A Gathering of “Skeptics”

Posted by Dee Norris

Mark your calendars.

The 2009 International Conference on Climate Change returns to New York City on March 8th, 2009.

The 2009 International Conference on Climate Change will serve as a platform for scientists and policy analysts from around the world who question the theory of man-made climate change. This year’s theme, “Global Warming Crisis: Cancelled,” calls attention to new research findings that contradict the conclusions of the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report.

Last year’s conference was reported to be a great success and you can access the audio and video recordings of presentations made at the 2008 conference Web site.

Distinguished scholars from the U.S. and around the world have addressed these questions seriously and without institutional bias. Their findings suggest the Modern Warming is moderate and partly or even mostly a natural recovery from the Little Ice Age; that the consequences of moderate warming are positive for humanity and wildlife; that predictions of future warming are wildly unreliable; that the costs of trying to “stop global warming” exceed hypothetical benefits by a factor of 10 or more; and more.

Often, these scholars have been ignored, and often even censored and demonized. They have been labeled “skeptics” and even “global warming deniers,” a mean-spirited attempt to lump them together with Holocaust deniers. The truth of the matter is that these scholars dissent from a false “consensus” put forward by a small but politically powerful clique of government scientists and political allies.

Actual surveys of climate scientists and recent reviews of the scholarly literature both show the so-called “skeptics” may actually be in the majority of the climate science community. They do not lack scholarly credentials or scientific integrity, but a platform from which they can be heard. Their voices have been drowned out by publicity built upon the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an entity with an agenda to build support for the theory of man-made catastrophic global warming.

This year promises double the attendance as in 2008 and the esteemed Anthony Watts is a confirmed speaker.

I plan on attending.  Do you?

Confirmed Speakers

Name Affiliation
Dennis Avery Hudson Institute
Joseph Bast The Heartland Institute
Robert Bradley Institute for Energy Research
Bob Carter James Cook University (Australia)
Frank Clemente Penn State University
John Coleman KUSI-TV – San Diego
Joseph D’Aleo International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project
David Douglass University of Rochester
Myron Ebell Competitive Enterprise Institute
Michelle Foss University of Texas – Center for Energy Economics
Fred Goldberg Royal School of Technology (Sweden)
Laurence Gould University of Hartford
William Gray Colorado State University
Chris Horner Competitive Enterprise Institute
Craig Idso Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
David Legates University of Delaware
Jay Lehr The Heartland Institute
Marlo Lewis Competitive Enterprise Institute
Richard Lindzen Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Ross McKitrick University of Guelph
Christopher Monckton Science and Public Policy Institute
Jim O’Brien Florida State University
Tim Patterson Carleton University
Benny Peiser Liverpool John Moores University (United Kingdom)
Paul Reiter Institut Pasteur (France)
Arthur Robinson Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine
Joel Schwartz American Enterprise Institute
S. Fred Singer Science and Environmental Policy Project
Fred Smith Competitive Enterprise Institute
Willie Soon Science and Public Policy Project
Roy Spencer University of Alabama at Huntsville
James M. Taylor The Heartland Institute
Anthony Watts Surfacestations.org

Perhaps we can get Al Gore to speak so we are assured of cold weather.


Just an afterthought: As many of you know, Anthony does not receive funding for his work at www.surfacestations.org or here at WUWT.  The funds to attend this conference will most likely come out of his pocket.  Look to your right and you will see at little yellow Donate button under the SHAMELESS PLUG heading.  WUWT gets over 10,000 views a day and if just 0.5% of this traffic contributes ten dollars apiece, we can entirely fund Anthony’s conference expenses.   How about it?   Do we walk the walk or just talk?

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Richard111

The question is why? The fact this conference seems to be the only platform where scientists can express their disagreement with IPCC claims is astounding.
How does this situation come about? Why can’t it be corrected?

Jeff Wiita

Congratulation Anthony,
I see your name on the list of speakers. You are among the name of many great speakers who will be treated favorably when history is written.

