H/T MikeF, in 2012, as climate change scaremongering failed to move public opinion, the Climate Change industry called for help from the Tobacco Control industry, and Stanton Glantz and Robert Proctor flew into La Jolla to help.
It’s no surprise that these two groups should have met up and swapped ideas: they’re both in the business of scaremongering about trace amounts of chemical compounds in the atmosphere. The difference is that the Tobacco Control industry has been very successful in its scaremongering, while the Climate Change industry has not.
Why hasn’t the Climate Change industry been as successful as the Tobacco Control industry? One simple reason may be that they’ve only been scaremongering for two or three decades, while the tobacco control industry have 70 years experience (90 years, if the Nazi era is included) under their belt. But another explanation may be that in the internet era there no longer exists a mass media monopoly on what is the accepted truth. There are instead multiple conflicting sources of information, and it is has become much more difficult to condition/brainwash a population than once it was.
Anyway, the result of their conference was a report on their deliberations.
we currently lack a compelling public narrative about climate change in the United States.
And that’s what this was all about: how to get people to believe in anthropogenic global warming.
Richard Ayres, an experienced environmental attorney, suggested that the RICO Act, which had been used effectively against the tobacco industry, could similarly be used to bring a lawsuit against carbon producers.
They saw the fossil fuel industries as practising disinformation:
Both the tobacco industry and the fossil fuel industry have adopted a strategy of disseminating disinformation to manufacture uncertainty and forestall government action, and in so doing, have placed corporate interests above the public interest.
But what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and the Climate Change industry could equally be said to have adopted an opposite strategy of disseminating disinformation to manufacture certainty and promote government action.
The RICO act is the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and allows the leaders of a syndicate to be tried for the crimes which they ordered others to do or assisted them in doing. Wikipedia’s definition of a racket:
A racket is a service that is fraudulently offered to solve a problem, such as for a problem that does not actually exist, that will not be put into effect, or that would not otherwise exist if the racket did not exist. Conducting a racket is racketeering.
But isn’t the Global Warming scare ‘a problem that does not actually exist’? And isn’t the tobacco scare another ‘problem that does not actually exist’?
It seems to me that it’s the Climate Change and Tobacco Control industries that are prime candidates for having charges brought against them under the RICO act.
Frank Davis 
I agree with Frank, the lifestyle control cults–especially the Antismoker mafia– are ripe for RICO prosecution. Many of the false charities create false data, extract resources, and divert legitimate process for their profit. That fits the definition of a racket. (so does the second hand smoke fraud, false ‘heart attack miracle’ studies, etc.)
In Orlando we see the interaction between the local media elites, the Cancer Society and other Antismokers toward rigging an expanded smoking ban (Florida allows smoking in bars). Se the bunco act here: “Why smoking in local bars may cost Orlando a big convention.” Orlando Business Journal http://www.bizjournals.com/orlando/blog/2015/11/why-smoking-in-local-bars-may-cost-orlando-a-big.html They even are running a poll to try and manipulate public opinion at “Do you think I-Drive businesses should ban smoking?” http://www.bizjournals.com/orlando/pulse/poll/do-you-think-i-drive-businesses-should-ban-smoking/18488942
This outright racketeering is being used to manipulate political process and gain power and profit; it is time to actively expose this criminal collusion and profiteering.
Professor Myles Allen of Oxford University was also at that La Jolla meeting and is in the photo.
My off topic comment on your global war on drugs post, a few days ago, concerned an Al Jazeera video (400,000 deaths) which contained a brief clip from an debate hosted by Mehdi Hassan, interviewing Richard Lindzen where Lindzen made a rather weak statement that he’d rather not say who was backing the alarmists.
Myles Allen was in the front row making contributions and seemed to be boxing clever by agreeing with Lindzen and David Rose in order to pre-empt and ultimately undermine them.
