This is too ridiculous to even comment on, so I’ll just let the image do the talking and provide a link:
http://www.starcitynews.com/cigarettes-a-secondary-cause-of-global-warming/1566
The entire evidence for the title of the linked news story above:
Smoking produces two green house gasses that are altering our atmosphere and are directly related to climate change; it is just one more challenge for the world to over come.
Tune in next week when birthday cake candles are blamed for global warming because they produce carbon dioxide and soot.
h/t to WUWT reader Tom T
FULL DISCLOSURE: Both of my parents died from smoking related illness, so if anybody wants to suggest that I support smoking because of this post, leave it unsaid. – Anthony
Michael D Smith says:
You do realise you have mixed up the cause and effeect there, right? Michael Crichton quite clearly demonstrated that aliens cause global warming:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/09/aliens-cause-global-warming-a-caltech-lecture-by-michael-crichton/
Do they realize how religious this is all sounding?
One has to believe that cigarette smoke affects a significant portion of the atmosphere, in order to affix blame on Global Warming.
Next up: The invention of fire as the original eco-sin.
Hi. I’m Irv Zimmerman from the American Cancer Society [wheeze]. I used to smoke about 20 packs of cigarettes a day [wheeze]. But since I lost one of my lungs [wheeze], I cut my smokin’ in half [wheeze, koff].. 😉
“Phil’s Dad says:
October 12, 2010 at 7:56 pm
First Chilian miner on the way up as I type.”
Yes, and apparently, the miners were arguing over who should be rescued first.
Is it faintly possible that the heat from the combustion of the tobacco, paper etc., and that from the match actually produces both the “warmth” in global warming, and CO2 as an inevitable product of burning carbon based compounds in oxygen.
CO2 is a result of warming, not a cause.
Quit burning stuff, less heat. As for me, I like my food cooked. Haven’t figured out how to cook my food without heat, so I guess I’m doomed to contribute to “global warming”.
My care factor? Zero.
In addition to cigarettes producing CO2 it should be noticed that any oceans out there which are not properly covered with plastic covers will allow deadly H2O to enter the atmosphere.
What causes ALL human contributions to C02?
Existence.
Fix that, and you’ve solved the problem…
Hum, I wounder how much excess CO2 is produced when one rides a bicycle or jogs, I wounder? I think I will claim that is the first cause. It’s easy, I’ll just pull that out of my magic bag of facts. I get them when I trip out on my magic carped. (it’s powered by some real good stuff man)
If anyone would actually look at the stated intent of these whackos, elimination of human existance, or at least a great diminshment thereof, and an end to what is called civilization is their goal.
Whilst reading theese comments and wondering why breathing is not being blamed for global warming (expired air is arounf 4% CO2, I understand), the local news for Adelaide, South Australia is that we have BELOW average temps for our start of Spring
Smoking was thought safe behavior until doctors (men + women of science) began to notice a strong correlation with serious diseases and warned of the health risks (notably lung cancer).
Human CO2 emissions are just like tobacco smoking, seriously damaging the planet’s ‘health’ — so the familiar argument goes.
The analogy fails, because lung cancer was a very rare disease prior to the widespread uptake of smoking.
The correlation is compelling:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/94/Cancer_smoking_lung_cancer_correlation_from_NIH.svg
On the other hand, there is no strong correlation between human fossil fuel use and ‘global warming’:http://www.treehugger.com/Global_Carbon_Emission_by_Type.png
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/hadcrut3vgl/mean:6/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1850/to:1905/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1910/to:1945/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1942/to:1975/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1975/to:1999/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/to:2010/trend
And periods of warming can hardly be considered rare, let alone a planetary ‘disease’ — quite the contrary:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_cHhMa7ARDDg/SsVwmR-0iCI/AAAAAAAABKg/yj2FAhEzWho/s1600-h/Vostok-140Kd.jpg
I am sure that just the Carbon cost of Copenhagan was more than all the smokers in one year, in the BBC press coverage it was calculated to be the same a the annual CO2 emmisions of a small 3rd World country.
So why no paper on that !!!!!!!
I wonder when they will ban pork-n-beans. Afterall, it does get a bit windy around the house after a good meal. And let’s not forget the heat trapping gases I emit on a frequent basis (Nitrogen, carbon dioxide, methane and hydrogen).
Perhaps Gore and crowd should go after Mel Brooks for his scene in Blazing Saddles.
“Mike Flynn says:
October 12, 2010 at 10:55 pm”
Haven’t figured out how to cook my food without heat, so I guess I’m doomed to contribute to “global warming”.”