Vincent Guerrini Jr

If things keep going like they are (temps, ice ect) this meeting will probably be redundant by then… I’ve spoken to quite a few AGW’ers lately, their argument is that it is good for people to believe in it even it ain’t happening because of pollution, overpopulation ect.. I tend to agree. I think the whole C02 versus temps will just die out anyway…

George M

By March 8, 2009 under the new administration, CO2 will have been outlawed, other legislation will have been passed, and the attendees of this conference will all be arrested under the ‘improved’ Patriot Act. Mark my words.

John-X

I’m piggy-backing on the “Mark Your Calendars” subhead.
Today is another “Black Friday.”
Stock index futures markets are currently “Limit Down,” meaning that they have reached their price limits and have been halted. The limit for ‘pre-market’ trading (before the opening of the NYSE and NASDAQ) is 5%.
When the NYSE and NASDAQ open, the limit becomes 10% The percentage limits are set at the beginning of each calendar quarter, so the 10% limit for the Dow is 1100 points. That could be reached in the first few minutes of trading. When the limit is hit, trading will be halted for 1 hour.
Oil prices have also crashed, based on the expectation of economic slowdown and reduced demand, in spite of the fact that OPEC just approved a 1.5 million barrel-per-day “emergency” production cut.

helvio

One thing I suggest is publicity, a lot of publicity, at the level of that pulled by the Public Relations people in CERN. You all remember the huge promotion around turning on the LHC, last September 10th. Even Google made a special logo for this event, and most newspapers opened up with its coverage. Many slogans were repeated constantly, like “LHC is its own prototype”, “the biggest scientific event since Man was sent to the Moon”, and the like. In the end it was a great victory for the CERN direction: the world was moved, at least for a few days, towards that event. The public relations people of this event should try to trigger the global interest at that level, learn with CERN and push the right buttons to, at least, get the people to realize the alternative to the Gore dogma exists and is strong. Some mystery, mysticism, and other things that make people should be input to the promotion. The message would be more widespread than in the last conference. And if the media create resistance to pass the message, the internet can be a more fluid medium, as it was during the time preceding the LHC day.

John-X

I also want to note again my strong belief that the recession will be used by global warmers to “prove” man-made global warming.
Cooler global temperatures are already occurring and will continue through (at least) this winter.
Oil use will also decline, in readily verifiable numbers.
Ipso facto, the decline in oil use caused the decline in temperatures.
Obviously, recession is good for the planet, prosperity is bad.
So if you’ve had your home foreclosed, and if you lose your job, THANK YOU for doing your part to stabilize the climate.

[…] Here is the original post:  A Gathering of “Skeptics” […]

[…] Read More: wattsupwiththat.com Tags: global warming skeptics, greenhouse gases, international conference on climate change, Science, scientists Related Posts […]

Pamela Gray

I think it would be a good idea to install a windowed crying room like in the back of Catholic churches. The warmers could go back there and get all that grief out without disturbing others. You could have pillows and blankets available, and maybe snacks. Make sure you have an extra heater available. Those crying rooms are notoriously cold.

Bruce Cobb

Vincent: If things keep going like they are (temps, ice ect) this meeting will probably be redundant by then… I’ve spoken to quite a few AGW’ers lately, their argument is that it is good for people to believe in it even it ain’t happening because of pollution, overpopulation ect.. I tend to agree. I think the whole C02 versus temps will just die out anyway…
It’s a huge mistake to think that the AGW/CC movement is in any way about truth or science. It is non-falsifiable, and therefore pseudo-science. It is never good for people to believe a lie, as lies are the foundation for fascism. The ends, whatever they may be, never justify the means.
Hitler was right -“the great masses of the people . . . will more easily fall victim to a great lie than a small one’’.

Pierre Gosselin

“What if you held a conference and no (real) scientists came?”
I wonder if SurrealClimte will run that again.
I hope this conference will attract converts. One strategy should be to entice scientists who are sitting on the fence, or are retired AGWers to convert and join the sceptic side. I’m happy this conference has taken root, and I’m ready to make a contribution. Where can one contribute?
Still, look for the Climate Czar in Obama’s Admin to throw serious sand into this conference. I wouldn’t be surprised if they went so far as to try to shut it down using lawsuits.

