Re: CO2 rise is the problem, not simply Global Warming
    just look at the lungs of a smoker and you will see that damage that smoking does as compared to the lungs of a non-smoker.
    What, the black lungs? They don’t exist. Smokers lungs look just the same as anyone else’s. Furthermore, something like half of all lung transplants are from smokers – something that simply wouldn’t happen if they were as damaged as you say they are.
    As for your substantive claim – that we’re all going to be asphyxiated by CO2 -, it’s just bollocks. Not even the most ardent global warmists make this claim.
    Sorry,
    Frank

  29. Frank Davis says:

    Re: CO2 rise is the problem, not simply Global Warming
    just look at the lungs of a smoker and you will see that damage that smoking does as compared to the lungs of a non-smoker.
    What, the black lungs? They don’t exist. Smokers lungs look just the same as anyone else’s. Furthermore, something like half of all lung transplants are from smokers – something that simply wouldn’t happen if they were as damaged as you say they are.
    As for your substantive claim – that we’re all going to be asphyxiated by CO2 -, it’s just bollocks. Not even the most ardent global warmists make this claim.
    Sorry,
    Frank

  30. Frank Davis says:

    Re: CO2 rise is the problem, not simply Global Warming
    just look at the lungs of a smoker and you will see that damage that smoking does as compared to the lungs of a non-smoker.
    What, the black lungs? They don’t exist. Smokers lungs look just the same as anyone else’s. Furthermore, something like half of all lung transplants are from smokers – something that simply wouldn’t happen if they were as damaged as you say they are.
    As for your substantive claim – that we’re all going to be asphyxiated by CO2 -, it’s just bollocks. Not even the most ardent global warmists make this claim.
    Sorry,
    Frank

  31. Anonymous says:

    Re: CO2 rise is the problem, not simply Global Warming
    Hi Frank,
    You assert “Black lungs don’t exist in smokers” – Just ‘bollocks’ to use your phrase!
    Most of the black bits in smokers’ lungs, that turn them black, are called tar.
    No, my substantive claim is that the rise in CO2 alone causes us problems, not simply global warming.
    As CO2 rises, we start at feeling poorly, but those effects get worse. And yes, the ultimate end, if we get there, is asphyxiation, although that is not a prediction that one can make yet (nor was I), but it is possible.
    “It’s just bollocks” is not much of a counter-argument, funny, but useless.
    Just because you can’t understand it, does not make it any less real or any less true.
    Don’t be sorry. You have your view, however ill-informed it may be.

  32. Anonymous says:

    Re: CO2 rise is the problem, not simply Global Warming
    Hi Frank,
    You assert “Black lungs don’t exist in smokers” – Just ‘bollocks’ to use your phrase!
    Most of the black bits in smokers’ lungs, that turn them black, are called tar.
    No, my substantive claim is that the rise in CO2 alone causes us problems, not simply global warming.
    As CO2 rises, we start at feeling poorly, but those effects get worse. And yes, the ultimate end, if we get there, is asphyxiation, although that is not a prediction that one can make yet (nor was I), but it is possible.
    “It’s just bollocks” is not much of a counter-argument, funny, but useless.
    Just because you can’t understand it, does not make it any less real or any less true.
    Don’t be sorry. You have your view, however ill-informed it may be.

  33. Anonymous says:

    Re: CO2 rise is the problem, not simply Global Warming
    Hi Frank,
    You assert “Black lungs don’t exist in smokers” – Just ‘bollocks’ to use your phrase!
    Most of the black bits in smokers’ lungs, that turn them black, are called tar.
    No, my substantive claim is that the rise in CO2 alone causes us problems, not simply global warming.
    As CO2 rises, we start at feeling poorly, but those effects get worse. And yes, the ultimate end, if we get there, is asphyxiation, although that is not a prediction that one can make yet (nor was I), but it is possible.
    “It’s just bollocks” is not much of a counter-argument, funny, but useless.
    Just because you can’t understand it, does not make it any less real or any less true.
    Don’t be sorry. You have your view, however ill-informed it may be.

  34. Frank Davis says:

    Re: CO2 rise is the problem, not simply Global Warming
    I say it’s just bollocks because, as a threat, it’s trivial, verging on ridiculous. It’s absolutely risible. It’s like saying that if you leave the bath tap running long enough, the whole world will drown.
    I can only assume that, with public belief in global warming in free fall, you people are looking for another threat to scare people with. But this one really is scrapping the bottom of the barrel. Can’t you come up with something better than yet another CO2 myth? Or is CO2 the only tool in your toolbox?
    Frank
    P.S. In post-mortems, smokers lungs are indistinguishable from non-smokers’ lungs. Why? We all have cilia in our lungs, which beat to create a stream of mucus upwards out of them. That’s where the tar goes. And it’s why I have a smoker’s cough.
    In addition, bear in mind that humans have lived in smoke-filled huts for 10s perhaps even 100s of thousands of years. Smoky environments are nothing new.

  35. Frank Davis says:

    Re: CO2 rise is the problem, not simply Global Warming
    I say it’s just bollocks because, as a threat, it’s trivial, verging on ridiculous. It’s absolutely risible. It’s like saying that if you leave the bath tap running long enough, the whole world will drown.
    I can only assume that, with public belief in global warming in free fall, you people are looking for another threat to scare people with. But this one really is scrapping the bottom of the barrel. Can’t you come up with something better than yet another CO2 myth? Or is CO2 the only tool in your toolbox?
    Frank
    P.S. In post-mortems, smokers lungs are indistinguishable from non-smokers’ lungs. Why? We all have cilia in our lungs, which beat to create a stream of mucus upwards out of them. That’s where the tar goes. And it’s why I have a smoker’s cough.
    In addition, bear in mind that humans have lived in smoke-filled huts for 10s perhaps even 100s of thousands of years. Smoky environments are nothing new.

