Fra bly til C02.
Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me, var det noen som sa.
Hvis internett hadde fantes på 60- 70-tallet ville amatørfornekterne hatt sine egne grupper der de argumenterte imot de helsemessige skadeeffektene av røyking og spadde opp anekdotiske eksempler og insistert på at lungekreft var "naturlig", mens røykeslutt-kampanjer var en del av en global sammensvergelse fra myndighetene om beskatning og sosioøkonomisk kontroll.
If the internet had been around in the 60s and 70s, climate deniers would be arguing against the health effects of smoking, and dredging up historical/anecdotal examples to insist that lung cancer was "natural", while warning that smoking cessation efforts were all part of a global conspiracy of taxation and socio-economic control.
Tobakksindustrien begynte med å si for 70 år siden, "nikotin er ikke farlig" , det er bare "venstreskrudde" krefter som vil ødelegge industrien og livstilen vår. I dag kan du bytte ut tobakk med olje og nikotin med C02. Det er nøyaktig de samme kreftene som står bak tåkeleggingen. Det handler om å så tvil. Det handler om at C02 ikke skal være farlig så lenge som mulig, akkurat slik tobakksindustrien ville så tvil om koblingen mellom røyking og lungekreft og røyking og avhengighet så lenge som mulig.
Tobakksindustrien begynte med å si for 70 år siden, "nikotin er ikke farlig" , det er bare "venstreskrudde" krefter som vil ødelegge industrien og livstilen vår. I dag kan du bytte ut tobakk med olje og nikotin med C02. Det er nøyaktig de samme kreftene som står bak tåkeleggingen. Det handler om å så tvil. Det handler om at C02 ikke skal være farlig så lenge som mulig, akkurat slik tobakksindustrien ville så tvil om koblingen mellom røyking og lungekreft og røyking og avhengighet så lenge som mulig.
Tobakkindustrien hentet inn sine egne "eksperter".
Deres oppgave var å så tvil om de vitenskapelige fremskrittene ang. skadeomfanget til tobakk. Ved å være en motvekt til den etablerte vitenskapen, ennå så liten den var, kunne tobakksindustrien likevel hevde "hør her, forskerne er ikke enige".
"What developed was a joint strategy to twist science and mislead the public about the dangers of smoking. "
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/low-tar-cigarettes/481116/
Formålet med dette var å få røyking til høres mindre farlig ut og utsette reguleringer og reklameforbud så lenge som mulig. I vår tid er det folk som Richard Lindzen som gjør denne skitne jobben for fossil brensel interesser, men han gjorde det for tobakk først:
Richard Lindzen claiming "the link between smoking and lung cancer is "weak."
http://www.newsweek.com/truth-about-global-warming-154937
"Lindzen's skepticism has attracted funding from fossil fuel interests and he's worked on projects underwritten by Exxon and OPEC. He is trotted out by deniers as "proof" that "real scientists disagree" about global warming and that there is no scientific consensus".
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen
Lindzen er altså tilknyttet tankesmien Heartland Institute, som er kjent for å jobbe for tobakksindustrien og fossil brensel interesser.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/15/leak-exposes-heartland-institute-climate
Deres oppgave var å så tvil om de vitenskapelige fremskrittene ang. skadeomfanget til tobakk. Ved å være en motvekt til den etablerte vitenskapen, ennå så liten den var, kunne tobakksindustrien likevel hevde "hør her, forskerne er ikke enige".
"What developed was a joint strategy to twist science and mislead the public about the dangers of smoking. "
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/low-tar-cigarettes/481116/
Formålet med dette var å få røyking til høres mindre farlig ut og utsette reguleringer og reklameforbud så lenge som mulig. I vår tid er det folk som Richard Lindzen som gjør denne skitne jobben for fossil brensel interesser, men han gjorde det for tobakk først:
Richard Lindzen claiming "the link between smoking and lung cancer is "weak."
http://www.newsweek.com/truth-about-global-warming-154937
"Lindzen's skepticism has attracted funding from fossil fuel interests and he's worked on projects underwritten by Exxon and OPEC. He is trotted out by deniers as "proof" that "real scientists disagree" about global warming and that there is no scientific consensus".