Bob B

It would be nice if Roger Pielke would present as well. Le’ts draft him. I would even think Lucia with her analysis rejecting IPCC AR4 models would be a good paper:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/santer-method-applied-since-jan-2001-average-trend-based-on-38-ippc-ar4-models-rejected/

Pierre Gosselin

Remember, CO2 is a pollutant, and soon to be regulated by the EPA.

RC

Vincent, I think you’re absolutely correct that this will be the tact that AGWers take. The first evolution was from Global Warming to Climate Change. Now it will be all about sustainability and what’s good for the earth. But what won’t change will be the concessions the AGWers want everyone else to make. I don’t know about anyone else, but I don’t want people telling me (or taxing me, based on) how much I water my lawn or how many pieces of toilet paper I should be using.

Jeff Alberts

If things keep going like they are (temps, ice ect)

FYI, it’s “etc.” not “ect” 😉 Pedantic, I know, but I figured people would want to use the right word.

Patrick Henry

I agree with George M. The US will look more like the USSR (United States Socialist Republic) next year. People who think that the world depends on everyone “believing what they believe” are irrational, and I don’t think there is any limit on the damage Obama/Gore/Pelosi/Reed can and will do to free speech.
The courtship phase is almost over. Now we descend into the reality of some dark core beliefs.

stephen richards

Hey Anthony, why are the most important speakers at the bottom of the list 🙂
I note one of the Mc’s is there but not the other, shame.
Should be a great conference shame that the main media groups won’t be there, they never are for the realists/scientists.

REPLY:
Actually, NYT was there last year, as was ABC and CNN. I appeared live on CNN last year on the Glenn Beck show to show the surfacestations project. – Anthony

BernardP

This important conference will likely get zero coverage in mainstream media. All major news outlets that the general population accesses daily are tacitly or openly endorsing AGW as irrefutable fact. Even abnormally cold weather is attributed to global warming (“AGW makes the climate crazy”).
Each major media outlet has at least one dedicated eco-journalist who regularly hammers the AGW message.
The turnaround in public opinion can’t come until some of the general media first comes around. As it is now, it seems only a little less likely we will see CNN, Time or Newsweek say “SCIENTISTS ESTABLISH THERE IS NO MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING – IPCC DISCREDITED ” as you will see them say “THERE IS NO GOD”

John-X

BernardP (07:37:20) :
‘As it is now, it seems only a little less likely we will see CNN, Time or Newsweek say “SCIENTISTS ESTABLISH THERE IS NO MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING – IPCC DISCREDITED ” as you will see them say “THERE IS NO GOD”’
COMMUNISM WINS COLD WAR IN SURPRISE REVERSAL – USSR ‘POSSUM’ STRATEGY SUCCESSFUL IN DEFEATING FREE ENTERPRISE

Stefan

It would be great if videos of the presentations were made available online.
Preferably of high enough quality to be pleasant to watch.

Here’s an idea to put out early… how can we compile a list of anonymous but verifiable scientists who would attend but cannot owing to discrimination against skeptics…

Dodgy Geezer

“THERE IS NO GOD”
See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7681914.stm
As for “COMMUNISM WINS COLD WAR IN SURPRISE REVERSAL – USSR ‘POSSUM’ STRATEGY SUCCESSFUL IN DEFEATING FREE ENTERPRISE”
see any current stock market feed….