Well, actually, you can. You can “cook” without heat, afterall, it’s just a chemical reaction. Get some fish and some lemon/line juice, squeeze the juice liberally over the fish. Leave for a while, 24hrs is best. Fish is done to perfection. You’re out of luck if you want rice with that however.
I am convinced the USA is responsible for global warming / climate change / global climate disruption.
All you have to realise is sales of coca-cola and other fizzy drinks containing the evil CO2 have increased exponentially in the last 100 years. Ergo, the USA’s manufacturers of fizzy drinks are responsible.
I have therefore submitted my application for funding to the authorities and I am expecting a big fat cheque any day now
I don’t have any data to back up my claims, but i am a climate scientists so you must trust me and ban all sales of fizzy drinks worldwide. Oh, btw I’ve just opening a new exchange where you can buy and sell credits to allow people to drink the evil fizzy drinks, if anybody is interested
/Mango
Wow,
Usually I agree with the posts here, I guess if you are pro AGW this had to happen sooner or later I’m surprised it has taken so long.
For me my observation is there seems to be hysterical arm flailing whenever anyone takes a pop at smoking and tobacco for whatever reason from the majority in this case on both sides of the debate.
It seems to me that this is the one sacred cow worshipped by all sides.
From an AGW point of view there is CO2 in distribution, lighter fuel, smoking itself and then there is the methane produced.
From the sceptic side it’s more evidence of pro AGW hysteria and they miss a trick pointing out pro AGW hypocrites who smoke i.e. Leonardo DeCaprio.
From my point of view I find it queer in the extreme that there is such support for such a vile blight, smoking kills more people than climate change (I know not difficult) it pollutes the air and causes cancer . Pro AGW have to take the view that smoking is a direct contributor to the greenhouse gases of the world, those pro AGW smokers that preach to me that I should cut my CO2 (no pressure) contribute more to the problem they preach than I as a non-smoker. Sceptics who smoke argue that smoking contributes nothing to climate change because greenhouse gases contribute such a small amount and while I agree with this stand point for reasons I’ve mentioned you miss a trick because for the pro AGW camp calling out the smokers is pointing out the hypocrites directly – worse than blueberries.
I once smoked, but I never exhaled.
That’s about as silly as the article.
Burning cigarettes produce CO2, but growing tobacco uptakes CO2. If you let crops rot in the fields, they produce CO2 about equal to what went into their growth.
There’s confusion between cyclic and irreversible processes again.
My name is Louis and I release two types of greenhouse gas…
Smoking … at least wood smoke from open fires could quite conceivably have an effect on global temperatures. There is certainly strong evidence (before the wikipeida mafia got hold of it) that global dimming due to air particulates was a major cause of cooling, and therefore with its reduction due to the clean air acts in the 1970s was a major cause of warming (… not a fact you’ll find in wikipedia!!)
Still, if I’m honest, there’s not much more evidence for “particulate-reduction induced warming” than for CO2 induced warming … unless you read the environmentalists writing on “Smoke” induced nuclear winters, when it seems inevitable that a little bit of “smoke” in the air means we’ll all die a long lingering death from the result of manmade induced global climate change.
Pops says: “Didn’t algore once claim that cigarette smoking is a major cause of global warming?”
I believe it was during his presentation at the United Nations. Never heard of him making the statement again.
The extra greenhouse gases from smoking are more than offset by the greenhouse savings due to premature death from smoking. So smoking must be a good thing if you’re an eco-nutter.
The picture was taken on the Moon. Obviously global warming has formed enough atmosphere there to enable ignition of a cigarette without wearing a space suit.
These people should be be confined in a home for the bewildered, at once!!
The skeptics on this thread are skeptical only regarding CO2. There seems to be no skepticism when it comes to smoking. The science is proved – proved by the statistical analysis of questionnaires.
Smoking may indeed be bad for one, or for some, but there is no evidence for that which would pass the scientific test. Smoking was very good indeed for the late Sir Richard Doll who through his 1950 theory got himself a professorship, a knighthood and a lifelong source of taxpayer money.
someone else queried the difference between Organic Tobacco and commercials effects.
Yes I also have wondered as once when I did grow some chem free it sure was Nothing at all! like what we buy, almost not worth lighting up, it was that different.
and isnt it passing strange?
Tobacco is the ONLY product that somehow manages to NOT have to include an ingredients list on the pack- world wide.
now why? is that so:-)