The Climate Change consensus seems to be falling apart. First it was Australia.
Australia’s cabinet has decided it will reject new contributions or taxes related to climate change at this week’s annual United Nations global summit on climate change in Warsaw, calling the measures “socialism masquerading as environmentalism.”
According to The Australian, the document that was agreed upon declares that Australia “will not sign up to any new agreement that involves spending money or levying taxes” on climate change matters. It “rules out Australia playing any role in a wealth transfer from rich countries to developing nations to pay them to decrease their carbon emissions.”
Australia also plans to repeal its carbon tax as it toughens its stance against the climate change agenda.
And then it was Canada.
OTTAWA, ONTARIO–(Marketwired – Nov. 12, 2013) – Today, Paul Calandra, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, issued the following statement on behalf of the Government of Canada on Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s introduction of legislation to repeal the carbon tax:
“Canada applauds the decision by Prime Minister Abbott to introduce legislation to repeal Australia’s carbon tax. The Australian Prime Minister’s decision will be noticed around the world and sends an important message.
“Our government knows that carbon taxes raise the price of everything, including gas, groceries, and electricity. Prime Minister Abbott has said that, in Australia, the repeal of the carbon tax will reduce the average household’s cost of living by (in Australian dollars) $550 a year, take $200 off household power bills and $70 off gas bills.
“Our government has reduced greenhouse gas emissions while protecting and creating Canadians jobs – greenhouse gas emissions are down since 2006, and we’ve created 1 million net new jobs since the recession – and we have done this without penalising Canadian families with a carbon tax.”
And now it’s Japan.
Japan slashes: Forget a 25% cut in CO2 emissions, now the target is a 3% rise!
Cabinet members said on Friday they had agreed a new target with an updated time frame, under which Japan would seek to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 3.8 per cent by 2020 compared with their level in 2005. Nobuteru Ishihara, the environment minister, is to defend the goal next week when he joins international climate talks in Warsaw.
Japan’s previous target used an earlier and more challenging baseline: 1990, the benchmark year for the Kyoto agreement and a time when Japanese emissions were lower. Compared with that year, Japan said in 2009, it would cut its emissions by one-quarter by 2020.
The new target announced on Friday represents a 3 per cent rise over the same 30-year period – a difference from the previous goal that is about equal to the annual carbon dioxide emissions of Spain.
All in one week, and during a climate conference in Poland, it has shocked many delegates.
Recent decisions by the governments of Australia, Japan and Canada to downgrade their efforts over climate change have caused panic among those states most affected by global warming, who fear others will follow as they rearrange their priorities during the downturn.
In the last few days, Japan has announced it will backtrack on its pledge to reduce its emission cuts from 25% to 3.8% by 2020 on the basis that it had to close its nuclear reactors after the 2011 earthquake and tsunami.
Australia, which is not sending a minister to this weekend’s talks, signalled it may weaken its targets and is repealing domestic carbon laws following the election of a conservative government.
Canada has pulled out of the Kyoto accord, which committed major industrial economies to reducing their annual CO2 emissions to below 1990 levels.
Shocking! Next thing they’ll be declaring that CO2 is plant food and is greening the planet. And that smoking is good for you and is a great aid to cerebration.
Oh those evil, evil Oil and Tobacco companies!
In WW2 in the Phillipines the Flips made moonshine to run they’re automobiles on and generators in the woods besides for drinking.
Tobacco and Drink have done more to ensure world peace than probably any 2 individual commodities ever in world history next to say marrying the daughter of a waring kingdom!
When they make war upon civilizations mutual peaceful means of talking and gathering they have in a sence tossed off peace to simply warmongering.
In walks Vladamir Putin to the oval office. Obama goes howd you like some fine American gay sex……….Putin goes about the same as offering you a smoke!
Off topic. Climate Audit (rather dormant of late, but a biggie in the debunking of global warming) does a post on nutrition research bashing.
Mike I think for now on we will see weekly reports of the JUNK SCIENCE falling apart its come to that.
A Scathing Indictment of Federally-Funded Nutrition Research
Edward Archer of the University of South Carolina, lead author of a scathing examination of U.S. federally-funded nutrition research, has written an even more scathing editorial in The Scientist (here) (H/t Margaret Wente of the Toronto Globe and Mail here.)