Cosmic Ray

If the conference organizers plan on a video feed, they might want to consider including a Swarmplayer (streaming Bit Torrent) feed. Less bandwidth, and a big Swarmplayer test may attract the attention of the “early adopter” crowd.
FYI, it’s “etc.” not “ect” 😉 Pedantic, I know, but I figured people would want to use the right abbreviation. 🙂

Terry Ward

Vincent Guerrini Jr (05:51:23) :
“…. their argument is that it is good for people to believe in it even it ain’t happening because of pollution, overpopulation ect.. I tend to agree. I think the whole C02 versus temps will just die out anyway…”
Surely your many visits to Anthony’s house have taught you one thing above all others.
Most of what we are told is fact, settled or beyond question is exactly (and usually diametrically) the opposite.
The big lie of “CO2 causes warming” has alerted me to other big lies and your post reminded me of at least two – overpopulation and, the often linked, lack of resources.
There is plenty of room and resources for three times the number of sharing caring folk than that currently gracing the face of the Earth. Discounting technological advances.
As it happens I think next year’s “Not the IPCC” meeting will garner a bit more publicity than this year’s for one reason. The coming bitterly cold NH winter. Go Heretics.

Retired Engineer

The MSM has already declared “There is no God” (other than our probable next president)
By March, Congress or the EPA will rule CO2 is unacceptable and ban anything, especially non-approved conferences like this, that emit even the smallest amount of the toxin.
If it does take place, the Climate Police will photograph and document anyone who dares to attend, for future investigation.
Obviously paranoid, but we have just watched an entire world economy crash due to misguided social engineering. Loaning money to people who can’t pay it back, and then ‘solving’ the problem by making it worse, with increased government manipulation of the markets. If someone predicted this ten years ago, they would have been laughed at. Oh, wait, people did predict it. And they were laughed at.
I’d say the odds of this conference taking place are about 50-50. Maybe a bit better, as it will still be early in the Obama regeime.

Mike Kelley

I don’t trust the liberal media, and I sure don’t put any faith in their opinion polling. I think the presidential race is much closer than they would have you think. They have a track record of always leaning to the left. McCain/Palin may well win this thing.

Here’s another spark… Never heard of Joanne Nova in Australia before yesterday, but she has been writing a Skeptics’ Handbook which looks like a brilliant short, accurate, simple, much-needed resource. Have a look. I hope she might speak at this conference too – she is already a keynote-grade speaker and we need people who can speak out.

Alan the Brit

Bruce Cobb: Amen to that, Adolf Hitler was bang on there. I read about a German man who lived through it all telling the interviewer that nobody bothered about Hitler at the time, they thought he was a crank & wouldn’t last long, of course by the time they realised he would, it was too late! Joseph Goebbels must be turning in his grave wishing he had the political clout the AGW’s have achieved!
And
Stephen Richards: Sir, the BBC were there too don’t forget – with Dr Iain Stewart filming his incredulity of the foolish blind scientists who just laughed at his irrefutable evidence of something called a “Hockey-Stick Graph”. They didn’t publicise it of course & the event never took place on this side of the ocean. So I expect them to be there again filming something similar with a differnt Dr Stewart so get a film crew to film them filming, so that the reality can be seen by the rest of us, then post it onto Youtube.
My sincere best wishes to all who manage to attend & or support it. I look forward to reading all about it with enthusiasm. Remember, the system to close this down is not to respond to any publicty too much, the way people do when facing controversey, they tend to just ignore & poo poo the opposition in the vain hope that having done so it will go away. Don’t let it happen! Make the publicity so loud as to deafen them all! The cash is on the way Anthony.
I just adore the Met Office when they said recently that this cooling temperature is “perfectly within the limits of our understanding of climate change”, although they never predicted it in their state of the art models. It’s the classical heads I win tails you lose scenario. However I give the credit that when UK suffered a minor quake earlier this year a former Met Office weatherman did come on to say that despite some newspaper reports & comments from the more lunatic green fringe that it was nothing to do with Global Warming & we cannot go on blaming everything on it! Shame I had been getting used to doing just that especially when my car got a flat! My grape vine has had to be cut right back, next to no fruit, the same with my fruit trees, zilch!