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen
Lindzen er altså tilknyttet tankesmien Heartland Institute, som er kjent for å jobbe for tobakksindustrien og fossil brensel interesser.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/15/leak-exposes-heartland-institute-climate
Før det var det bly, asbest og DDT:
“They did everything that becomes known as the signature of the tobacco industry,” said David Rosner, who has helped anti-lead lawsuits and co-wrote the 2013 book “Lead Wars.” “In fact, they were really pioneered by the lead industries. … The (Lead Industries Association) can take credit for creating this giant doubt industry.”
While evidence about the harmful effects of asbestos continued to grow, so did the influence of the asbestos companies. Between 1940 and 1980, the business expanded into a multibillion dollar industry that employed more than 200,000 people.
The success of these companies hinged on keeping the health risks of asbestos a secret — but it was asbestos workers and consumers who paid the price. In order to keep the industry alive and prosperous, many companies took steps to ensure miners, factory workers and the public knew nothing about the true dangers of asbestos.
Følg den skitne industriens vei fra bly, asbest, DDT, via tobakk til C02:“They did everything that becomes known as the signature of the tobacco industry,” said David Rosner, who has helped anti-lead lawsuits and co-wrote the 2013 book “Lead Wars.” “In fact, they were really pioneered by the lead industries. … The (Lead Industries Association) can take credit for creating this giant doubt industry.”
While evidence about the harmful effects of asbestos continued to grow, so did the influence of the asbestos companies. Between 1940 and 1980, the business expanded into a multibillion dollar industry that employed more than 200,000 people.
The success of these companies hinged on keeping the health risks of asbestos a secret — but it was asbestos workers and consumers who paid the price. In order to keep the industry alive and prosperous, many companies took steps to ensure miners, factory workers and the public knew nothing about the true dangers of asbestos.
The dirty industry: a timeline.
1900-2000: LEAD
Lead is good for us and not poisonous nor dangerous to children and if you dont bend over and enjoy it youre attacking our industry and our desire to make shitloads of money by ruining public health and your campaign to demonize LEAD is based on junk science and you are probably a leftist government communist out to tax and regulate us out of business.
OIL COMPANY DUPONT AND GENERAL MOTORS KNEW LEAD GAS WAS A KNOWN POISON WHEN THEY PUT IT IN GASOLINE AS AN ANTI-KNOCK AGENT.
(Ethanol couldn’t be patented and offered no viable profit for GM, so they were on the lookout for new additives to use. Marketing tetraethyl lead or TEL under the name “Ethyl” (because lead was already known to be poisonous), GM expected to rake in massive amounts of money.)
The next year (1924), there was serious backlash against leaded gasoline after five workers died from TEL exposure at the Standard Oil Refinery in New Jersey, writes Deborah Blum for Wired, but still, the gasoline went into general sale later that decade.
By 1929, the newly formed Lead Industries Association — the now-defunct advocacy group representing dozens of companies — was aware of the growing concerns, with a group secretary complaining at a directors’ meeting of the “undesirable publicity regarding lead poisoning.”
The association fought to protect its business.
In addition to promoting the use of lead, the association threatened lawsuits against its opponents and gave grants to groups that supported its point of view, said David Rosner, a professor at Columbia University, who gained access to internal Lead Industries Association documents as part of a New York City lawsuit against the industry.
The association fought to protect its business.
In addition to promoting the use of lead, the association threatened lawsuits against its opponents and gave grants to groups that supported its point of view, said David Rosner, a professor at Columbia University, who gained access to internal Lead Industries Association documents as part of a New York City lawsuit against the industry.
“They did everything that becomes known as the signature of the tobacco industry,” said Rosner, who has helped anti-lead lawsuits and co-wrote the 2013 book “Lead Wars.” “In fact, they were really pioneered by the lead industries. … The (Lead Industries Association.) can take credit for creating this giant doubt industry.”
