Now I think I understand.
"For example, the National Institute of Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse has allocated $25 million for research on the genetic origins of alcoholism."
"What can we do to prevent a resurgence of the Eugenics movement? One of the most important weapons we have is the knowledge that it did occur in our recent history. Our understanding of that experience can provide powerful lessons if we are willing to learn from them. To prevent simplistic science can be perverted to socially destructive ends, again.
We also have a far more sophisticated understanding of genetics today than did our counterparts in the 1920s and 1930s"
http://www.accd.edu/sac/honors/main/papers02/Judge.htm
Too late, NicVAX tells me so.
So is this why TC think people are incapable of making choices?
That you can't genuinely enjoy smoking?
It has to be an "addiction" to which you are genetically prone?
"One of the fullest and most enthusiastic cases made for genetic modification of human behavior can be found in a recent book by Dean Hamer of the National Cancer Institute.
In his popular volume Living with Our Genes, Hamer identifies a series of “behaviors determined largely by heredity:” an obese gene, genetics of gender, “addictions to alcohol, tobacco, and dangerous drugs.”
http://harvardmagazine.com/2000/03/the- ... ation.html
So is that why TC clings so tight to the early Anti-Tobacco scientific beliefs of the previous century?
Science has moved on....
See Nicotinic acid/niacin
Solanesol
Nitric Oxide
Carbon Monoxide.
FORCES Tavern: We welcome you to The Tavern, you are welcome to browse and read, but please register to post.
- Board index ‹ Discussions From Within Your Reigon of the World ‹ Rose's Garden
- Change font size
- Print view
Midnight Garden
by Rose » Tue Oct 20, 2009 11:32 am
Nil by mouth
"In the 21st century we live under siege. There are concerns about pesticides, herbicides, antibiotics, GM, mobile phones, microwaves, amalgam fillings, falling sperm counts, mad cows, MMR - even milk. Farmed salmon is a Trojan horse for carcinogens. Obesity and diabetes are on the march. There is a mass of documentation on all this. So what is the European Commission's big idea? 'Let's clamp down on vitamins and minerals.'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2004/ ... h.shopping
A Nutricidal Codex
By Shannara Johnson
Ever heard of the Codex Alimentarius? If not, don’t be surprised. It’s one of the best-kept “open secrets” of the U.S. government. It’s scheduled to take effect on December 21, 2009, and it may present the greatest disaster for our food supply—and thus for our health—this country has ever seen.
What is the Codex Alimentarius, and how did it come to pass?
In the Austro-Hungarian Empire between 1897 and 1911, a collection of standards and regulations for a wide variety of foods was developed, called the Codex Alimentarius Austriacus. It wasn’t legally binding but served as a useful reference for the courts to determine standards for specific foods.
The post-World War II rebirth of the Codex Alimentarius (or short, Codex), however, is much more dubious. To understand the full implications, we need to go back to the history of one huge conglomerate: The Interessengemeinschaft Farben, or IG Farben—a powerful cartel that consisted of German chemical and pharmaceutical companies such as BASF, Bayer, and Hoechst.
IG Farben was, you could say, the corporate arm of the Third Reich. Having lucrative contracts with Hitler’s regime, IG Farben produced everything from ammunition to Zyklon B, the nerve gas that was used to kill prisoners in the concentration camps. IG Farben was the single largest donor to Hitler’s election campaign… and later the single largest profiteer of World War II.
“Whenever the German Wehrmacht conquered another country, IG Farben followed, systematically taking over the industries of those countries,” states the website of the Dr. Rath Health Foundation, a non-profit promoter of natural health. “The U.S. government investigation of the factors that led to the Second World War in 1946 came to the conclusion that without IG Farben the Second World War would simply not have been possible.”
Auschwitz, the largest and most infamous German concentration camp, also benefited IG Farben. New, unsafe pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines were liberally tested on Auschwitz prisoners—many of which died during the tests.
Not surprising, the Nuremberg War Crime Tribunal prosecuted 24 IG Farben board members and executives for mass murder, slavery and other crimes against humanity. One of those convicted was Fritz ter Meer, the highest-ranking scientist on the executive board of IG Farben, who was sentenced to seven years in prison (of which he only served four). When asked during trial whether he thought those human experiments had been justified, he answered that “concentration camp prisoners were not subjected to exceptional suffering, because they would have been killed anyway.”
In 1955, ter Meer was reinstated as a member of the supervisory board at Bayer and one year later became its chairman. In 1962, together with other executives of BASF, Bayer and Hoechst, he was one of the main architects of the Codex Alimentarius.