We may be witnessing the confluence of two inherent components of the human condition: incompetence and self-interest
And while the self-correcting nature of science necessitates failure, the vast majority of nutrition’s failures were engendered by a complete lack of familiarity with the scientific method.
Rather than training graduate students in the scientific method, and allowing their research to serve the needs of society, the field’s leaders choose to train their mentees to serve only their own professional needs—namely, to obtain grant funding and publish their research.
But by not training mentees in the basics of science and skepticism, the nutrition field has fostered the use of measures that are so profoundly dissonant with scientific principles that they will never yield a definitive conclusion. As such, we now have multiple generations of nutrition researchers who dominate federal nutrition research and the peer review of that work, but lack the critical thinking skills necessary to critique or conduct sound scientific research.
The subjective data yielded by poorly formulated nutrition studies are also the perfect vehicle to perpetuate a never-ending cycle of ambiguous findings leading to ever-more federal funding.
Archer culminates with the following allegation (going much further than any of my comparatively mild critiques of climate scientists):
Perhaps more importantly, to waste finite health research resources on pseudo-quantitative methods and then attempt to base public health policy on these anecdotal “data” is not only inane, it is willfully fraudulent… The fact that nutrition researchers have known for decades that these techniques are invalid implies that the field has been perpetrating fraud against the US taxpayers for more than 40 years—far greater than any fraud perpetrated in the private sector (e.g., the Enron and Madoff scandals).
The study was not funded by the U.S. federal government, but by an “unrestricted research grant” from Coca-Cola.
This study was funded via an unrestricted research grant from The Coca-Cola Company. The sponsor of the study had no role in the study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report.
Interesting to see Steve McIntyre venture outside the climate debate. Not sure quite what he was trying to say, though.
It will be interesting to see if the Australian parliament passes the cabinet’s legislation to repeal the carbon tax.
Will our own hysterical alarmists in government take any notice ,I very much doubt it as they take their orders from Barroso’s gang
Watch from 9:13 Andrew Marr “show”.
The BBC going into full blown Climate change drum banging.
And listen to Jowell, if Labour get in be afraid, be very afraid.
It’s especially interesting that Australia & Canada, both very big on anti-smoking, are now backing off on AGW. It would be nice to think this backing off from AGW could carry over to anti-smoking in those terribly crazy countries but maybe that’s hoping for too much.
Still, although it keeps marching on in many ways in many places, Antism really has lost some momentum in the world over the past couple of years, and even backslid here and there (especially in Holland, thanks Wiel Maessen!).
Sometimes tides turn slowly. I guess you can hope, at least, that the tide is finally and really turning against fanatical anti-smoking, and that this process might speed up in years we’ll all live to see. That sure is long overdue.
Just saw this morning on the news Heathrowe has built its first e cig smoking area!
They are still buying smoking bans
MCCOMB, Miss. — Southwest Mississippi Community College will ban tobacco from its campus starting in summer 2014.
The Enterprise-Journal reports (http://bit.ly/1by3XSL ) the college’s board of trustees unanimously approved a resolution this past week to adopt a tobacco-free policy effective July 1, 2014.
The policy is tied into a health and wellness grant of nearly $200,000 the college received from Blue Cross/Blue Shield to remodel a portion of the physical education building.
Under the policy, the use of tobacco and smoking products will be prohibited on any college-owned property, including buildings, dorm, grounds, parking lots, sidewalks, recreational/sporting facilities and in college-owned vehicles.
The policy applies to college employees, students, contractors, vendors and visitors.
Read more here: http://www.sunherald.com/2013/11/17/5122228/miss-college-to-ban-tobacco-on.html#storylink=cpy
Another JUNK SCIENCE STUDY:
Consumers’ knowledge and beliefs about the safety of cigarette filters — HASTRUP et al. 10 (1):…
From trainee to consultant, BMJ Group offers doctors around the world tailored information, special events, learning resources and recruitment
I have never accepted the Global Warming/Climate Change con. To start with it is something that has occurred on this planet since it came into being! Scientists have proven this with past research and analysing samples from deep within the earths layers,
There is also the point that the poles change places every 100,000 to 1 million years and logically, this would suggest that this could also have an effect on climate.