Here is the Oxford debate in full:
Anyway, that’s just background. What is really stunning is the way he proves himself to be either ignorant or lying in this video clip between from 3 to just past the 4 minute mark. At 4.03 he says:
“The whole climate gate affair was about a discrepancy of around two hundredths of a degree in the late eighteen seventies.”
By referring to published corrections to papers it is conceivable that he was technically correct. But anyone who was unaware of the real story would be grotesquely misled by what he said.
I’ve tried to prevent the videos embedding by adding a space after the “?”.
Either from supreme confidence or acting like a cornered rat, they appear to be moving into full attack mode: http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/259192-the-harm-exxon-mobil-has-done#
Tony, the AGW folks are simply following the Antis’ successful model: Ignore your critics as if their claims were too inconsequential to matter, and keep repeating whatever lies you’ve found to be effective. ASSUME that thirdhand smoke is a real threat and ASSUME that the Arctic Ice is breaking up because of AGW. People will hear you saying those things loudly and, in turn, will ASSUME that you must indeed have some real basis for saying them… after all, they’d figure, you’d look pretty silly if you were just making it all up, right? So there must be SOME truth… even when, in terms of practical reality, there’s not.
– MJM
Certainly “thirdhand smoke” would fall under the title of “a problem that does not exist.” Does thirdhand smoke exist as defined? Yes. But is it a “problem” as stated by the Antis. Most certainly not.
“Why hasn’t the Climate Change industry been as successful as the Tobacco Control industry?”
I’d put a lot of it down to money. I always like to remind people that the AMA itself admits Tobacco Control has been getting 500 to 900 million dollars a year, EVERY YEAR, from the MSA since 1999ish. When you throw in the various charities, government-provided TV ad propaganda time, CDC funding, RWJF money, and all the grants from the NicoGummyPatchyProductsPeople you’re probably looking at close to 25 billion dollars in today’s money having been spent just in the US to brainwash the population over the past 20 years or so.
Imagine what we, as the “Anti Tobacco Control” movement could have done with even 1/1,000th of that amount! And yet we’ve been able to fight them, if not overly effectively, at least painfully for them a good many times. Money makes the wheels go round for propagandists, and, fortunately, I just don’t think the Global Warmers have spent the amount of money they’d need to fight their critics effectively. Heh, they’ve also gotten hit pretty hard with the whole “warming pause” inconvenient fact. :> We have the equivalent in the smoking battle with the tripling of asthma and diabetes while ETS exposure has gone down by 75% — but the beliefs were so entrenched that we haven’t really been able to make our voices heard yet. And, sadly, the Antis, in awareness of their armor’s weakness have been successfully switching over to “distaste-based” arguments — based in reality upon the fears they created, but still perceived as actual distaste by the population that’s perceiving through the lenses of those fears.
– MJM
“We have the equivalent in the smoking battle with the tripling of asthma and diabetes while ETS exposure has gone down by 75%”
Good point, MJM, since diabetes, and especially asthma, strike at far earlier ages than lung cancer does, so, in those instances, the ANTZ can’t play the joker card of the 20-30, even 60 year supposed lag-time (which they routinely invoke when it comes to LC rates for women going up everywhere, except for countries like Russia, where, incidentally, anti-tobacco hysteria has only been recently introduced,)
Nike a few years back even Chapman told the Nazis to stop using the third hand smoke junk………I had his tweet and he even pu as much in a long winded editorial in jama or bmj I believe it was.
Mike not Nike
I had a sneak(er)ing suspicion that was what you meant Harley!
;>
MJM
Those damnable letters just get in the way…………..People coulda thought you was a pair of old worn out 200 dollar sneekers……..lol
I think another reason why the public hasn’t warmed to the warmists is that they know the proposed “remedies” are going to cost them (everyone) a lot of money, and a less comfortable life. When the engineers came for the smokers– to cost them a lot of money and make them uncomfortable– the public didn’t care because, as the saying goes, they weren’t smokers and many of the smokers had been intimidated by decades of propaganda to believe they were doing something shameful, suicidal and even homicidal. But most people don’t (yet?) think it,s shameful etc to drive a car, to heat and cool their homes, to live in suburbs or to eat lunches and dinners that, when alive, farted into fields. The idea of having to give these things up due to man-made scarcity and mandated unaffordable costs puts a damper on the willingness to offer Belief.