  36. Frank Davis says:

    Re: CO2 rise is the problem, not simply Global Warming
    I say it’s just bollocks because, as a threat, it’s trivial, verging on ridiculous. It’s absolutely risible. It’s like saying that if you leave the bath tap running long enough, the whole world will drown.
    I can only assume that, with public belief in global warming in free fall, you people are looking for another threat to scare people with. But this one really is scrapping the bottom of the barrel. Can’t you come up with something better than yet another CO2 myth? Or is CO2 the only tool in your toolbox?
    Frank
    P.S. In post-mortems, smokers lungs are indistinguishable from non-smokers’ lungs. Why? We all have cilia in our lungs, which beat to create a stream of mucus upwards out of them. That’s where the tar goes. And it’s why I have a smoker’s cough.
    In addition, bear in mind that humans have lived in smoke-filled huts for 10s perhaps even 100s of thousands of years. Smoky environments are nothing new.

  37. Anonymous says:

    Here is something interesting, a fact, if true, then could be important to research further perhaps.
    It seems that extreme-left-leaning billionaire from Hungary, George Soros, who funds some of the most communist leaning false-green and false-health related propaganda fronts in the world was at some point working with and donating large sums of money to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the same who funds the anti-smoking industry on behalf of large pharmaceuticals in promoting their fascist desires.
    It also seems that the matter concerning this strange relationship going on between Soros and RWJF had to do with funding studies to promote the normalization of legalized euthanasia on a worldwide scale – eugenics and euthanasia of the undesireable to be normalized, the same as they have done with their anti-smoking and global-warming frauds.
    The link to information revealing this connnection and a quote from the article paraphrasing the source, which comes from a book that refers to this relationship between Soros and RWJF is as follows:
    http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/10/soros_and_the_collapse_of_the.html
    “… As for Soros, while working on the upcoming Death by Liberalism, I came across a project that he sponsored along with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation called the Project on Death in America. It was supposedly intended to familiarize Americans with death, since no one in this country has ever heard of it or knows anything about it. (This little conceit is quite popular on the left — see Jessica Mitford’s The American Way of Death.) In actuality, Soros targeted two perfectly legitimate medical innovations, palliative care and hospice care, in order to ram through his vision of legal euthanasia. He put tens of millions into the effort, recruited medical personnel across the country, and nicely tarnished the entire field of end-of-life care, all with next to no attention from our alert media. …”
    If this is true, and I suspect that it might be true, depending on the sources of information that might be found in footnotes in the aforementioned book – then it reveals even more about the RWJF and smoking-bans than has thus far been proven.
    There may be additional verifiable proof that there is more to the smoking-bans than anything to do with “health” as has been suspected thus far.

  38. Anonymous says:

    Here is something interesting, a fact, if true, then could be important to research further perhaps.
    It seems that extreme-left-leaning billionaire from Hungary, George Soros, who funds some of the most communist leaning false-green and false-health related propaganda fronts in the world was at some point working with and donating large sums of money to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the same who funds the anti-smoking industry on behalf of large pharmaceuticals in promoting their fascist desires.
    It also seems that the matter concerning this strange relationship going on between Soros and RWJF had to do with funding studies to promote the normalization of legalized euthanasia on a worldwide scale – eugenics and euthanasia of the undesireable to be normalized, the same as they have done with their anti-smoking and global-warming frauds.
    The link to information revealing this connnection and a quote from the article paraphrasing the source, which comes from a book that refers to this relationship between Soros and RWJF is as follows:
    http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/10/soros_and_the_collapse_of_the.html
    “… As for Soros, while working on the upcoming Death by Liberalism, I came across a project that he sponsored along with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation called the Project on Death in America. It was supposedly intended to familiarize Americans with death, since no one in this country has ever heard of it or knows anything about it. (This little conceit is quite popular on the left — see Jessica Mitford’s The American Way of Death.) In actuality, Soros targeted two perfectly legitimate medical innovations, palliative care and hospice care, in order to ram through his vision of legal euthanasia. He put tens of millions into the effort, recruited medical personnel across the country, and nicely tarnished the entire field of end-of-life care, all with next to no attention from our alert media. …”
    If this is true, and I suspect that it might be true, depending on the sources of information that might be found in footnotes in the aforementioned book – then it reveals even more about the RWJF and smoking-bans than has thus far been proven.
    There may be additional verifiable proof that there is more to the smoking-bans than anything to do with “health” as has been suspected thus far.