In my humble and logical mind, if the earth has survived climate changes so far, it will survive again and that it is probably the course it needs to undergo in order to survive at all. A kind of regeneration of the planet. Therefore, anything we do to try and stop this natural occurrence could well finish the planet off, should we be in any way successful.
I say leave the planet alone to do what it must to survive, otherwise we will all be lost. Yes, it means that some will be lost, be that humans, animals or plant life, but that is what has happened over time. It seems from recent reports that it Climate Change that caused the Woolly Mammoth to become extinct, so yes, losses there will be, but that is nature and that is life.
First and foremost we need to protect the planet and that means allowing it to go through and complete the cycles it needs to in order for it to continue supporting what life is left.
If earth can create life and support it after billions of years. Then still having volcanoes and violent eruptions while still supporting living things even with mass pollution in the air and cleaning it up……..Then somebody wants to claim man can do in the earth. Of course its all BULLSHIT from the very beginning and most of us saw right thru it upon the first utterance of GLOBAL COOLING BACK IN THE 1970s!
I hope no one gets too upset with my occasional out-of-turn commentary.
The discussion the other day about guilt-ridden and apathetic smokers aired a lot of good points. We’d definitely shorten the reign of the Health N’ Safety Twist if more smokers grew a spine and at the very least bothered to vote in guys like Farage or Ron Paul (or conversely vote out the Michael Bloombergs and Barack Obamas of this world).
I was trying to come up with something that might work and a very simple concept seemed to win the day.
I’d like to see tee-shirts and jackets and shopping bags and coffee mugs emblazoned with the simple slogan “I’m Glad I Smoke”. Maybe even bring back bumper stickers with that simple statement. Hell, they brought back Earth Day chic and health food hippiedom didn’t they? Ad nauseum they did.
Did my duty Rand Pauls my Senator and I proudly voted him in!
That reminds me that I bought a very expensive T-shirt with a lovely picture of a girl smoking on the front of it, which I have never worn (because it was so expensive). And also that I have a What’s Next? badge given to me by Tony Blows in his Hereford ban-resisting pub, but no longer know where it is, after wearing it daily for years.
Smokervoter, we ARE an ARMY. We also have this advantage of being an army of individuals.
What do you find easier to control? An army in which all follow a predictive move or an army of lose canons?
R.J. Reynolds List of Ingredients (2010)
Most of these ingredients are commonly used in foods and beverages, or permitted for use in foods by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), or have been given the status “Generally Recognized as Safe in Foods” (GRAS) by FDA, the Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association (FEMA) or other expert committees.
“Maximum level of use” is the highest level of an ingredient used in any brand manufactured by R.J. Reynolds. Levels are based on a dry-weight percentage of the tobacco. For example, .001 equals one, one-thousandth of one percent.
IngredientMax Level of Use In Any Cigarette Brand In %Function
Ammonium Alginate1.15Formulation Aid
Ammonium Hydroxide0.08In Process pH Adjuster, Flavor
Benzaldehyde Glyceryl Acetal0.001Flavor
Benzyl Alcohol0.025Flavor, Solvent
Carbon11.77Heat Source Constituent Utilized In Tobacco Heating Cigarettes
Carbon DioxideNot DetectableProcessing Aid
Carob Bean Extract0.095Flavor
Carrot Seed Oil Terpeneless0.001Flavor
Cellulose Fiber6.31Formulation Aid
Cinnamon Bark Oil<0.0001Flavor
Clary Sage Oil0.001Flavor
Cocoa (Extract, Powder, Extractive, Distillate)1.84Casing, Flavor
Coffee Beans, Ground0.01Flavor
Fig Juice Concentrate0.34Casing
Geranium Bourbon Oil<0.0001Flavor
Glycerides, mixed decanoyl and octanoyl1.92Flavor
Graphite3.34Heat Source Constituent Utilized In Tobacco Heating Cigarettes
Guar Gum1.8Formulation Aid
High Fructose Corn Syrup4.49Casing
Lemon Oil, Terpeneless0.001Flavor
Licorice Extract Powder0.01Flavor
2-Methyl Pentanoic Acid0.001Flavor
Neroli Bigarade Oil<0.0001Flavor
Orange Oil Sweet Terpeneless0.01Flavor
Orange Oil Terpeneless0.01Flavor
Orris Root Extract0.001Flavor
Peppermint Oil, Terpeneless0.05Flavor
Peru Balsam Oil0.001Flavor
Propylene Glycol1.9Solvent, Humectant, Flavor
Prune Juice Concentrate0.47Casing
Rose Oil Turkish0.001Flavor
Sandalwood Oil, Yellow<0.0001Flavor
Sodium Carbonate0.18Heat Source Constituent Utilized In Tobacco Heating Cigarettes
Tangerine Oil, Terpeneless0.01Flavor
WaterNASolvent, Processing Aid, Humectant
Well that explains why my home grown didn’t taste of much, yet was way more effective than even Golden Virginia Green.