How General Motors, Standard Oil and DuPont Conspired to Poison Americans
Frank Howard, vice-president of the Ethyl Corporation – a joint venture between General Motors and Standard Oil [...] called leaded gasoline a “gift of God,”.
For decades auto and oil companies denied that lead posed any health risks.
What they left us with here in Flint is a broken economy, they left us with poisoned land, poisoned water and we had politicians that let them walk away here and destroy Flint.”
1930s-1990s: ASBESTOS
Asbestos is good for us and not carcinogenic and if you dont bend over and enjoy it you're attacking our industry and our desire to make shitloads of money by ruining public health and your campaign to demonize asbestos is based on junk science and you are probably a leftist government communist out to tax and regulate us out of business.
Scientists established a connection between asbestos and lung cancer in the 1930s. Around the same time, doctors were advancing their understanding of mesothelioma, an aggressive cancer of the lining of the lungs caused almost exclusively by asbestos.
While evidence about the harmful effects of asbestos continued to grow, so did the influence of the asbestos companies. Between 1940 and 1980, the business expanded into a multibillion dollar industry that employed more than 200,000 people.
The success of these companies hinged on keeping the health risks of asbestos a secret — but it was asbestos workers and consumers who paid the price. In order to keep the industry alive and prosperous, many companies took steps to ensure miners, factory workers and the public knew nothing about the true dangers of asbestos.
Climate deniers favorite denial think tank, Heartland Institute, talking down the dangers of asbestos:
"As is often the case with environmental scares, the asbestos “cure” was pushed well ahead of a complete diagnosis. Research has confirmed that asbestos workers who do not use protective breathing apparatus suffer increased health risks. For the remaining 99+ percent of the U.S. population, however, asbestos health risks are virtually nil."
https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/testimony-on-asbestos-litigation-1
https://www.asbestos.com/asbestos/cover-up/
1940s-1960s: DDT
DDT is good for us and not carcinogenic and if you dont bend over and enjoy it youre attacking our industry and our desire to make shitloads of money by ruining public health and your campaign to demonize DDT is based on junk science and you are probably a leftist government communist out to tax and regulate us out of business.
Like a gigantic octopus, the chemical industry put its tentacle all over Congress, the White House and land grant universities.
1950-1990: NICOTINE
Nicotin is good for us and is not addictive nor related to lung cancer and if you dont bend over and enjoy it you're attacking our industry and our desire to make shitloads of money by ruining public health and your campaign to demonize smokers and all forms of tobacco is based on junk science and you are probably a leftist government communist out to tax and regulate us out of business.
Tobacco industry intentionally manipulates cigarettes to make them more addictive.
1930s-1990s: ASBESTOS
Asbestos is good for us and not carcinogenic and if you dont bend over and enjoy it you're attacking our industry and our desire to make shitloads of money by ruining public health and your campaign to demonize asbestos is based on junk science and you are probably a leftist government communist out to tax and regulate us out of business.
Scientists established a connection between asbestos and lung cancer in the 1930s. Around the same time, doctors were advancing their understanding of mesothelioma, an aggressive cancer of the lining of the lungs caused almost exclusively by asbestos.
While evidence about the harmful effects of asbestos continued to grow, so did the influence of the asbestos companies. Between 1940 and 1980, the business expanded into a multibillion dollar industry that employed more than 200,000 people.
The success of these companies hinged on keeping the health risks of asbestos a secret — but it was asbestos workers and consumers who paid the price. In order to keep the industry alive and prosperous, many companies took steps to ensure miners, factory workers and the public knew nothing about the true dangers of asbestos.
Climate deniers favorite denial think tank, Heartland Institute, talking down the dangers of asbestos:
"As is often the case with environmental scares, the asbestos “cure” was pushed well ahead of a complete diagnosis. Research has confirmed that asbestos workers who do not use protective breathing apparatus suffer increased health risks. For the remaining 99+ percent of the U.S. population, however, asbestos health risks are virtually nil."
https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/testimony-on-asbestos-litigation-1
https://www.asbestos.com/asbestos/cover-up/
1940s-1960s: DDT
DDT is good for us and not carcinogenic and if you dont bend over and enjoy it youre attacking our industry and our desire to make shitloads of money by ruining public health and your campaign to demonize DDT is based on junk science and you are probably a leftist government communist out to tax and regulate us out of business.