“When he got out of jail, he went to his UN buddies,” said Dr. Rima Laibow, MD, in a passionate speech at the 2005 conference of the National Association of Nutrition Professionals (NANP). “And he said, ‘[…] If we take over food worldwide, we have power worldwide.’”
The result was the creation of a trade commission called the Codex Alimentarius Commission, now funded and run by the UN’s World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO).
At its foundation in 1994, the World Trade Organization (WTO) accepted the standards of the Codex—and by the end of 2009, all member countries of the WTO will be required to implement the Codex, “to harmonize the standards” for the global trade of foods.
In the U.S. meanwhile, Congress passed the Dietary Supplements Health and Education Act (DSHEA) in 1994, which defined vitamins, minerals and herbs as foods, therefore not to be regulated by pharmaceutical standards. The Codex Alimentarius would reverse all that. It would treat those dietary supplements not as foods, but as toxins.
“How do you protect somebody from a poison?” asks Laibow. “You use toxicology. You use a science called ‘risk assessment.’”
Risk assessment, she explains, works as follows. You take the toxin in question, feed it to lab animals and “determine the dose that kills 50% of them. That’s called the LD 50. And you extrapolate what the LD 50 for a human being might be. Then you go down to the other end of the dosage range and you start feeding [little] bits of it to test animals, and you come up with the largest possible dose—the maximum permissible upper limit—that can be fed to an animal before a discernible impact is shown. […] Then you divide that by 100. […] And now you’ve got a safety margin, so you got 1/100 of the largest dose that can be given with no discernible impact.”
In other words, classified as toxins, vitamins, minerals and herbs would only be allowed to be marketed in doses that have no discernible impact on anyone. Then why bother taking them?
And that’s not all. Where our grocery and health food store shelves are now brimming with supplements, only 18 of them would be on the Codex whitelist. Everything not on the list, such as CoQ10, glucosamine, etc. would be illegal—not as in “prescription-only” illegal, but as in “take it and you go to jail” illegal.
But the mandatory requirements of the Codex will not only concern vitamins and minerals, but all foods. Under Codex rules, nearly all foods must be irradiated. And levels of radiation can be much higher than previously permitted.
While irradiated U.S. foods are currently treated with 1 – 7.5 kiloGray of radiation, the Codex would lift its already high limit of 10kiloGray—the equivalent of ca. 330 million chest X-rays—“when necessary to achieve a legitimate technological purpose,” whatever that may be. Granted, the text says, that the dose of radiation “should not compromise consumer safety or wholesomeness of the food.” Note, however, that it says “should,” not “shall” (an important legal difference, since “should” is not compulsory).
You buy rBST-free milk? Not much longer, because under the Codex all dairy cows will have to be treated with Monsanto’s recombinant bovine growth hormone. All animals used for human consumption will have to be fed antibiotics. Organic standards will be relaxed to include such measures. And did we mention that under the Codex, genetically modified (GM) produce will no longer have to be labeled?
Say good-bye to true organic food, and maybe even food that retains any resemblance of nutritional value."
http://web.archive.org/web/200702192158 ... php?id=226
A Nutricidal Codex (Follow-Up)
"In the last two weeks, we received many reader emails doubting the validity of our claims in our recent article "A Nutricidal Codex." Due to the flood of inquiries, we decided to run a follow-up and address your questions and comments to the best of our knowledge.
One particular trigger for readers' skepticism was an article on the urban legend site Snopes.com that seems to debunk the Codex Alimentarius "scare." To help you make up your own mind, here is a rebuttal on the Snopes article on Rima Laibow's website.
(For full disclosure, we should mention that Dr. Laibow appears to be a somewhat controversial figure in the anti-Codex movement.)
We also did a thorough research of the available material and dug up some additional information. We recommend you start by watching the easy-to-digest, 28-minute British documentary titled "We Become Silent--the Last Days of Health Freedom" that features several U.S. lawmakers.
Many readers doubted that the Codex Alimentarius will affect U.S. law (DSHEA). Yet on its own website, the FAO states under the subline Objective 6: Promoting Maximum Application of Codex Standards: "As the pre-eminent international standards-setting body for food, the CAC has a clear and strategic interest in promoting the maximum use of its standards both for domestic regulation and international trade."
http://www.investorsinsight.com/blogs/w ... ow-up.aspx
"In the 21st century we live under siege. There are concerns about pesticides, herbicides, antibiotics, GM, mobile phones, microwaves, amalgam fillings, falling sperm counts, mad cows, MMR - even milk. Farmed salmon is a Trojan horse for carcinogens. Obesity and diabetes are on the march. There is a mass of documentation on all this. So what is the European Commission's big idea? 'Let's clamp down on vitamins and minerals.'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2004/ ... h.shopping
A Nutricidal Codex
By Shannara Johnson
Ever heard of the Codex Alimentarius? If not, don’t be surprised. It’s one of the best-kept “open secrets” of the U.S. government. It’s scheduled to take effect on December 21, 2009, and it may present the greatest disaster for our food supply—and thus for our health—this country has ever seen.