Don B

Anthony, congratulations, again.
Last evening I finished reading the 1997 “The Role of the Sun in Climate Change,” by Hoyt and Schatten. They noted many of the facts commenters here know, such as 1) the more active sun during the Medievel Warm Period, 2) few sunspots during The Little Ice Age, 3) the more active sun corresponding to the warming since the LIA, 4) the relationship between solar cycle length and temperature, and 5) a remarkable 400 year correlation between a composite of solar features and earth temperature.
And yet, despite all of that, they refused to take a position, saying the math didn’t support the sun doing all the warming and so maybe AGW had something to do with it.
We can hope that in March some speakers will have done enough math to convince the sun sceptics.

evanjones

your post reminded me of at least two – overpopulation and, the often linked, lack of resources.
Hey! I’M supposed to be the official reminder of that! #B^1
One will note that the one who shot down the resources question in flames (Herman Kahn) held no academic degree in either demographics or economics.

The conference is sponsored by the Heartland Institute, which has been actively involved in debate over tobacco policy, opposing restrictions on smoking and criticizing science which documents the harms of secondhand smoke. The institute is funded by ultra-conservative foundations, individuals, and ‘Big Oil’.
It is interesting to note that on Avery’s list of
‘500 Scientists Whose Research Contradicts Man-Made Global Warming Scares’ one finds a certain ‘Mann, Michael E., University of Massachusetts’ of Hockey Stick fame.
Also stating as a ‘fact’ [as there are no qualifying weasel words]:
“2) The sun’s varying radiance impacts the Earth’s climate as more or fewer cosmic rays create more or fewer of the low, wet clouds that act as the Earth’s thermostats, deflecting more or less solar heat out into space.”
It seems to me that the Institute has its own political agenda and it is a bit sad that they can fool well-meaning people to do their bidding.

Don B (09:15:21) :
Last evening I finished reading the 1997 “The Role of the Sun in Climate Change,” by Hoyt and Schatten. They noted many of the facts commenters here know […]
And yet, despite all of that, they refused to take a position, saying the math didn’t support the sun doing all the warming

Doug and Ken are just honest scientists.
We can hope that in March some speakers will have done enough math to convince the sun skeptics.
Judging from last years talks there seems to be little hope or prospects of that.

Dave Dodd

The terms “skeptics” and “deniers” are intentionally derisive, launched by the AGW types as an attack against those who place science ahead of Algorean scams. Why not instead us a term such as “purveyors of Truth?” That by implication forces the AGWers to defend the indefensible. How someone perceives themselves has more to do with their job performance than any labels attached by their enemies.
Fight! Fight!! Fight!!!

Keith

I would love to be able to attend, just to hear all the great speakers who have committed to be there. Unfortunately, my budget wouldn’t cover the expense of the trip. Congrats, Anthony, on being part of this group.
Now, what the rest of us need to do is make sure that this conference does come to the attention of the mainstream media. We’ve got the basic press release available from the post above. If this got sent to every newspaper and television station in your local area regularly from multiple people, than they might decide it was something that their audience was interested in hearing more of. We can be the Public Relations staff for this event, and make it something that the population as a whole does hear about.

Actuator

As one who used statistical analysis in a limited fashion in business and government, it became apparent that as variables increased results became much less certain for predicting outcomes. People who are supposed to be scientists use computer models that cannot possibly consider all the variables from the myriad of sources that impact the climate and claim with utter certainty long term outcomes for climate change. This is preposterous. I don’t suggest that scientists stick their heads in the sand and stop doing research, but at least be realistic. The cynic in me says that as with all living organisms, the pursuit of resources, research grants in the case of scientists, fuels the need for sensation and attention. Funds follow closely behind the publicity generated by claims of impending disaster. Then the politically astute jump in to take advantage to garner more resources and power for themselves based on their claims to “solve” a potentially (likely?) non-existent problem. The taxpayers then get to pay for it all.

