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
Wiglaf says:
October 12, 2010 at 8:05 pm
“[…] But then they upped the ante by stating dandruff causes global warming and that we should help the environment by using dandruff shampoo.”
It looks like dandruff forms a bigger part of aerosols than expected. The researchers are not sure whether dandruff results in a positive or negative forcing. So, i would delay any dandruff mitigation schemes if i were you until we know more; otherwise, you might be doing more harm than good to the climate.
“Do dandruff and climate change go together?
Study ties biological aerosols to clouds, weather”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7348467/
Next you know they will blame Mel Brook’s film “Blazing Saddles”.
On a personal note, I quit smoking on March 15, 1979. I still consider it one of the greatest days of my life.
But wait. Isn’t burning tobacco an acceptable source of CO2? It’s part of the “natural” and “renewable” cycle of CO2, like humans breathing. I thought only CO2 coming from those evil fossil fuels was the “bad” CO2. I’m so confused. Someone please help me. Is all CO2 bad? Every bit of it? (Tell that to the plants like tobacco that live off of it)
Right after I sent my post, I realized that the “bad” CO2 was coming from burning the butane in the lighter. Sorry. I figured it out all by myself. Burning tobacco = good. Lighting the tobaccon with the ligher = bad. I’m really trying to starting thinking like a Warmist. It’s tough for me since I’m naturally a very logical person.
It is little wonder with ideas like this that the AGW crowd is loosing (or has lost) all credibility. Do they really think the general population is that stupid? Apparently they don’t realize that treating people like 2 yr olds isn’t a good strategy to winning them over to their point of view.
Wonder how much pollution is caused by cigs compared to all the mining for Prius batteries, all the mercury in CFLs, and all the net carbon required to produce windmills and solar panels? Not to mention tobacco production is a pretty good blue collar job in the tropical and sub tropical areas. Anyhow, just indicative of how utterly idiotic the AGWs have become.
Now excuse me while I enjoy a nice mellow American Spirit and give back to the Native Americans’ economy.
Wow, this is great. I can add this to my list of things I am doing to save the planet – but how do I work out what gasses I am not putting into the atmosphere having given up 20 fags a day for the last 6 years? Do you think I have reached “tonnes” of gasses yet, or am I still in milligrammes?
BFL says:
October 12, 2010 at 8:10 pm
I agree. I switched back to by old-time habit of rolling my own ‘last time’ I took up smoking because the tobacco therein has fewer chemicals and made me cough less. You do get awful yellow fingers, though.
I finally packed it in for the third time in 15 years when my 6-year-old daughter started imitating me with pencils and the like, and I hope this is the very last time I have to give the damn stuff up. The stupid thing is I never enjoyed it much overall.
The article was written by someone called Ken Bosket.
The tobacco, paper and wood for the ignition stick are all biomass and have a neutral impact on CO2 levels.
If, as claimed in the article, there was a net CO2 increase caused by smoking, the article would still be wrong as a warmer climate with a higher level of CO2 is good for plant production, including food.
Two strikes and you’re out Ken!!!
Dave Stephens says:
October 12, 2010 at 11:05 pm
What causes ALL human contributions to C02?
Existence.
Fix that, and you’ve solved the problem…
Wow. Profound. [/sarc]
amicus curiae says:
October 13, 2010 at 3:41 am
and alcoholic beverages, strangely
Tom in Florida says:
October 13, 2010 at 4:36 am
On a personal note, I quit smoking on March 15, 1979. I still consider it one of the greatest days of my life.
I quit smoking once. It was the worst 20 minutes of my life.
Prefer a good cigar. Transported from some warm island. Lit using the burning end of a hard oak branch while sitting near my open campfire wondering what activity can I possibly engage in that will not produce an iota of CO2/CH4 ever.
@ur momisugly Cassandra King: It’s called social engineering, and as everyone could see for themselves @ur momisugly Copenhagen, and with the proposed treaty that was leaked, it is what is at the root of the “Green” movement.