Like a gigantic octopus, the chemical industry put its tentacle all over Congress, the White House and land grant universities.
1950-1990: NICOTINE
Nicotin is good for us and is not addictive nor related to lung cancer and if you dont bend over and enjoy it you're attacking our industry and our desire to make shitloads of money by ruining public health and your campaign to demonize smokers and all forms of tobacco is based on junk science and you are probably a leftist government communist out to tax and regulate us out of business.
Tobacco industry intentionally manipulates cigarettes to make them more addictive.
"A federal court has ordered Altria, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco, Lorillard and Philip Morris USA to make this statement about the health effects of smoking."
Then the bad news begins to flow.
Then the bad news begins to flow.
"Smoking causes heart disease, emphysema, acute myeloid leukemia and cancer of the mouth, esophagus, larynx, lung, stomach, kidney, bladder and pancreas."
But this is not stopping climate deniers favourite think tank;
Heartland Institute 2018:
"The public health community's campaign to demonize smokers and all forms of tobacco is based on junk science".
1990s-2018: C02
C02 is good for us and not related to pollution and climate change and if you dont bend over and enjoy it you're attacking our industry and our desire to make shitloads of money by ruining public health and your campaign to demonize fossil fuels is based on junk science and you are probably a leftist government communist out to tax and regulate us out of business.
Exxon Knew about Climate Change almost 40 years ago
Shell Knew Fossil Fuels Created Climate Change Risks Back in 1980s, Internal Documents Show
The US supreme court ruled that carbon dioxide IS a pollutant is 2007.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf
“For example, the common idea that there will always be two opposing views does not always result in a rational conclusion. This was behind how tobacco firms used science to make their products look harmless, and is used today by climate change deniers to argue against the scientific evidence. “This ‘balance routine’ has allowed the cigarette men, or climate deniers today, to claim that there are two sides to every story, that ‘experts disagree’ – creating a false picture of the truth, hence ignorance.”
(Is there an argument?..Ohh, the science can't be settled then!)
Heartlands tobacco and asbestos lobbying is using the same arguments as when they defend big oil:
Deniers favorite fossil fuel think tank front group, the Heartland Institutes view on tobacco and tobacco smoking. Sound familiar?
Heartland Institute 2018:
"The public health community's campaign to demonize smokers and all forms of tobacco is based on junk science".
Heartland Institute 2018:
"The anti-smoking movement is hardly a grassroots phenomenon: It is largely funded by taxpayers and a few major foundations with left-liberal agendas."
Heartland Institute 2018:
“The association between tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.”
Heartland Institute 2018:
"There are many reasons to be skeptical about what professional anti-smoking advocates say. They personally profit by exaggerating the health threats of smoking and winning passage of higher taxes and bans on smoking in public places."
More:
Anti-smoking activists give smokers a stark choice: Stop smoking or die! In fact, there is a third path: reduce the harm by shifting to less-hazardous products that provide similar enjoyment
Litigation against the tobacco industry is an example of lawsuit abuse, and has “loaded the gun” for lawsuits against other industries.
Smoking bans hurt small businesses and violate private property rights.
Appeals to “protect the children” don’t justify the war being waged against adult smokers.
Punishing smokers “for their own good” is repulsive to the basic libertarian principles that ought to limit the use of government force.