What is the Codex Alimentarius, and how did it come to pass?
In the Austro-Hungarian Empire between 1897 and 1911, a collection of standards and regulations for a wide variety of foods was developed, called the Codex Alimentarius Austriacus. It wasn’t legally binding but served as a useful reference for the courts to determine standards for specific foods.
The post-World War II rebirth of the Codex Alimentarius (or short, Codex), however, is much more dubious. To understand the full implications, we need to go back to the history of one huge conglomerate: The Interessengemeinschaft Farben, or IG Farben—a powerful cartel that consisted of German chemical and pharmaceutical companies such as BASF, Bayer, and Hoechst.
IG Farben was, you could say, the corporate arm of the Third Reich. Having lucrative contracts with Hitler’s regime, IG Farben produced everything from ammunition to Zyklon B, the nerve gas that was used to kill prisoners in the concentration camps. IG Farben was the single largest donor to Hitler’s election campaign… and later the single largest profiteer of World War II.
“Whenever the German Wehrmacht conquered another country, IG Farben followed, systematically taking over the industries of those countries,” states the website of the Dr. Rath Health Foundation, a non-profit promoter of natural health. “The U.S. government investigation of the factors that led to the Second World War in 1946 came to the conclusion that without IG Farben the Second World War would simply not have been possible.”
Auschwitz, the largest and most infamous German concentration camp, also benefited IG Farben. New, unsafe pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines were liberally tested on Auschwitz prisoners—many of which died during the tests.
Not surprising, the Nuremberg War Crime Tribunal prosecuted 24 IG Farben board members and executives for mass murder, slavery and other crimes against humanity. One of those convicted was Fritz ter Meer, the highest-ranking scientist on the executive board of IG Farben, who was sentenced to seven years in prison (of which he only served four). When asked during trial whether he thought those human experiments had been justified, he answered that “concentration camp prisoners were not subjected to exceptional suffering, because they would have been killed anyway.”
In 1955, ter Meer was reinstated as a member of the supervisory board at Bayer and one year later became its chairman. In 1962, together with other executives of BASF, Bayer and Hoechst, he was one of the main architects of the Codex Alimentarius.
“When he got out of jail, he went to his UN buddies,” said Dr. Rima Laibow, MD, in a passionate speech at the 2005 conference of the National Association of Nutrition Professionals (NANP). “And he said, ‘[…] If we take over food worldwide, we have power worldwide.’”
The result was the creation of a trade commission called the Codex Alimentarius Commission, now funded and run by the UN’s World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO).
At its foundation in 1994, the World Trade Organization (WTO) accepted the standards of the Codex—and by the end of 2009, all member countries of the WTO will be required to implement the Codex, “to harmonize the standards” for the global trade of foods.
In the U.S. meanwhile, Congress passed the Dietary Supplements Health and Education Act (DSHEA) in 1994, which defined vitamins, minerals and herbs as foods, therefore not to be regulated by pharmaceutical standards. The Codex Alimentarius would reverse all that. It would treat those dietary supplements not as foods, but as toxins.
“How do you protect somebody from a poison?” asks Laibow. “You use toxicology. You use a science called ‘risk assessment.’”
Risk assessment, she explains, works as follows. You take the toxin in question, feed it to lab animals and “determine the dose that kills 50% of them. That’s called the LD 50. And you extrapolate what the LD 50 for a human being might be. Then you go down to the other end of the dosage range and you start feeding [little] bits of it to test animals, and you come up with the largest possible dose—the maximum permissible upper limit—that can be fed to an animal before a discernible impact is shown. […] Then you divide that by 100. […] And now you’ve got a safety margin, so you got 1/100 of the largest dose that can be given with no discernible impact.”
In other words, classified as toxins, vitamins, minerals and herbs would only be allowed to be marketed in doses that have no discernible impact on anyone. Then why bother taking them?
And that’s not all. Where our grocery and health food store shelves are now brimming with supplements, only 18 of them would be on the Codex whitelist. Everything not on the list, such as CoQ10, glucosamine, etc. would be illegal—not as in “prescription-only” illegal, but as in “take it and you go to jail” illegal.