  39. Anonymous says:

    Here is something interesting, a fact, if true, then could be important to research further perhaps.
    It seems that extreme-left-leaning billionaire from Hungary, George Soros, who funds some of the most communist leaning false-green and false-health related propaganda fronts in the world was at some point working with and donating large sums of money to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the same who funds the anti-smoking industry on behalf of large pharmaceuticals in promoting their fascist desires.
    It also seems that the matter concerning this strange relationship going on between Soros and RWJF had to do with funding studies to promote the normalization of legalized euthanasia on a worldwide scale – eugenics and euthanasia of the undesireable to be normalized, the same as they have done with their anti-smoking and global-warming frauds.
    The link to information revealing this connnection and a quote from the article paraphrasing the source, which comes from a book that refers to this relationship between Soros and RWJF is as follows:
    http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/10/soros_and_the_collapse_of_the.html
    “… As for Soros, while working on the upcoming Death by Liberalism, I came across a project that he sponsored along with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation called the Project on Death in America. It was supposedly intended to familiarize Americans with death, since no one in this country has ever heard of it or knows anything about it. (This little conceit is quite popular on the left — see Jessica Mitford’s The American Way of Death.) In actuality, Soros targeted two perfectly legitimate medical innovations, palliative care and hospice care, in order to ram through his vision of legal euthanasia. He put tens of millions into the effort, recruited medical personnel across the country, and nicely tarnished the entire field of end-of-life care, all with next to no attention from our alert media. …”
    If this is true, and I suspect that it might be true, depending on the sources of information that might be found in footnotes in the aforementioned book – then it reveals even more about the RWJF and smoking-bans than has thus far been proven.
    There may be additional verifiable proof that there is more to the smoking-bans than anything to do with “health” as has been suspected thus far.

  40. Anonymous says:

    Re: CO2 rise is the problem, not simply Global Warming
    Hi Frank,
    No, CO2 rise isnt’t trivial nor ridiculous, it is very real and happening.
    If you research extinction level trigger points (tipping points), you will find that CO2 1000ppm is a critical level. By tipping points I mean, things get a lot harder to reverse because other factors begin happening (hydrogen sulphide, methane etc).
    The tap analogy is useful, we are turning that tap on faster all the time. We do not know when we are going to try and turn it back. We would require around 85TW or 85,000GW (about 8,000 small nuclear plants) of renewable energy now (17TW with 20% capacity factor) to go clean now for example. That is a huge amount of work meaning we don’t have as much time as you think because the power plant task alone is so massive. Not to mention the new infrastructure, cars, trucks, ships, boilers, factories etc etc etc.
    5000ppm in 200 years is actually a very short amount of time. We don’t think so because we are short-sighted (very), but it is.
    I have not argued the global warming case, though there is abundant reasoning and much collaborative evidence behind it.
    I know about cilia. They are hair-like structures which basically get burnt off when you smoke. They exist in your windpipe and once gone, they no longer deal with phlegm, so you develop smokers cough.
    To give you the information on cilia:
    “Larger eukaryotes, such as mammals, have motile cilia as well. Motile cilia are usually present on a cell’s surface in large numbers and beat in coordinated waves. In humans, for example, motile cilia are found in the lining of the trachea (windpipe), where they sweep mucus and dirt out of the lungs.”
    With black lung thing, if you are arguing that tar just ends up in the cilia, I doubt it. The smoke goes deep in your lungs as does the tar. That is why they turn black. Have a look, there are loads of pictures of blackened smokers lungs about, hideous as they are.
    Yes, smoke filled, not tar-filled. Cigarettes are designed to be addictive, they are not just filled with wood. Smoke from burning wood in fires to stay warm is not the same as the dodgy crap that the tobacco industry puts in their cancer sticks.

  41. Anonymous says:

    Re: CO2 rise is the problem, not simply Global Warming
    Hi Frank,
    No, CO2 rise isnt’t trivial nor ridiculous, it is very real and happening.
    If you research extinction level trigger points (tipping points), you will find that CO2 1000ppm is a critical level. By tipping points I mean, things get a lot harder to reverse because other factors begin happening (hydrogen sulphide, methane etc).
    The tap analogy is useful, we are turning that tap on faster all the time. We do not know when we are going to try and turn it back. We would require around 85TW or 85,000GW (about 8,000 small nuclear plants) of renewable energy now (17TW with 20% capacity factor) to go clean now for example. That is a huge amount of work meaning we don’t have as much time as you think because the power plant task alone is so massive. Not to mention the new infrastructure, cars, trucks, ships, boilers, factories etc etc etc.
    5000ppm in 200 years is actually a very short amount of time. We don’t think so because we are short-sighted (very), but it is.
    I have not argued the global warming case, though there is abundant reasoning and much collaborative evidence behind it.
    I know about cilia. They are hair-like structures which basically get burnt off when you smoke. They exist in your windpipe and once gone, they no longer deal with phlegm, so you develop smokers cough.
    To give you the information on cilia:
    “Larger eukaryotes, such as mammals, have motile cilia as well. Motile cilia are usually present on a cell’s surface in large numbers and beat in coordinated waves. In humans, for example, motile cilia are found in the lining of the trachea (windpipe), where they sweep mucus and dirt out of the lungs.”
    With black lung thing, if you are arguing that tar just ends up in the cilia, I doubt it. The smoke goes deep in your lungs as does the tar. That is why they turn black. Have a look, there are loads of pictures of blackened smokers lungs about, hideous as they are.
    Yes, smoke filled, not tar-filled. Cigarettes are designed to be addictive, they are not just filled with wood. Smoke from burning wood in fires to stay warm is not the same as the dodgy crap that the tobacco industry puts in their cancer sticks.