Yes, I think you’re right, Walt. The climate change scam affects everybody financially, not just the minority. Non-smoking Joe Bloggs couldn’t give a toss about the various penalties being imposed on smokers, both in terms of cost and freedom of choice, because it has no impact on him. However, aim those same penalties at him, and he suddenly starts to question the basis of those penalties, and whether they are justified.
Yes, there’s no escaping Climate Change. Smokers can at least quit smoking, and thereby avoid the associated penalties. But there’s no equivalent way out for Western Civilisation. The lifestyle changes being required of them are comprehensive and sweeping. They are being asked to walk rather than drive, eat vegetables rather than meet, shiver rather than keep warm, and forego every pleasure (of which smoking was just one). They are being asked to adopt a monastic life. All of them.
So resistance was inevitable.
Im just waiting on the armed resistance part of the story as it unfolds.
Frank, you might be interested in this post:
http://malcolmpollack.com/2015/11/03/you-can-never-be-too-virtuous/
…And in the document it links to. Very accurate, I think! “Climate change” is a secular religion — or a religio, being the trappings and cultural institutions typically associated with a religion, without the transcendentalism. It is no longer discussed and debated as a science, and its high-priests are guilty of terrible crimes.
Yes, I think it is indeed a religion. And I think that the primary requirement of any religion is belief. Climate sceptics are unbelievers. That is their real crime.
And these days the belief is in Science. These days most people believe in the teachings of Science, They will accept whatever they are told if it comes from the lips of a Scientist, however nonsensical it might initially seem. And so the Cult of Global Warming comes dressed in the garments of science. It has graphs, measurements, and even computer simulation models. It even has entire departments in universities. It has its own literature. And many people believe it, because it’s ‘science’, and they believe in science and what scientists tell them.
And in many ways the two rackets I discuss above have created entirely new scientific disciplines. The first is statistical epidemiology, which can link any malady to any risk factor. And the second is climate science, or climate modelling. And these new sciences discover shocking new scientific truths. That smoking causes lung cancer. That carbon dioxide is warming the whole world. They publish papers, hold conferences, publish press releases. And it all looks so scientific that more or less everybody believes every single word of it.
Scientology is an example of a religion of science. It incorporates the word ‘science’. And it even has a measuring device: the E-meter. Because all proper sciences measure stuff.
I suspect that Christian Science may well be another one. That also incorporates the word ‘science’ into itself.
These days, if you want to start a new religion, you have to be ‘scientific’, because otherwise nobody will believe a word you say. It’s a bit like if you wanted to be a successful band in the 1960s, you had to name yourself after insects or vermin.
Bibles and white labcoats,Boy Reverend Billy Sunday must be singing
A revealing post, Frank — many thanks. It tells us how far TC will go and how other movements seek their help in adopting the same nefarious tactics. I agree with your conclusion wholeheartedly.
In other news, Britain’s smoking capital is Blackpool where 26.9% of the population supposedly smokes:
http://home.bt.com/lifestyle/britains-smoking-capital-revealed-find-out-how-many-people-puff-on-cigarettes-in-your-town-11364014505043
As the comments indicate, it is difficult to understand how government researchers gathered and determined the data. Was it purely by tobacco sales? How would that work out per smoker when some smoke, say, five or ten a day and others 20? What about the black market? What about tourists?
The top ten smoking towns are not the wealthiest. Nor are two of the top ten non-smoking towns, although where Harrow* and Hounslow are concerned, religious demographics probably play a part.
*Harrow-on-the-Hill, home to Harrow School, comprises a very small part of the community.
‘Going up the ‘Pool.’..