"As is often the case with environmental scares, the asbestos “cure” was pushed well ahead of a complete diagnosis. Research has confirmed that asbestos workers who do not use protective breathing apparatus suffer increased health risks. For the remaining 99+ percent of the U.S. population, however, asbestos health risks are virtually nil."
https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/testimony-on-asbestos-litigation-1
https://www.heartland.org/Alcohol-Tobacco/Smokers-Lounge/index.html
https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/secondhand-smoke-fears-overstated-study-finds
Enstrom is a controversial figure who has accepted funding from the Philip Morris tobacco company and the Center for Indoor Air Research (a tobacco industry front group), and subsequently published research that contradicted scientific consensus about the health effects of secondhand tobacco smoke, also known as environmental tobacco smoke, or ETS. Tobacco companies have used Enstrom's work to help confuse the public about the causative link between tobacco smoke and disease [...] The the U.S. District Court in Washington D.C Final Opinion cites the 2003 Enstrom/Kabat study as a significant part of the (tobacco) companies' conspiratorial enterprise against the American public.
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/James_E._Enstrom
https://www.scribd.com/document/220221584/Joe-Bast-op-ed-on-smoking
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/15/leak-exposes-heartland-institute-climate
_______________________________________________________
..Its a fraud..a scam...where have we heard such claims before?
If the internet had been around in the 60s and 70s, climate deniers would be arguing against the health effects of smoking, and dredging up historical/anecdotal examples to insist that lung cancer was "natural", while warning that smoking cessation efforts were all part of a global conspiracy of taxation and socio-economic control ; a reason to implement a global Orwellian policy of carbon tax and carbon certificates market to benefit "Green" corporations.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tobacco-and-oil-industries-used-same-researchers-to-sway-public1/
Polluters industry have kept pushing their product even after they knew their product was a poison and a polluter:
The polluters industry - a timeline:
1900-2000: LEAD
Lead is good for us and not poisonous nor dangerous to children and if you dont bend over and enjoy it youre attacking our industry and our desire to make shitloads of money by ruining public health and your campaign to demonize LEAD is based on junk science and you are probably a leftist government communist out to tax and regulate us out of business.
For decades auto and oil companies denied that lead posed any health risks.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/leaded-gas-poison-invented-180961368/
1930s-1990s: ASBESTOS
Asbestos is good for us and not carcinogenic and if you dont bend over and enjoy it you're attacking our industry and our desire to make shitloads of money by ruining public health and your campaign to demonize asbestos is based on junk science and you are probably a leftist government communist out to tax and regulate us out of business.
https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/testimony-on-asbestos-litigation-1
https://www.asbestos.com/asbestos/cover-up/
1940s-1960s: DDTDDT is good for us and not carcinogenic nor a bird killer and if you dont bend over and enjoy it youre attacking our industry and our desire to make shitloads of money by ruining public health and your campaign to demonize DDT is based on junk science and you are probably a leftist government communist out to tax and regulate us out of business.
Like a gigantic octopus, the chemical industry put its tentacle all over Congress, the White House and land grant universities.
https://www.independentsciencenews.org/environment/ruthless-power-and-deleterious-politics-from-ddt-to-roundup/
1950s-1980s: NICOTINE
Nicotine is good for us and is not addictive nor related to lung cancer and if you dont bend over and enjoy it you're attacking our industry and our desire to make shitloads of money by ruining public health and your campaign to demonize smokers and all forms of tobacco is based on junk science and you are probably a leftist government communist out to tax and regulate us out of business.
Tobacco industry intentionally manipulates cigarettes to make them more addictive.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/11/27/566014966/in-ads-tobacco-companies-admit-they-made-cigarettes-more-addictive
Heartland Institute 2018:
"The public health community's campaign to demonize smokers and all forms of tobacco is based on junk science".
https://www.heartland.org/Alcohol-Tobacco/Smokers-Lounge/index.html
1990s-2018: C02
C02 is good for us and not related to pollution and climate change and if you dont bend over and enjoy it you're attacking our industry and our desire to make shitloads of money by ruining public health and your campaign to demonize fossil fuels is based on junk science and you are probably a leftist government communist out to tax and regulate us out of business.
Exxon Knew about Climate Change almost 40 years ago
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/
Shell Knew Fossil Fuels Created Climate Change Risks Back in 1980s, Internal Documents Show
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/05042018/shell-knew-scientists-climate-change-risks-fossil-fuels-global-warming-company-documents-netherlands-lawsuits