There was a Sci-Fi movie released a few years ago called “Serenity.” At its heart, it was about freedom vs. social engineering. In the movie, the social engineers found their utopia, and when everything went wrong, the sought to hide it and cover it up. Here is the quote from the script:
These are just a few of
the few images we’ve recorded.
And you can see…
it isn’t what we thought.
There’s been no war here…
and no terraforming event.
The environment is stable.
It’s the Pax.
The G- Paxilon Hydroclorate
that we added
to the air processors.
It was supposed to calm
the population,
weed out aggression.
Well, it works.
The people here
stopped fighting.
And then they stopped
everything else.
They stopped going to work…
they stopped breeding,
talking, eating.
There’s a million people
here, and they all just
let themselves die.
…
We meant it for the best…
to make people safer.
All that being said, tobacco is, IMHO, just awful stuff. If you are going to smoke that stuff, you should be responsible for all your health care costs. If you choose to smoke, it should cancel any health insurance coverage you have. The rest of us should not be forced to pay for your choice.
Full disclosure: I grew up near tobacco country. It was a typical summer job, and I worked in it one summer. That was more than enough to convince me to never take up smoking. If you have ever spent a day “topping” tobacco plants, you would know about the thick tar that is the sap of this plant. At the end of each row, you had to scoop up handfuls of sand to scrub the stuff off. All it ever made me think was, “you can’t reach inside your lungs to scrub them, so why would I ever want to smoke this stuff?”
No such thing. Chilean, yes, Chilian, no.
Smoking is much less hazardous than procrastinating on 10:10
This post reminds me of an old favorite song:
{apologies to N. Sinatra}
John
People interfering with other people’s lives is just par for the current materialistic society we live in. I think I liked paternalistic society slightly (but only very very slightly) better. How about neither?
I leave you with this paraphrase:
A womanCarbon is justa womancarbon but a good cigar is a smoke.John
Jeff Alberts says:
October 13, 2010 at 7:31 am
Phil’s Dad says:
October 12, 2010 at 7:56 pm
First Chilian miner on the way up as I type.
No such thing. Chilean, yes, Chilian, no.
Taht’s the turolbe wtih lfie, saemncits paly hlel wtih snyatx.
Go for simple: Without life, there is no death. Life causes death.
Food, water and air are toxic. Everybody who ever ingested any of these has eventually died. [Everybody who ate green beans during the Civil War died.]
You are Superman after you are born, dependent on nothing, until your first breath – it’s all downhill from there.
As it takes about 8 hours for lungs to recover from a cigarette, there could be something to smoking in real moderation. It’s the overlap that kills; er, well increases the Risk. My cousin Mae smoked like a chimney all her life and died at 88. It’s a risk, not a given.
From the weed-empire : The Indians knew how to make smoke-signals and to read footprints ! What is the most known smokesignal ? A zero ! A very good smoker can produce an 8 . It is obvious the indians had trouble with counting , so this explains their liquor consumption . Liquor-wise and smoke-foolish . In all indian sagas there was never a word about carbon footprints , after understanding mother nature this was not found and probably highly irrelevant . This was also a culture without paper money . Is not it logical that the paper trail goes ahead of the money ? What is more tempting to invent a paper trail leading to a lot of paper money or to follow a true trail leading to the facts of life ?
Both of my parents died from smoking related illness
Are there any diseases which aren’t smoking related? Heck, it’s even a risk factor for toenail fungus.
If the AGW scam has been so successful, it’s probably because it was modelled on the highly successful anti-smoking scam.
I would acknowledge if we have a psychiatrist (or many) here, to explain to me why is it so that left ideologists have such a strange collection of ideas and which they defend so fanatically?
W’re all secondary smoke victims now; let’s all club together to sue the tobacco companies. Just think how many windmills we’ll be able to buy. We’ll save the planet, yet.