  42. Anonymous says:

    Re: CO2 rise is the problem, not simply Global Warming
    Hi Frank,
    No, CO2 rise isnt’t trivial nor ridiculous, it is very real and happening.
    If you research extinction level trigger points (tipping points), you will find that CO2 1000ppm is a critical level. By tipping points I mean, things get a lot harder to reverse because other factors begin happening (hydrogen sulphide, methane etc).
    The tap analogy is useful, we are turning that tap on faster all the time. We do not know when we are going to try and turn it back. We would require around 85TW or 85,000GW (about 8,000 small nuclear plants) of renewable energy now (17TW with 20% capacity factor) to go clean now for example. That is a huge amount of work meaning we don’t have as much time as you think because the power plant task alone is so massive. Not to mention the new infrastructure, cars, trucks, ships, boilers, factories etc etc etc.
    5000ppm in 200 years is actually a very short amount of time. We don’t think so because we are short-sighted (very), but it is.
    I have not argued the global warming case, though there is abundant reasoning and much collaborative evidence behind it.
    I know about cilia. They are hair-like structures which basically get burnt off when you smoke. They exist in your windpipe and once gone, they no longer deal with phlegm, so you develop smokers cough.
    To give you the information on cilia:
    “Larger eukaryotes, such as mammals, have motile cilia as well. Motile cilia are usually present on a cell’s surface in large numbers and beat in coordinated waves. In humans, for example, motile cilia are found in the lining of the trachea (windpipe), where they sweep mucus and dirt out of the lungs.”
    With black lung thing, if you are arguing that tar just ends up in the cilia, I doubt it. The smoke goes deep in your lungs as does the tar. That is why they turn black. Have a look, there are loads of pictures of blackened smokers lungs about, hideous as they are.
    Yes, smoke filled, not tar-filled. Cigarettes are designed to be addictive, they are not just filled with wood. Smoke from burning wood in fires to stay warm is not the same as the dodgy crap that the tobacco industry puts in their cancer sticks.

  43. Frank Davis says:

    Re: CO2 rise is the problem, not simply Global Warming
    they are hair-like structures which basically get burnt off when you smoke.
    That can’t be true, for a number of reasons. Firstly, when smoke enters the lungs it’s already fairly cool, and won’t ‘burn off’ anything.
    Secondly, if it did, my lungs would have filled up with all sorts of stuff 30 or 40 years ago, and I’d no longer be able to breathe. In fact, I have no trouble breathing at all.
    Thirdl, if smokers’ lungs had no working cilia, they wouldn’t be used in lung transplants. Yet they are frequently used.
    The smoke goes deep in your lungs as does the tar. That is why they turn black. Have a look, there are loads of pictures of blackened smokers lungs about, hideous as they are.
    They’re blackened lungs all right, but they’re not smokers’ lungs. They’re most likely coal miners’ lungs.
    Frank

  44. Frank Davis says:

    Re: CO2 rise is the problem, not simply Global Warming
    they are hair-like structures which basically get burnt off when you smoke.
    That can’t be true, for a number of reasons. Firstly, when smoke enters the lungs it’s already fairly cool, and won’t ‘burn off’ anything.
    Secondly, if it did, my lungs would have filled up with all sorts of stuff 30 or 40 years ago, and I’d no longer be able to breathe. In fact, I have no trouble breathing at all.
    Thirdl, if smokers’ lungs had no working cilia, they wouldn’t be used in lung transplants. Yet they are frequently used.
    The smoke goes deep in your lungs as does the tar. That is why they turn black. Have a look, there are loads of pictures of blackened smokers lungs about, hideous as they are.
    They’re blackened lungs all right, but they’re not smokers’ lungs. They’re most likely coal miners’ lungs.
    Frank

  45. Frank Davis says:

    Re: CO2 rise is the problem, not simply Global Warming
    they are hair-like structures which basically get burnt off when you smoke.
    That can’t be true, for a number of reasons. Firstly, when smoke enters the lungs it’s already fairly cool, and won’t ‘burn off’ anything.
    Secondly, if it did, my lungs would have filled up with all sorts of stuff 30 or 40 years ago, and I’d no longer be able to breathe. In fact, I have no trouble breathing at all.
    Thirdl, if smokers’ lungs had no working cilia, they wouldn’t be used in lung transplants. Yet they are frequently used.
    The smoke goes deep in your lungs as does the tar. That is why they turn black. Have a look, there are loads of pictures of blackened smokers lungs about, hideous as they are.
    They’re blackened lungs all right, but they’re not smokers’ lungs. They’re most likely coal miners’ lungs.
    Frank

  46. Frank Davis says:

    Funny how these rich guys turn out so nasty. I was just reading about James Cameron:

    “If that continues, business as usual as our leaders in Washington say is OK for us to do, we will have extincted 70% of the species on the planet by the end of the century.” Cameron responded to Schmidt’s line of discussion on global warming.
    During the same conversation Schmidt stated, “There are people who in my view criminally doubt some of the science.”
    “I agree, criminally, I agree with that.” Cameron interjected.
    “People, we need to evolve mentally and philosophically to something that has never existed before.” the Avatar director continued.
    “We need to become techno-indigenous people of an entire Earth, not of a nation, not of a state, but of a planet.”

    Earlier this year, Cameron said he wanted to debate the “deniers”, but then pulled out at the last minute even after the “criminals” agreed to endless dubious stipulations he kept demanding, such as no recording of the debate and no media coverage.
    Cameron has also just given $1m to help defeat California’s Prop23 which will overturn the Global Warming Bill, legislation that critics have argued would cause unemployment to sky rocket, effectively killing dead the already crippled economy.
    One wonders what punishments Cameron and Schmidt have in mind for global warming denying criminals? Perhaps execution, in line with the recent 10/10 propaganda campaign.