Toronto City Council just banned hookah bars.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/toronto-city-council-votes-to-ban-hookahs-in-restaurants-bars/article27103090/
This asshole, Rob Cunningham, works in Ottawa as Senior Policy Analyst in the Public Issues National Office of the Canadian Cancer Society. He is a lawyer by profession and has degrees in political science (BA, University of Western Ontario), law (LLB, University of Toronto), and business (MBA, University of Western Ontario). He has also worked with the WHO. You don’t need a degree in medicine to ride the antitobacco gravy train, it’s open to everybody.
It also helps if you can find willing Judges to further your repressive measures:
http://www.canadianbusiness.com/business-news/quebec-court-of-appeal-orders-tobacco-firms-to-put-up-1-billion-security/
I hope the tobacco companies appeal this ridiculous decision.
Born Again Fascists.
The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Authoritarianism: Puritanism …
By Milan Zafirovski
The Climat junk scienc fols took on using the tobacco control Nazis long ago. First remember the climantologist Heidi something. She was the first to admit the use of deceptive epidemiological studies to try and build their junk science up by using statistical black magic and that was adopted str8 from TC. In fact if you bother to look you will find that every single political agenda out there including all the lifestyle wars agendas are using the same statistical junk science to drive their own agendas with.
We all know Bloomberg gave a Billion dollars to Johns Hopkins and it was for an epidemiology dept to invent bloombergs so called anti gun and anti tobacco studies.
Bill and Melinda Gates hve done the same for several dozen other schools to do the dirty work and keep the agenda going even in the anti-vaccer war………
We have to remember we aren’t simply fighting TC we are fighting a world wide agenda and their use of junk science and fraud to get control of everyone.
The UN provides the perfect cover for such conspiracies take the precautionary principle,that alone gave their junk science a so called free pass to get treaties and laws passed against us all.
Global Tyranny is what we are fighting and since they are using TC model to do it with,it makes us the best equipped group of fighters to take them on at every level on any agenda.
The rise of a pseudo-scientific links lobby
Every day there seems to be a new study making a link between food, chemicals or lifestyle and ill-health. None of them has any link with reality.
spiked-online.com/newsite/article/13287#.U6ibAzYo59A
Bill and Melinda Gates hve done the same for several dozen other schools to do the dirty work and keep the agenda going even in the anti-vaccer war………
Bill Gates does occasionally make some rather strange headlines:
However, it was reported in 2011 that Bill’s children are set to inherit a measly $10 million each. When asked about it, Bill explained his decision at the TED conference in Vancouver, Canada on March 18.
“They won’t have anything like that. They need to have a sense that their own work is meaningful and important,” Bill said. “You’ve got to make sure they have a sense of their own ability and what they’re going to go and do.”
So, Bill Gates has not achieved what responsible and capable parents achieve: to simply teach his offspring.(?) Was he being too busy making money to spend valuable time with them?
Bill truly is a brilliant man. Hopefully, he’s passed some of that brilliance down to his three children.
A parental failure is being hailed as being ‘brilliant’?
(No, I won’t be able to leave millions to my offspring but they know that what WE (!!) have has come through combining work with a HEALTHY family life albeit the parents no longer being a couple.)
BTW, I do know of millionaire parents who DID a great job with their offspring. One of my offspring’s best friend is one of their offspring. My offspring has never been insulted by money or job offers from this friend. My offspring’s best friend is my offspring’s best friend because they met at University and got on like a house on fire.
I guess Bill Gates’ kids have not had parents like my offspring’s best friend’s parents…
But Bill Gates is busy teaching his offspring a lesson when he is no longer around to deal with the fallout? Sounds cowardly to me.
Pingback: The Nicotine Nazis | Infos zum Thema Passivrauchen
Delingpole
Big Oil is the new Big Tobacco and must be destroyed in the courts on RICO charges. This is the latest big idea in environmental circles – and it didn’t come from nowhere. It was in fact the invention of a tiny group of innocuous-looking green activists at a workshop three years ago in California.