But the mandatory requirements of the Codex will not only concern vitamins and minerals, but all foods. Under Codex rules, nearly all foods must be irradiated. And levels of radiation can be much higher than previously permitted.
While irradiated U.S. foods are currently treated with 1 – 7.5 kiloGray of radiation, the Codex would lift its already high limit of 10kiloGray—the equivalent of ca. 330 million chest X-rays—“when necessary to achieve a legitimate technological purpose,” whatever that may be. Granted, the text says, that the dose of radiation “should not compromise consumer safety or wholesomeness of the food.” Note, however, that it says “should,” not “shall” (an important legal difference, since “should” is not compulsory).
You buy rBST-free milk? Not much longer, because under the Codex all dairy cows will have to be treated with Monsanto’s recombinant bovine growth hormone. All animals used for human consumption will have to be fed antibiotics. Organic standards will be relaxed to include such measures. And did we mention that under the Codex, genetically modified (GM) produce will no longer have to be labeled?
Say good-bye to true organic food, and maybe even food that retains any resemblance of nutritional value."
http://web.archive.org/web/200702192158 ... php?id=226
A Nutricidal Codex (Follow-Up)
"In the last two weeks, we received many reader emails doubting the validity of our claims in our recent article "A Nutricidal Codex." Due to the flood of inquiries, we decided to run a follow-up and address your questions and comments to the best of our knowledge.
One particular trigger for readers' skepticism was an article on the urban legend site Snopes.com that seems to debunk the Codex Alimentarius "scare." To help you make up your own mind, here is a rebuttal on the Snopes article on Rima Laibow's website.
(For full disclosure, we should mention that Dr. Laibow appears to be a somewhat controversial figure in the anti-Codex movement.)
We also did a thorough research of the available material and dug up some additional information. We recommend you start by watching the easy-to-digest, 28-minute British documentary titled "We Become Silent--the Last Days of Health Freedom" that features several U.S. lawmakers.
Many readers doubted that the Codex Alimentarius will affect U.S. law (DSHEA). Yet on its own website, the FAO states under the subline Objective 6: Promoting Maximum Application of Codex Standards: "As the pre-eminent international standards-setting body for food, the CAC has a clear and strategic interest in promoting the maximum use of its standards both for domestic regulation and international trade."
http://www.investorsinsight.com/blogs/w ... ow-up.aspx
- Rose
- Posts: 912
- Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 6:51 am
by Rose » Mon Oct 26, 2009 6:24 pm
Gabriele Schulze and Käte Dischner in their jointly written Die Zigarettenraucherin (‘The Female Cigarette Smoker’, Jena, 1942), for example, interviewed 165 women as part of a study of the physical and psychological effects of nicotine withdrawal.
Most of the women studied were incarcerated at prisons in Weimar, Gera or Kleinmuesdorf near Leipzig, where smoking was forbidden; the dissertation records the women's cries for cigarettes, and attempts to classify female smokers by menstrual patterns, ‘constitutional type’ (asthenic, pyknic, leptosome, etc.), and criminal behaviour.
The authors claimed that smoking made one vulnerable to tuberculosis and called for a total smoking ban for women, consistent with the Nazi slogan ‘Die deutsche Frau raucht nicht!’ (The German woman does not smoke!).
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/30/1/31
Most of the women studied were incarcerated at prisons in Weimar, Gera or Kleinmuesdorf near Leipzig, where smoking was forbidden; the dissertation records the women's cries for cigarettes, and attempts to classify female smokers by menstrual patterns, ‘constitutional type’ (asthenic, pyknic, leptosome, etc.), and criminal behaviour.
The authors claimed that smoking made one vulnerable to tuberculosis and called for a total smoking ban for women, consistent with the Nazi slogan ‘Die deutsche Frau raucht nicht!’ (The German woman does not smoke!).
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/30/1/31
- Rose
- Posts: 912
- Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 6:51 am
by Rose » Sat Nov 07, 2009 7:40 am
Thanks Fredrik!