    Frank

  47. Frank Davis says:

    Funny how these rich guys turn out so nasty. I was just reading about James Cameron:

    “If that continues, business as usual as our leaders in Washington say is OK for us to do, we will have extincted 70% of the species on the planet by the end of the century.” Cameron responded to Schmidt’s line of discussion on global warming.
    During the same conversation Schmidt stated, “There are people who in my view criminally doubt some of the science.”
    “I agree, criminally, I agree with that.” Cameron interjected.
    “People, we need to evolve mentally and philosophically to something that has never existed before.” the Avatar director continued.
    “We need to become techno-indigenous people of an entire Earth, not of a nation, not of a state, but of a planet.”

    Earlier this year, Cameron said he wanted to debate the “deniers”, but then pulled out at the last minute even after the “criminals” agreed to endless dubious stipulations he kept demanding, such as no recording of the debate and no media coverage.
    Cameron has also just given $1m to help defeat California’s Prop23 which will overturn the Global Warming Bill, legislation that critics have argued would cause unemployment to sky rocket, effectively killing dead the already crippled economy.
    One wonders what punishments Cameron and Schmidt have in mind for global warming denying criminals? Perhaps execution, in line with the recent 10/10 propaganda campaign.

    Frank

  48. Frank Davis says:

    Funny how these rich guys turn out so nasty. I was just reading about James Cameron:

    “If that continues, business as usual as our leaders in Washington say is OK for us to do, we will have extincted 70% of the species on the planet by the end of the century.” Cameron responded to Schmidt’s line of discussion on global warming.
    During the same conversation Schmidt stated, “There are people who in my view criminally doubt some of the science.”
    “I agree, criminally, I agree with that.” Cameron interjected.
    “People, we need to evolve mentally and philosophically to something that has never existed before.” the Avatar director continued.
    “We need to become techno-indigenous people of an entire Earth, not of a nation, not of a state, but of a planet.”

    Earlier this year, Cameron said he wanted to debate the “deniers”, but then pulled out at the last minute even after the “criminals” agreed to endless dubious stipulations he kept demanding, such as no recording of the debate and no media coverage.
    Cameron has also just given $1m to help defeat California’s Prop23 which will overturn the Global Warming Bill, legislation that critics have argued would cause unemployment to sky rocket, effectively killing dead the already crippled economy.
    One wonders what punishments Cameron and Schmidt have in mind for global warming denying criminals? Perhaps execution, in line with the recent 10/10 propaganda campaign.

    Frank

  49. Anonymous says:

    Re: CO2 rise is the problem, not simply Global Warming
    Hi Frank,
    Here is the information for you regarding burnt cilia:
    “With one drag on a cigarette over 4000 chemicals are released into almost every system of your body. Nicotine is only one of the many chemicals that are working against your entire body. When the chemicals enter the mouth and trachea, it irritates them and leaves minor chemical burns as it travels down. This is the reason many people complain about sore throats and pain when they first began smoking. Many of these chemical compounds have cancer-causing properties, as well as their harsh chemical make ups. Given enough burns on the trachea and voice box, it will scar them for life, giving the smoker the “smoker’s voice” and cancer of the throat as these chemicals slowly burn a path. When this chemical cocktail spills into your lungs as a breath of air, it immediately attacks the cilia. These little hairs are burned and stunted, and are no longer able to do their job.”
    It isn’t as simple as just heat it seems, chemicals can burn too.
    Remember, the cilia are apparently just in the windpipe, so whether they are burnt off or not does not affect the assessment of the lungs for transplant.
    I have asthma, and I know that your lungs degrade until a certain point where you body says “No more”. It isn’t a gradual response, it is more like a trigger point. Increase my breathing by the tiniest of margin to get back over the trigger point again, and my brain no longer flags my breathing up. I can’t breathe well, but my brain is not in ‘alarm’ mode.
    For smokers, everything is fine (although the lungs are being degraded) until it isn’t. I don’t know, you’d have to ask someone who has been through it, but there is no easy fix at that point.
    Put another way, smokers are certainly damaging their lungs physically whether they believe it or not, it is just that the brain is allowing it for now. When the physical damage hits breathing to a ‘life threatening/serious’ point, you will be told by your brain.
    I know the feeling, I have had it many many times, it isn’t nice. Perhaps (and it is just my thought applying what I know from asthma) that mechanism is partially responsible for why you say that you have ‘no trouble breathing’ (because that bit is true for you) in a way that suggests you feel safe in the belief that you feel fine and no harm seems to have happened to you. But it likely has, it just has not been triggered as ‘life threatening’ yet.
    You’re saying that lungs do not clean themselves of dust from coal mining which turn black, but do from tar deposits put there by smoking which stops them turning black? I have found many pictures of smokers lungs all around the world, even in places where coal mining never or no long exists.
    Another interesting point. You say that smokers lungs are used in transplants, yes they are. But not because they are deemed as as good as non-smokers lungs, it is simply a supply-demand issue, there are far more people in need of a lung transplant than lungs available.
    So, do you try a transplant with what is available, even if they are smokers lungs, and give the patient a chance, or do you let the patient die without trying? That is the question facing physicians, it has nothing to do with them asserting that smokers lungs and non-smokers lungs are the same. They are not. So, in cases where smokers lungs are transplanted, it is through dire circumstance, not choice over non-smokers lungs.
    You are probably of an age where you don’t think it is possible or worth giving up smoking. So be it. But, if you do, you may avoid that tipping point and give yourself a much better chance of another decade or two to spend with your family.
    It all depends what matters to you, hypothesizing that the factual smoking argument is accepted as being damaging by you, then what is more important, little white things that you put in your mouth or spending time with those that you love or love you. Throw in addiction and it is not that easy, but you have to make the first decision first before tackling the ‘how’ part.
    Good luck Frank.