I do have a question:
Green activists are generally portrait as being “poor”. WHO organised that work shop? And, WHO FINANCES this invention?
German Propaganda Archive Calvin College
Background: The Nazis had a large corps of propagandists at the local level, who needed training. Some of the best material for such propagandists comes from the Austrian part of the Reich, perhaps because propagandists there needed to be trained rather quickly after Hitler took over Austria in 1938. In any event, this is a translation of a small book published in 1942 that told propagandists what they needed to know. It was intended primarily for local group propaganda leaders, but notes that it will also be useful for anyone engaged in making party propaganda. It provides a detailed summary of what the Nazi propaganda system expected to happen at the local level, though as this book sometimes notes in passing, things did not always work as they were supposed to.
As background, the Reichspropagandaleitung was the Nazi Party’s central propaganda office. The country was then divided into Gaue, or regions. They were divided into counties (Kreise), which were further divided into local groups (Ortsgruppen). There were propagandists at each level.
The source: Franz J. Huber, ed., Propagandisten-Fibel. Herausgegeben vom Gaupropagandaamt Oberdonau der NSDAP (Wels: Leitner & Co, 1942).
http://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/fibel.htm
Edward Bernays’ “Propaganda” Theory Has Been Perfected
.
Submitted by Jim Quinn via The Burning Platform blog,
When six mega-corporations who depend upon other mega-corporations, Wall Street banks and political parties for their revenue, control all of the news and information flowing to the masses, you have all the ingredients needed to control, influence and mold the opinions, tastes and ideas of the people. We are being manipulated by men who constitute the real government, hiding in the shadows and pulling the strings. Nothing reported by these six mega-corporation media mouthpieces for the oligarchs can be trusted. Their job is to coverup, subvert, and obscure the truth. And best of all, they have succeeded in convincing the people we are free and informed. Edward Bernays would be so proud.
h/t flash
“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. …We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. …In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons…who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.”
Edward Bernays – Propaganda – 1928
Goebbels:
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep
repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be
maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from
the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus
becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to
repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus
by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
A History of Social Engineering
http://www.ukcolumn.org/article/history-social-engineering
To understand how we have reached the beginnings of a trans-humanist era we must follow the roots of modern day social engineering. Such a practice has been applied for thousands of years, but it could be said that only in the last few centuries has modern man wrestled with, and understood, the finer subtleties of group manipulation on a social scale.
Lies, propaganda, scaremongering and junk-science.
Seriously, I’ve never read such a load of old tosh.
The World Health Organization is fervently anti-smoking; their goal is its complete elimination. In 1975, before any major studies had been conducted on SHS, the WHO recommended that the goal of anti-smoking activists and health organizations should be to lead the public to believe that secondhand smoke is harmful to nonsmokers. The WHO finally conducted a study on the matter in 1998.
No doubt confident they could “prove it,” the study was actually a textbook example of the right way to conduct an epidemiologic study. It was a case control study using a large sample size and was conducted from twelve centers in seven European countries over a period of seven years.
We can only speculate that the WHO was horrified by their results: that no statistically significant risks exist for nonsmokers who live or work with smokers. In fact, the study’s only statistically significant result was that secondhand smoke has a protective effect on children!
To reiterate, the study was large, its methodology was sound, and it was conducted by an organization full of anti-smokers who had every motivation to “prove” that secondhand smoke was dangerous.
The results were the opposite of what they must have been hoping for, and they certainly wouldn’t help them “to foster an atmosphere where it was perceived that active smokers would injure those around them.”
The WHO tried to bury the study, but it was eventually discovered by the press:
“…the science fell off the campaign wagon two weeks ago when the definitive study on passive smoking…reported no cancer risk at all. Don’t bet that will change the crusaders’ mind. The anti-smoking movement, after all, has slipped from a health crusade to a moral one. It is now obvious that antismoking activists have knowingly overstated the risks of secondhand smoke.”–the Wall Street Journal
In response to revelations about their study, the WHO issued a press release titled “Passive Smoking Does Cause Lung Cancer – Do Not Let Them Fool You.” Yet, the release had no science to back up its title (which in effect was the exact opposite of what their study showed). The WHO also neglected to mention the study’s one statistically significant result–that SHS has a protective effect on children–which you’d think an organization whose goal was to protect health would want everyone to know.
