T
Trevor Wilson
Eurowasp said:
**It doesn't. I'll re-state it in a manner that makes sense:
The only people who still maintain that there are no health problems
associated with smoking, are tobacco companies.
Sorry for the confusion.
Interestingly, the fossil fuel lobby is not only using the same playbook as
the tobacco industry does/did, they are using the same organisations and
people to push their lies.
**No, there is not. The ONLY people who claim there is a controversy are
those who are employed by the fossil fuel industry, or are terminally stupid
(like the Catholic Church). Singer, Lindzen, Carter and others work for
organisations that are partly or fully funded by fossil fuel interests (the
Kock Brothers) and the tobacco industry. Curiously, these organisations
publish material that is only complimentary to the tobacco industry and the
fossil fuel industry. What I suggest you do, is to study some science and
look beyond the happy bullshit handed to you by people who have seriously
suspect motives.
**YOU point out the climatologists in the list and I will post the relevant
information that condemns them. I am not interested in the opinions of
people who are not climatologists.
**What a load of fucking bullshit. The same scientists in the CSIRO (in
Australia) and the US EPA, NASA, et al, in the US, were telling the Bush
(AGW denying government) and the Howard/Abbott (AGW denying government) that
this was a serious problem that needed to be addressed. According to your
twisted view, those scientists should have been attempting to keep their
paymasters happy. They weren't. They simply stated the facts.
**Singer and Lindzen are paid by organisations that are funded by the fossil
fuel industy and the tobacco industry. Are you going to tell me that smoking
harmless next?
**This guy can tell you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Ayers
Send him an email and ask him. Whilst you are at it, why don't you ask him
about the list of doubters?
**I'm sure there are a few. There will always be a few bad apples in any
barrel. However, the vast majority simply work the science and report their
findings. They are, in the main, not beholding to wind turbine
manufacturers, PV cell manufacturers and other industries where they can
profit by their findings. However, YOU need to ask why people like Lindzen,
Singer, carter, et al, who are paid by the fossil fuel industry, say the
things they do.
So, the questions are: Why do you avoid ascertaining the facts that surround
your choice of information?
Why do you accept information, so blindly, from the fossil fuel and tobacco
industries so blindly?
Why do you ignore the massive weight of good, solid science, from the vast
majority of climate scientists (most of whom work for government pay scales
and nothing like the US$2.5k per day that Lindzen has been paid)?