  50. Anonymous says:

    Re: CO2 rise is the problem, not simply Global Warming
    Hi Frank,
    Here is the information for you regarding burnt cilia:
    “With one drag on a cigarette over 4000 chemicals are released into almost every system of your body. Nicotine is only one of the many chemicals that are working against your entire body. When the chemicals enter the mouth and trachea, it irritates them and leaves minor chemical burns as it travels down. This is the reason many people complain about sore throats and pain when they first began smoking. Many of these chemical compounds have cancer-causing properties, as well as their harsh chemical make ups. Given enough burns on the trachea and voice box, it will scar them for life, giving the smoker the “smoker’s voice” and cancer of the throat as these chemicals slowly burn a path. When this chemical cocktail spills into your lungs as a breath of air, it immediately attacks the cilia. These little hairs are burned and stunted, and are no longer able to do their job.”
    It isn’t as simple as just heat it seems, chemicals can burn too.
    Remember, the cilia are apparently just in the windpipe, so whether they are burnt off or not does not affect the assessment of the lungs for transplant.
    I have asthma, and I know that your lungs degrade until a certain point where you body says “No more”. It isn’t a gradual response, it is more like a trigger point. Increase my breathing by the tiniest of margin to get back over the trigger point again, and my brain no longer flags my breathing up. I can’t breathe well, but my brain is not in ‘alarm’ mode.
    For smokers, everything is fine (although the lungs are being degraded) until it isn’t. I don’t know, you’d have to ask someone who has been through it, but there is no easy fix at that point.
    Put another way, smokers are certainly damaging their lungs physically whether they believe it or not, it is just that the brain is allowing it for now. When the physical damage hits breathing to a ‘life threatening/serious’ point, you will be told by your brain.
    I know the feeling, I have had it many many times, it isn’t nice. Perhaps (and it is just my thought applying what I know from asthma) that mechanism is partially responsible for why you say that you have ‘no trouble breathing’ (because that bit is true for you) in a way that suggests you feel safe in the belief that you feel fine and no harm seems to have happened to you. But it likely has, it just has not been triggered as ‘life threatening’ yet.
    You’re saying that lungs do not clean themselves of dust from coal mining which turn black, but do from tar deposits put there by smoking which stops them turning black? I have found many pictures of smokers lungs all around the world, even in places where coal mining never or no long exists.
    Another interesting point. You say that smokers lungs are used in transplants, yes they are. But not because they are deemed as as good as non-smokers lungs, it is simply a supply-demand issue, there are far more people in need of a lung transplant than lungs available.
    So, do you try a transplant with what is available, even if they are smokers lungs, and give the patient a chance, or do you let the patient die without trying? That is the question facing physicians, it has nothing to do with them asserting that smokers lungs and non-smokers lungs are the same. They are not. So, in cases where smokers lungs are transplanted, it is through dire circumstance, not choice over non-smokers lungs.
    You are probably of an age where you don’t think it is possible or worth giving up smoking. So be it. But, if you do, you may avoid that tipping point and give yourself a much better chance of another decade or two to spend with your family.
    It all depends what matters to you, hypothesizing that the factual smoking argument is accepted as being damaging by you, then what is more important, little white things that you put in your mouth or spending time with those that you love or love you. Throw in addiction and it is not that easy, but you have to make the first decision first before tackling the ‘how’ part.
    Good luck Frank.