Above sounds like a pharmacy mixed in with a health food shop plus a coffee shop.
Just curious, how many of these ingredients are found in day-to-day items we use and/or food?
The latest business extreme world famous cook solves animal disposal problem for SPCA and all animal rights lovers everywhere! Originated by the ”ROADKILL” law in Tennessee a few years back our own cook has combined a recipe with the animal disposal by cooking and preparing a fine new Cusine ”PUPPY BURGERS”
BRAND *NEW* RECIPE..(George Gee’s Puppy Burgers)….
*LIVE* COOKING SHOW at The WORLD FAMOUS COBALT FLEA MARKET……George Duhart #1 BBQ Sauce in The WORLD… *7* FREE Recipes (almost Illegal- they’re that awe…
The Climate Change consensus seems to be falling apart.
Australia, Canada, Japan…. The countries in which the anti-smokers are having a field day lobbying the respective governments.
Anti-smokers are increasingly pushing forward their demands, seeing a pollution-free environment as part of their right to a healthy lifestyle.
This is a little amusing; both, climate “science” & anti-smoking “science” uses the same rhetoric, installing “fear for our survival” in the world’s population whilst driving this “health-living-longer” model to a number of a population that our planet cannot support.
I am quite sure that our planet looks after itself; there are new diseases as micro-organisms adapt to a change in their environment much quicker than we do and as our planet wobbles along it’s path, there will be climate changes many more times.
So, if businesses re-locate in order to avoid a “green tax” (which I believe is quite substantial) the respective government loses an also substantial income which in turn translates into most of the population having to fill this income gap. The “rich” countries will become the new “third world”.
Unfortunately it will take a little longer before Australia, Canada, Japan and the rest of the world cotton on that Tobacco Control = Climate Change, unless, of course we experience a recession, which dries up their filthy campaign funds – and everyone will be glad that they have gone.
There is always a delay in politics. Business responds to the environment rapidly, but politics has to wait for groundswells. Politics is governed by voter intentions. Canada, Australia and Japan have observed the change in public perception about global warming and observed the international competitive advantages to be gained from kicking the whole baloney into touch, as well as enervating their own economies.
The sad thing is that we seem to have politicians who are dinosaurs. Vis, Cameron saying that he must defer to ‘scientists’ about global warming. Why is it that Cameron’s ‘scientists’ are all warmists?
At first, I thought that Cameron was OK. He seemed to be letting his ministers run their departments. But, as has been the case for a couple of decades, it did not take long for him to fall into the trap that he personally had to be ‘the boss’ in everything.
I think that it is too late now. He has lost the respect. He had his chance and botched it. What was his chance? He could have instructed his ministers to stop allowing themselves to be controlled by their departments. For example, he could have said to his EU minister, “I want the costs of the EU to be cut. Look at the costs and tell me what we should refuse to pay for” I don’t mean ‘negotiate about’ – I mean we will not pay.
People misunderstand the nature of ‘treaties’. Australia has said that it will pay no money for global warming initiatives. That is the right way to go about it. JUST SAY NO!. The reason that it the right way to go about it is that the ‘treaty’ (eg. the ‘Kyoto accord’) has no authority.
The same thing applies to the Framework Convention ….. In general, the UK agreed to go along with it. But, in recent years, its demands have proven to be unworkable and damaging both economically and socially. There is no need to withdraw completely (for the time being). Just say, “No, we are not going to do that” The Holy Zealots can do nothing about it.
The same thing applies to the EU. It is just a treaty. There is no need to fully withdraw. The UK can say that we will not do this or that. Rumpy Pumpy can do nothing about it.
Go Back Straight Dope Message Board > Main > Great Debates
Reload this Page Where’s the absolute, irrefutable proof that cigarettes cause cancer?