Tellingly, this WHO study is often offered to legislators as “proof” by anti-smokers, who know that most politicians are unfamiliar with the true meaning of its results!
The “problem” of being unable to link SHS to lung cancer had to be corrected, however, so the WHO conducted another study. But it was different from the first one: it was a meta-analysis, which are generally considered to be dubious because they allow those performing the study to cherry-pick data to achieve whatever results are desired.
Such practices are now standard procedure when it comes to secondhand smoke studies. The only way anti-smokers can achieve their stated goal of making smokers seem dangerous to others is by ignoring all overwhelming indications to the contrary.
If you actually read the surgeon generals report it used mostly “The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship” and even then if you read page 21 they admit that the use of meta-analysis on observational studies is not a widely accepted and controversial practice and yet they do it anyway.
Manufacturing the science to meet the agenda, in black on white. Does anyone still have doubts?
”Bal laughs when asked about the role of scientific evidence in guiding policy decisions. “There was no science on how to do a community intervention on something of this global dimension,” he says. “Where there is no science, you have to go and be venturesome—you can’t use the paucity of science as an excuse to do nothing. We created the science, we did the interventions and then all the scientists came in behind us and analyzed what we did.”
Read under the title :
Tobacco Control: The Long War—When the Evidence Has to Be Created
milbankDOTorg/uploads/documents/0712populationhealth/0712populationhealthDOThtml
‘The so-called ‘smoking related disease’ is one of the antismokers’ cleverest inventions. To say that a disease is ‘smoking-related’ is not the same as saying that it is directly caused by smoking, or that there is any actual proof of anything. It means simply that someone has decided that smoking MAY be a factor in that disease.
Over the last couple of decades, more and more diseases have been added to the list, often with very little evidence. Heart disease was one of the first, even though it has something like 300 risk factors, and some major studies (for instance, that of the citizens of Framingham, Massachusetts, which has been going on since 1948) have shown not only that the link with smoking is weak, but that moderate smokers have LESS heart disease than nonsmokers.
More recently it has become fashionable to blame smoking for just about everything… from ‘clogging up’ of the arteries (which happens to everyone as they get older) to blindness (well, they can’t blame masturbation any more) to AIDS. It has also become fashionable, every time a smoker dies, to try to find a way to blame their death on smoking.
The fact is that many statistics about smoking (and especially ‘secondhand’ smoke) are simply made up. For instance, until cervical cancer was recently proven to be caused by a virus, a completely random 13% of cases were attributed to smoking!
The great thing about the ‘smoking-related disease,’ is that it allows you to create the perception of a raging epidemic. The UK government says that 100,000 or 120,000 deaths per year (depending on who is speaking at the time) are caused by ‘smoking-related disease’. The impression given is that these are all deaths specifically, and provably, caused by smoking, but it is no such thing.
It includes non-smokers who die of bronchitis or strokes, and smokers who die of heart attacks in their 80s. It includes people who quit smoking decades before. It is not exactly lying, but it is deliberately misleading, it is fearmongering, and in my opinion these people should be ashamed of themselves.’ ( Parmenion59’s comment )
So how can we effectively expose the fraud of the WHO and company, fight back on a global scale and win this battle? Any ideas?