John-X

Leif Svalgaard (09:33:13) :
“The conference is sponsored by the Heartland Institute, which has been actively involved in debate over tobacco policy, opposing restrictions on smoking and criticizing science which documents the harms of secondhand smoke. The institute is funded by ultra-conservative foundations, individuals, and ‘Big Oil’.”
Well then, Global Warming is true.
“It seems to me that the Institute has its own political agenda and it is a bit sad that they can fool well-meaning people to do their bidding.”
No political agenda involved in pushing man-made global warming, right, Doctor Svalgaard?
No well-meaning people [think schoolchildren, Doctor] fooled into doing the bidding of politically-motivated politicians, ex-politicians, and assorted “activists,” right Doctor Svalgaard?

John-X

WHICH foundations are “ultra-conservative,” Leif?
WHO from “Big Oil” is “funding” Heartland, Leif?
Funding by ‘INDIVIDUALS,” Leif? That’s unacceptable to you? Or were you applying your “ultra-conservative” epithet to “individuals,” and not just foundations, Leif?
If your aren’t going to name names and give us specifics, then we’ll know exactly what you’re up to here – guilt by [vague] association, meaningless and emotional, politically-motivated generalizations.

MarkW

1) There is no reliable science that demonstrates the harm of second hand smoke. The best are “studies” that use highly questionable methods and correlation numbers.
2) Do you honestly believe that restrictions on smoking are only a “scientific” issue? There is no chance in the world that the issue of freedom is at stake?
3) Regardings unspoken political agendas, you should know.

John-X

I hadn’t thought seriously of attending this conference, but the fact that Leif is twigged by the very EXISTENCE of Heartland, which has the “audacity” (to borrow a term) to “criticize science” (your words Leif AND your italics), encourages me to proudly and gratefully pony up my $625 registration fee, for a chance to hear people who prefer to THINK, rather than (bitterly) cling to their “consensus.”

Robert Bateman

The reason you are having this opportunity is that people like me have convinced the government that for too long people with monied interests have had the exclusive ear of Congress. Read Lobbyists of the Industries and Corps that make the profits off of your science. There is a great need for Scientists to have direct contact with Congress directly over things such as Renewable Energy, climate, pollution, food supply, transportation, etc..
Whatever you do, don’t let the Big Institutes and Big Corps talk you out of direct access to the people who make the monetary decisions and write the laws.
You are very likely in the near future to be offered projects to pilot and prove real-life applications such as clean-coal locomotives to carry the nation’s freight at scale. Good luck to you all.

AnonyMoose

Don’t know a lot about the carbon cycle: No-till farming can increase greenhouse gas effects.
http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2008/10/were_clueless_when_it_comes_to.php

John Philip

Actual surveys of climate scientists and recent reviews of the scholarly literature both show the so-called ‘skeptics’ may actually be in the majority of the climate science community.
Anyone know where I can read such a survey or review?
Will there be another ‘Manhattan Declaration’ this year? I notice that from the global community of people who were not at the conference last year but who ‘have training and/or backgrounds that afford them a good understanding of climate change science, technology, economics and/or policy.’ a grand total of 603 were willing to endorse the proposition that Climate Change is not a Global Crisis. and that these included people with expertise in string theory, audio signal processing, molecular genetics and Kinesiology (yeah, I had to look it up too).

paminator

Leif- you say “It seems to me that the Institute has its own political agenda and it is a bit sad that they can fool well-meaning people to do their bidding.”
I agree. Its time to disband the IPCC.

blcjr

Leif Svalgaard (09:37:56) :
“Doug and Ken are just honest scientists?”
Just curious, but may I presume you hold the same opinion of William Burroughs (alluding here to “Weather Cycles: Real or Imaginary?”)?
Basil

M White

The Kayak man Lewis Gordon Pughs Polar defence website has suddenly come to life
http://polardefenseproject.org/blog/
‘Climate change: faster, stronger, sooner’
‘UN cheif calls global warming “Defining issue”‘
‘Migrating Alaskan pollock creat potential for new dispute with Russia’

