Mr Obama, if you have the urge to bankrupt an industry, why not bankrupt Big Tobacco instead of Big Coal? December 20, 2008Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: Barack Obama, Big Coal, Big Oil, Big Tobacco, cigarettes, climate, climate change, environment, global warming, lung cancer, obama, politics, tobacco
Mr Obama, if you have the urge to bankrupt an industry, why not bankrupt Big Tobacco instead of Big Coal?
Dear Mr Obama
I was very surprised to learn recently that you had suggested bankrupting coal plants and that you wanted to declare carbon dioxide a dangerous pollutant. Not only is carbon dioxide not a pollutant, but without it life on earth would cease to exit.
I found it rather ironic that you are a smoker, who spends money on purposefully inhaling carcinogenic substances and yet you want declare c02 a dangerous pollutant and bankrupt coal plants. Is it wise to bankrupt the coal industry when the USA is experiencing one of its coldest winters this century?
Climate changes, always has and always will. Whilst it may make you feel all warm and fuzzy thinking that by bankrupting Coal plants you will save the polar bears, this is simply not true. This year may end up to be the coldest year this century and yet c02 levels are at a record high. Something else is driving the climate.
I suggest you plot a temperature graph and look at the data yourself instead of taking advice from Al Gore, who is profiting quite nicely from his unnecessary scaremongering. The world is no warmer today than it was in 1998. That doesn’t sound like catastrophic global warming. Natural forces clearly have had a larger impact on the climate than human c02.
Whilst you and your fellow smokers may think it is your right to suicide by lung cancer, the fact is that smokers affect those around them too.
Some of the environmental impacts of cigarette butts:
-Cigarette butts lying in the streets and gutters are carried via stormwater directly into harbors, beaches and rivers.
-Cigarette butts can take up to 12 months to break down in freshwater and up to 5 years to break down in seawater.
-Littered butts seriously reduce the aesthetic quality of any environment.
-Butts have been found in the stomachs of young birds, sea turtles and other marine creatures.
The science is settled and the debate is over. Tobacco smoke contains around 4,000 chemicals, made up of particles and gases, about 60 of which are known to cause cancer. Smoking causes lung cancer and other nasty diseases and is incredibly bad for the environment.
Smoking kills 5.4 million people per year. That’s like one jumbo jet going down every hour. The time to act is now. Do it for yourself and your wife and kids so that they will have a husband and father who will live longer to be with them.
You have the power to ban/bankrupt one of the world’s leading killers.
Problems with the Climate Models September 15, 2008Posted by honestclimate in Climate Models.
Tags: climate, climate change, Climate Models, global warming, skeptic
Problems with the Climate Models
By Dr Professor Michael R. Fox
From Hawaii Reporter, September 12, 2008
Recalling that people such as Robert F. Kennedy have called climate skeptics “traitors”, David Suzuki calls for their jailing, the Grist website called for Nuremburg trials for them, NASA’s Dr. Jim Hansen calling for their trials for treason, along with the habitual insults from Al Gore, its been difficult for anyone to respectfully dissent. It’s been difficult to stick to the rules of hard science, by demanding evidence and replication, both of which require questioning but are often followed by insults and threats.The world owes a lot to many climate scientists who are closely studying and reviewing the claims of the global warming lobby. They are also attempting to replicate some of these findings without the traditional support of the originating authors. Ordinarily, in the world of hard nosed science, such scrutiny and replication has been historically welcomed. No longer. The well-known name calling, the dismissiveness, the ad hominem attacks, is regrettably now the standard level of discourse. Additionally, these include many laboratory directors, media editors, and Ph.D.s who for whatever reasons adopt the same low roads of discourse and the abandonment of science.
These are difficult times for traditional climate scientists who do practice good science, serious peer review, welcome scrutiny, replication, and the sharing of data. Thanks to the whole world of the global warm-mongers and indentured PhDs, the integrity of the entire world of science is being diminished, followed by a loss of trust and respect.