The SmokeLess States Program
2005
Publisher: Jossey-Bass
Publication: To Improve Health and Health Care
Author(s): Gerlach KK, and Larkin MA
Editor(s): Isaacs SL, and Knickman JR
This chapter describes SmokeLess States®: National Tobacco Policy Initiative, one of the largest investments made by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, with $99 million authorized in grants since 1992. Primarily, grants were awarded to non-governmental organizations, with the intention that they would educate the public and policy-makers about the tobacco problem. Two features about the program are significant: (1) the Foundation encouraged its grantees to be activists; (2) advocacy was emphasized to bring about policy change. The program relied heavily on three major health voluntary organizations: the American Cancer Society; the American Heart Association and the American Lung Association. They provided financial support and, in particular, funds to help lobbying efforts which the Foundation could not support directly. In addition to insight on the effects of advocacy, this chapter offers a window into the role of coalitions in bringing about social change. The program ended in 2004 and its lasting impact has yet to be determined.
http://www.rwjf.org/en/research-publications/find-rwjf-research/2005/01/to-improve-health-and-health-care-volume-viii/the-smokeless-states-program.html
climate change scaremongering failed to move public opinion, the Climate Change industry called for help from the Tobacco Control industry, and Stanton Glantz and Robert Proctor flew into La Jolla to help.
Why isn’t this surprising? Scaremongering releases immense amounts of monies otherwise unobtainable…..
“Big Oil”…. “Big Nuclear”…. “Big Tobacco”…. I seriously do think people are getting tired of it.
And, the climate change industry – which incidentally aids the destruction of e.g. lakes and farm land in China – fails to answer questions. Just like tobacco control does.
I’m getting tired of hearing “climate change”. First the planet is supposed to get too cold, then it is to get too hot and all is caused by man.
Ah, really? I do believe this planet had quite a few episodes of “climate change” throughout it’s existence. All man made? That is news to me.
However, to me it also does make sense to look for an efficient and stable energy source – LONG TERM THINKING. I keep looking to find more (pros and cons) with respect to Thorium energy – it is all very ‘bitty’. Wouldn’t it make sense to INVEST into something which produces LITTLE waste (what the hell are we going to do with all the nuclear waste buried in e.g. salt mines for the next xxx number of years, depending on the half-life of the waste?) whilst also being something which solidifies (thus “safer”) at room temperature?
Firstly, our number is ever increasing and we all (including us, the older generation NOW) live longer. My state pension age has been moved up for that reason?
Wouldn’t it make sense also to let people live their lives IF (obviously it doesn’t) “smoking kills”? Or, “bacon kills” etc. etc.
I sometimes believe NOTHING other than 4 years of ‘power’ + following amass of financial fortune is all politicians are interested in…. (Tony Blair is a prime example!)
Anything that scares people into mental numbness works for them.
Off topic and too rushed to even attempt translation…
Prof. Grieshaber’s blog:
Gestern die Raucherkneipen. Morgen die Steakhäuser?
[Yesterday the smoking pubs. Tomorrow the Steak houses?]
Das alles erinnert sehr an die „Passivrauchstudie“ der WHO-Filiale am Deutschen Krebsforschungszentrum…
[ All this is very reminiscent of the ” passive smoking study ” the WHO branch at DKFZ … ]
Google translate is rubbish but readers may (hopefully) get the gist..
This part most certainly is VERY reminiscent …
Das alles wirft auch die Frage auf, warum die Fachwelt mit der Weltgesundheitsorganisation an der Spitze eigentlich so hartnäckig darauf besteht, Praktiken als Mittel der Prävention anzuwenden, die – egal, wie gut gemeint sie eigentlich sein mögen – eine ganz ähnliche Wirkung wie Mobbing auf die Betroffenen haben:
Sorgfältig ausgefeilte Bedrohungsszenarien mit dem klaren Ziel, Angst und Ekel auszulösen
Maßnahmen, die dazu gedacht sind, sozial isolierend zu wirken
Maßnahmen, die beschämend wirken sollen
Maßnahmen, die Schuldgefühle auslösen sollen
Reinhold, I can sort a few hours next week – how busy are you for helping me with the translation?
The top 50 Foundations and Funders in 2004. Gates Foundation Number One, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation 4th and 6th:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Foundations_and_Funders