Pet Rock

So that’s the infamous link to the tobacco industry I keep hearing about!
I’m sorry the scientific question of climate change was ever made public before there really was a scientific consensus on it. Because politics is the root of all evil.
I get the strong feeling that the AGW crowd is left wing and the anti-AGW crowd is right wing. For whatever reason. But the real SCIENCE is neither right wing or left wing. We should resist the temptation to make political cheap shots.
Everyone should support real science. We don’t need extremist zealots. I don’t see much difference between the extreme right (like Hitler) and the extreme left (like Stalin). Or between the actions of their zealot followers, whether Brown Shirts or Red Guard. They are not the right model to follow.
The proper way for people to fight AGW, if that is their desire, is to criticize their science, not their politics.
This constant claims of Big Oil funding or Tobacco Funding are really just distractions. Big Oil is going to make big money whether there is AGW or not. It’s interesting that tobacco is mentioned. Everybody knows tobacco is bad for them, but that didn’t stop them all from smoking. Smoking is a near-term “benefit”, and a risk of a long term “pain”. As a poison, tobacco is rather weak. It may not kill you, and it takes a long time before that starts to happen. It’s really only through science that we know it is bad for health. The tobacco industry tried to prevent that science, only wanting to show their “facts”. Sort of like how the AGW industry is behaving now. Where does the Big Environment money come from?
The problem with having such sponsors is that the other side uses that as an attack point, even if all the scientists involved are pure and honest. But what else is there?

bushy

Anthony here is a piece of ludiabull you might like to post. http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/oct2008/2008-10-24-01.asp
Ludiabull = ludicrous alarmist bullshite.

Bobby Lane

Long live the (Climate) Rebellion!

George E. Smith

“MarkW (10:08:19) :
1) There is no reliable science that demonstrates the harm of second hand smoke. The best are “studies” that use highly questionable methods and correlation numbers. ”
Well I don’t know about 2nd hand smoke, but I know a credible epidemiologist, recently retired for U of Miami, and long associated with the CDC; and at the Uof M he was in constant contact with doctors at the med school who certainly knew about direct firsat hand smoke; and my friend says the evidence linking smoking with lung cancer, is more convincing that the evidence linking sex with the occurrence of children.
As for me being an asthmatic, I only have one problem with cigarettes; they simply don’t kill people quickly enough. If they made them more potent and allowed them to be sold to youn children; we might be spared another generation of idiots.
One thing I have noticed, by watching European tourists, visiting other parts of the world, they can’t wait to get outside of a restaurant (here in the USA) to light up a fag. I once chaperoned my younger sister, and her smoker Irish husband on a whirlwind driving tour of the California gold country. Every time I stopped the car at a red traffic light, he would jump out of the car and light up a cigarette. Soon as the light turned green, he stubbed it out, and put it back in the packet, and hopped into the car on our way to the next red light.
Yes he died of Lung Cancer.
BUT, so long as the weed is legal to purchase, I would not lift a finger to support laws that impose undue burdens on those who choose to smoke (as in punitive taxes). But when I am out and about in the streets, it seems that every one of those junkies has to gravitate towards me, so I have to step out on the road to get around them.
I’m told that smoking a single cigarette is enough to hook the next victim.
In the USA, African Americans who smoke, are a smaller fraction of the African American population, than in the case of white smokers; yet they die of lung cancer at an extra ordinary high rate, compared to white smokers.
Reason is simple, African Americans smoke Menthol cigarettes which are targetted in advertising, to that community. The menthol gives the smoke that coolness, which enables smokers to inhale the smoke deeply into their lungs so they get a much bigger dose of nicotine than non menthol smokers.
Every African America smoker I encounter, I ask what brand (s)he smokes; and I have yet to meet the first one who wasn’t smoking menthols. Then I tell them they are being targeted with the deadliest of all cigarettes.
And NO, I do not believe there is a conspiracy of “eradication”; it is just that marketing pros, have noticed their fetish for Menthols so they select Black magazines and locations/hangouts to put their menthol advertising. It’s just dollars to them, not a genocidal conspiracy.
If you smoke; quit, and if you don’t smoke; don’t start.