No one knows exactly what causes cancer, we only
know what can increase the risk of causing cancer. In the case of smoking
studies examine the rates a of lung cancer in smokers versus non smokers. It is
clear from these studies that smoking increases a person’s risk of lung
It is mistaken to think that everyone will get cancer after they
smoke a certain number of cigarettes. Its all about risk and percentages. It
doesn’t necessarily apply to everyone. You can’t ask a cancer researcher if
someone who has smoked 2 packs a day for 50 years will have cancer or not, just
what their increased risk would be.
Its hard to give a cite for this
because near every study that’s ever been done has shown an increased risk of
cancer associated with cirgarette smoking in humans.
As far as absolute,
irrefutable proof there isn’t any. And there isn’t any proof of anything in
science. There is merely evidence that supports or rejects a hypothesis. There
hasn’t been any evidence that rejects the hypothesis that smoking increases the
risk of lung cancer, that I have seen. That said, there also isn’t any evidence
that proves the link beyond any doubt. Science doesn’t work that way.
The Surgeon General Lies About Cancer
Among the few specific conclusions of the 2010 Surgeon General report concerning the mechanisms by which smoking supposedly causes cancer: “7. There is consistent evidence that smoking leads to the presence of promoter methylation of key tumor suppressor genes such as P16 in lung cancer and other smoking-caused cancers.” It claims that “Researchers detected P16 methylation in specimens from 25 of 137 biopsy procedures (18 percent) classified as histologically normal, metaplasia, or mild dysplasia. In contrast, no P16 methylation was found in biopsy specimens obtained from lifetime nonsmokers…. (Belinsky et al. 1998).” (A Report of the Surgeon General: How Tobacco Smoke Causes Disease, Chapter 5 Cancer, p. 304 [pdf p. 84], and p. 292 [pdf p. 72 & 73].)
Aberrant methylation of p16(INK4a) is an early event in lung cancer and a potential biomarker for early diagnosis. SA Belinsky, KJ Nikula, WA Palmisano, R Michels, G Saccomanno, E Gabrielson, SB Baylin, JG Herman. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1998 Sep 29;95(20):11891-11896. This study doesn’t mention never-smokers.
The Surgeon General report commits flagrant scientific fraud by ignoring the evidence that methylation of P16 is solidly associated with infections by human papillomaviruses, Epstein-Barr virus, hepatitis viruses, and even Helicobacter pylori – all of which are known human carcinogens
You will notice nowhere in the SG reports does it mention if any of the study subjects were tested for EBV,CMV or HPV nor were histories of bacterial infections mentioned……..It got so bad because the case controls were evenly matched in the findings they went out and got some selected non-smokers post mortem to toss into the study!
Shows how weak their arguments are when they have to manipulate the science to get the answers and ‘proof’ that they so desperately seek! None of these self righteous, patronising numpties would know the truth if it got up and very soundly smacked them in the face! It is about time government (or perhaps even more so, civil servants) woke up to the lies and manipulations that have been used to con them for so long, grew some balls, and trounced the lot of the lying, scheming con merchants, stripping them of their jobs, their fat salaries AND their pensions!
Trucker, you wrote, “Shows how weak their arguments are when they have to manipulate the science to get the answers and ‘proof’ that they so desperately seek! ”
Yep. That’s exactly the attack point I take at http://TinyURL.com/SmokingBanLies
I think it’s one of our strongest attacks.
Pingback: Great News: ASH Australia to close down | Frank Davis
The aim of a LCE is to integrate all aspects of itself from its manufacturing, agriculture, transportation, and power-generation, etc. around technologies that produce energy and materials with little GHG emission, and, thus, around populations, buildings, machines, and devices that use those energies and materials efficiently, and, dispose of or recycle its wastes so as to have a minimal output of GHGs. Furthermore, it has been proposed that to make the transition to an LCE economically viable we would have to attribute a cost (per unit output) to GHGs through means such as emissions trading and/or a carbon tax .
Pingback: Australia disappoints at global climate talks, grassroots take action | THE GREEN JOURNAL
MJM – “I think it’s one of our strongest attacks.”
Yes it is, but the problem is getting past the civil servants who pull the strings of the puppets in government!
The next thing to ponder is if and how much the civil servants are being paid to compound the lies of these anti organisations!