  51. Anonymous says:

    Re: CO2 rise is the problem, not simply Global Warming
    Hi Frank,
    Here is the information for you regarding burnt cilia:
    “With one drag on a cigarette over 4000 chemicals are released into almost every system of your body. Nicotine is only one of the many chemicals that are working against your entire body. When the chemicals enter the mouth and trachea, it irritates them and leaves minor chemical burns as it travels down. This is the reason many people complain about sore throats and pain when they first began smoking. Many of these chemical compounds have cancer-causing properties, as well as their harsh chemical make ups. Given enough burns on the trachea and voice box, it will scar them for life, giving the smoker the “smoker’s voice” and cancer of the throat as these chemicals slowly burn a path. When this chemical cocktail spills into your lungs as a breath of air, it immediately attacks the cilia. These little hairs are burned and stunted, and are no longer able to do their job.”
    It isn’t as simple as just heat it seems, chemicals can burn too.
    Remember, the cilia are apparently just in the windpipe, so whether they are burnt off or not does not affect the assessment of the lungs for transplant.
    I have asthma, and I know that your lungs degrade until a certain point where you body says “No more”. It isn’t a gradual response, it is more like a trigger point. Increase my breathing by the tiniest of margin to get back over the trigger point again, and my brain no longer flags my breathing up. I can’t breathe well, but my brain is not in ‘alarm’ mode.
    For smokers, everything is fine (although the lungs are being degraded) until it isn’t. I don’t know, you’d have to ask someone who has been through it, but there is no easy fix at that point.
    Put another way, smokers are certainly damaging their lungs physically whether they believe it or not, it is just that the brain is allowing it for now. When the physical damage hits breathing to a ‘life threatening/serious’ point, you will be told by your brain.
    I know the feeling, I have had it many many times, it isn’t nice. Perhaps (and it is just my thought applying what I know from asthma) that mechanism is partially responsible for why you say that you have ‘no trouble breathing’ (because that bit is true for you) in a way that suggests you feel safe in the belief that you feel fine and no harm seems to have happened to you. But it likely has, it just has not been triggered as ‘life threatening’ yet.
    You’re saying that lungs do not clean themselves of dust from coal mining which turn black, but do from tar deposits put there by smoking which stops them turning black? I have found many pictures of smokers lungs all around the world, even in places where coal mining never or no long exists.
    Another interesting point. You say that smokers lungs are used in transplants, yes they are. But not because they are deemed as as good as non-smokers lungs, it is simply a supply-demand issue, there are far more people in need of a lung transplant than lungs available.
    So, do you try a transplant with what is available, even if they are smokers lungs, and give the patient a chance, or do you let the patient die without trying? That is the question facing physicians, it has nothing to do with them asserting that smokers lungs and non-smokers lungs are the same. They are not. So, in cases where smokers lungs are transplanted, it is through dire circumstance, not choice over non-smokers lungs.
    You are probably of an age where you don’t think it is possible or worth giving up smoking. So be it. But, if you do, you may avoid that tipping point and give yourself a much better chance of another decade or two to spend with your family.
    It all depends what matters to you, hypothesizing that the factual smoking argument is accepted as being damaging by you, then what is more important, little white things that you put in your mouth or spending time with those that you love or love you. Throw in addiction and it is not that easy, but you have to make the first decision first before tackling the ‘how’ part.
    Good luck Frank.

  52. Anonymous says:

    Beside any condemnation of anyone rich influencing to fund propaganda and providing resources to fund communist causes, if nothing else – it would prove there is a direct link between the anti-smoking industry and the eugenics based euthanasia industry.
    And if RWJF funds ASH, which they might, then it proves a direct link between Banzhaf, Glantz and others in ASH and shows them little to do with concerns of “health” – because how can one be “healthy” if the underlying reason behind the smoking bans has more to do with promoting euthanasia, as the long term goal, once enough “believers” are on board.

  53. Anonymous says:

    Beside any condemnation of anyone rich influencing to fund propaganda and providing resources to fund communist causes, if nothing else – it would prove there is a direct link between the anti-smoking industry and the eugenics based euthanasia industry.
    And if RWJF funds ASH, which they might, then it proves a direct link between Banzhaf, Glantz and others in ASH and shows them little to do with concerns of “health” – because how can one be “healthy” if the underlying reason behind the smoking bans has more to do with promoting euthanasia, as the long term goal, once enough “believers” are on board.

  54. Anonymous says:

    Beside any condemnation of anyone rich influencing to fund propaganda and providing resources to fund communist causes, if nothing else – it would prove there is a direct link between the anti-smoking industry and the eugenics based euthanasia industry.
    And if RWJF funds ASH, which they might, then it proves a direct link between Banzhaf, Glantz and others in ASH and shows them little to do with concerns of “health” – because how can one be “healthy” if the underlying reason behind the smoking bans has more to do with promoting euthanasia, as the long term goal, once enough “believers” are on board.

  55. Anonymous says:

    Re: CO2 rise is the problem, not simply Global Warming
    “… there are loads of pictures of blackened smokers lungs about, hideous as they are.”
    There are lots of pictures of diseased lungs about but they will look just as diseased in a never smoker. There is no way of telling the difference
    between the lungs of a smokers and a never smoker just by looking at them. To my knowledge, there is no compound in cigarette smoke that builds up in the body over time. Any compound that is not exhaled is excreted at some point. I would say the only possible exception I know of is when some brands of cigarettes used asbestos filters in the 50’s. The black lung pictures is a great way of scaring people but it’s simply not true that the lungs of smokers turn black over time.

  56. Anonymous says:

    Re: CO2 rise is the problem, not simply Global Warming
    “… there are loads of pictures of blackened smokers lungs about, hideous as they are.”
    There are lots of pictures of diseased lungs about but they will look just as diseased in a never smoker. There is no way of telling the difference
    between the lungs of a smokers and a never smoker just by looking at them. To my knowledge, there is no compound in cigarette smoke that builds up in the body over time. Any compound that is not exhaled is excreted at some point. I would say the only possible exception I know of is when some brands of cigarettes used asbestos filters in the 50’s. The black lung pictures is a great way of scaring people but it’s simply not true that the lungs of smokers turn black over time.

  57. Anonymous says:

    Re: CO2 rise is the problem, not simply Global Warming
    “… there are loads of pictures of blackened smokers lungs about, hideous as they are.”
    There are lots of pictures of diseased lungs about but they will look just as diseased in a never smoker. There is no way of telling the difference
    between the lungs of a smokers and a never smoker just by looking at them. To my knowledge, there is no compound in cigarette smoke that builds up in the body over time. Any compound that is not exhaled is excreted at some point. I would say the only possible exception I know of is when some brands of cigarettes used asbestos filters in the 50’s. The black lung pictures is a great way of scaring people but it’s simply not true that the lungs of smokers turn black over time.

  58. Anonymous says:

    Re: CO2 rise is the problem, not simply Global Warming
    “The lungs of city dwellers are much dirtier than the lungs of rural dwellers. So that if a post mortem examination is performed, you actually see the black deposits on the outside of the lungs of city dwellers and also in the lymph glands in the middle of the chest.
    And this is true, even in people who haven’t worked in a coal mine or haven’t smoked. It’s simply the effect of breathing in fine particles over the years of a lifetime.”
    http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/helthrpt/stories/s838424.htm
    Now that really was “Big Oil”
    Toxicologic and Epidemiologic Clues from the Characterization of the 1952 London Smog Fine Particulate Matter in Archival Autopsy Lung Tissues
    http://www.ehponline.org/members/2003/6114/6114.pdf
    1953
    “Bessy Braddock, Labour MP for Liverpool Exchange, favoured an environmental explanation, and
    therefore found the urban–rural divide a barrier to acceptance of the smoking–lung cancer connection.
    ‘In view of the fact that cigarette and pipe smoking goes on all over the country, it is folly to say that it is the main cause of lung cancer.’
    “Dr Guy Scadding, taking part, expressed the views clearly:smoking cannot be called the cause of lung cancer, since non-smokers also get the disease, and moreover the increase in cigarette smoking is not likely to be the only cause of the increase in the lung cancer death rate.
    “The effect of smoking cannot explain the difference in mortality between town and country
    dwellers.”
    http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-926030-3.pdf
    Fear of political embarrassment led to government cover up of link between air
    pollution and lung cancer
    “Delegates attending an international conference in London today to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Great London Smog of 1952, which caused an estimated 12,000 deaths, will hear how governments from the late 50s onwards deliberately downplayed the huge threat to public health caused by air pollution, and sought to shift the blame firmly onto cigarette smoking instead”
    http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/news/2002/smogpollution.html
    Rose

  59. Anonymous says:

    Re: CO2 rise is the problem, not simply Global Warming
    “The lungs of city dwellers are much dirtier than the lungs of rural dwellers. So that if a post mortem examination is performed, you actually see the black deposits on the outside of the lungs of city dwellers and also in the lymph glands in the middle of the chest.
    And this is true, even in people who haven’t worked in a coal mine or haven’t smoked. It’s simply the effect of breathing in fine particles over the years of a lifetime.”
    http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/helthrpt/stories/s838424.htm
    Now that really was “Big Oil”
    Toxicologic and Epidemiologic Clues from the Characterization of the 1952 London Smog Fine Particulate Matter in Archival Autopsy Lung Tissues
    http://www.ehponline.org/members/2003/6114/6114.pdf
    1953
    “Bessy Braddock, Labour MP for Liverpool Exchange, favoured an environmental explanation, and
    therefore found the urban–rural divide a barrier to acceptance of the smoking–lung cancer connection.
    ‘In view of the fact that cigarette and pipe smoking goes on all over the country, it is folly to say that it is the main cause of lung cancer.’
    “Dr Guy Scadding, taking part, expressed the views clearly:smoking cannot be called the cause of lung cancer, since non-smokers also get the disease, and moreover the increase in cigarette smoking is not likely to be the only cause of the increase in the lung cancer death rate.
    “The effect of smoking cannot explain the difference in mortality between town and country
    dwellers.”
    http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-926030-3.pdf
    Fear of political embarrassment led to government cover up of link between air
    pollution and lung cancer
    “Delegates attending an international conference in London today to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Great London Smog of 1952, which caused an estimated 12,000 deaths, will hear how governments from the late 50s onwards deliberately downplayed the huge threat to public health caused by air pollution, and sought to shift the blame firmly onto cigarette smoking instead”
    http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/news/2002/smogpollution.html
    Rose

  60. Anonymous says:

    Re: CO2 rise is the problem, not simply Global Warming
    “The lungs of city dwellers are much dirtier than the lungs of rural dwellers. So that if a post mortem examination is performed, you actually see the black deposits on the outside of the lungs of city dwellers and also in the lymph glands in the middle of the chest.
    And this is true, even in people who haven’t worked in a coal mine or haven’t smoked. It’s simply the effect of breathing in fine particles over the years of a lifetime.”
    http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/helthrpt/stories/s838424.htm
    Now that really was “Big Oil”
    Toxicologic and Epidemiologic Clues from the Characterization of the 1952 London Smog Fine Particulate Matter in Archival Autopsy Lung Tissues
    http://www.ehponline.org/members/2003/6114/6114.pdf
    1953
    “Bessy Braddock, Labour MP for Liverpool Exchange, favoured an environmental explanation, and
    therefore found the urban–rural divide a barrier to acceptance of the smoking–lung cancer connection.
    ‘In view of the fact that cigarette and pipe smoking goes on all over the country, it is folly to say that it is the main cause of lung cancer.’
    “Dr Guy Scadding, taking part, expressed the views clearly:smoking cannot be called the cause of lung cancer, since non-smokers also get the disease, and moreover the increase in cigarette smoking is not likely to be the only cause of the increase in the lung cancer death rate.
    “The effect of smoking cannot explain the difference in mortality between town and country
    dwellers.”
    http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-926030-3.pdf
    Fear of political embarrassment led to government cover up of link between air
    pollution and lung cancer
    “Delegates attending an international conference in London today to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Great London Smog of 1952, which caused an estimated 12,000 deaths, will hear how governments from the late 50s onwards deliberately downplayed the huge threat to public health caused by air pollution, and sought to shift the blame firmly onto cigarette smoking instead”
    http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/news/2002/smogpollution.html
    Rose

  61. Pingback: Jane Austen Was Right | Frank Davis

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.