Effects of Smoking Cessation on Changes in Blood Pressure and Incidence of Hypertension
Abstract—
We performed the present study to investigate the effects of smoking cessation on changes in blood pressure and incidence of hypertension. We evaluated 8170 healthy male employees at a steel manufacturing company who had received occupational health examinations at the company’s health care center in 1994 and were reexamined in 1998. Adjustment covariates were the baseline age, body mass index, cigarette smoking, alcohol consumption, exercise, family history of hypertension, systolic or diastolic blood pressure, and changes in body mass index and alcohol consumption during the follow-up period. The adjusted relative risks of hypertension in those who had quit smoking for <1, 1 to 3, and 3 years were 0.6 ( 95% CI 0.2 to 1.9 ), 1.5 ( 95% CI 0.8 to 2.8 ), and 3.5 ( 95% CI 1.7 to 7.4 ), respectively, compared with current smokers. The trends for increased risk of hypertension for longer periods of smoking cessation were observed in subgroups of those who maintained weight as well as those who gained weight after smoking cessation. The adjusted increments in both systolic and diastolic blood pressure were higher in those who had quit for 1 year than in current smokers. These trends among weight losers, as well as gainers and maintainers, were similar.
We observed progressive increases in blood pressure with the prolongation of cessation in men, although at this time the mechanism remains unknown and must be clarified.
This study implies that the cessation of smoking may result in increases in blood pressure, hypertension, or both."
http://hyper.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/37/2/194
Effects of Smoking Cessation on Changes in Blood Pressure and Incidence of Hypertension
Abstract—
We performed the present study to investigate the effects of smoking cessation on changes in blood pressure and incidence of hypertension. We evaluated 8170 healthy male employees at a steel manufacturing company who had received occupational health examinations at the company’s health care center in 1994 and were reexamined in 1998. Adjustment covariates were the baseline age, body mass index, cigarette smoking, alcohol consumption, exercise, family history of hypertension, systolic or diastolic blood pressure, and changes in body mass index and alcohol consumption during the follow-up period. The adjusted relative risks of hypertension in those who had quit smoking for <1, 1 to 3, and 3 years were 0.6 ( 95% CI 0.2 to 1.9 ), 1.5 ( 95% CI 0.8 to 2.8 ), and 3.5 ( 95% CI 1.7 to 7.4 ), respectively, compared with current smokers. The trends for increased risk of hypertension for longer periods of smoking cessation were observed in subgroups of those who maintained weight as well as those who gained weight after smoking cessation. The adjusted increments in both systolic and diastolic blood pressure were higher in those who had quit for 1 year than in current smokers. These trends among weight losers, as well as gainers and maintainers, were similar.
We observed progressive increases in blood pressure with the prolongation of cessation in men, although at this time the mechanism remains unknown and must be clarified.
This study implies that the cessation of smoking may result in increases in blood pressure, hypertension, or both."
http://hyper.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/37/2/194
- Rose
- Posts: 912
- Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 6:51 am
by Rose » Sat Nov 07, 2009 9:06 am
Lowered Blood Pressure
Although the acute administration of nicotine raises blood pressure and elevates heart rate, chronic administration may result in a slightly lowered blood pressure.
Hutchinson and Emley (42) received a U.S. patent in 1988 entitled "Method For Treating Hypertension With Nicotine".
In this patent, Hutchinson and Emley describe the reduction of systolic and diastolic blood pressures in mildly hypertensive squirrel monkeys after administration of low doses (0.002, 0.005, or 0.01 mg/kg/day) of nicotine tartrate in the drinking water.
Evidence from both animal studies and a human epidemiology study suggests that this nicotine-induced lowering of blood pressure may be the result of the buildup of cotinine.
McKennis and Bowman (43) described cotinine as an antispasmodic and blood pressure-lowering agent in a 1962 Australian patent. These authors were able to lower the blood pressure of dogs after acute administration of cotinine.
In addition, the increase in blood pressure following administration of nicotine was blocked by pre- treatment with cotinine.
Connor (44) subchronically dosed rats with cotinine at the level experienced by human cigarette smokers. After 7 days, statistically significant decreases in systolic blood pressure were observed.
Benowitz (45) recently reported a significant inverse correlation between serum cotinine and systolic and diastolic blood pressure in a cross-sectional study of 288 normotensive bus drivers.
For smoking bus drivers, the average decrease in blood pressure was 10.7 and 7.0 mm mercury for systolic and diastolic blood pressures, respectively.
This decrease could not be accounted for by age, body weight, or alcohol consumption. Epidemiology studies have generally reported that smokers have slightly lower blood pressures than nonsmokers (46). This association may be due to the blood pressure lowering effects of cotinine."
http://tobaccodocuments.org/product_des ... -2885.html
Although the acute administration of nicotine raises blood pressure and elevates heart rate, chronic administration may result in a slightly lowered blood pressure.
Hutchinson and Emley (42) received a U.S. patent in 1988 entitled "Method For Treating Hypertension With Nicotine".
In this patent, Hutchinson and Emley describe the reduction of systolic and diastolic blood pressures in mildly hypertensive squirrel monkeys after administration of low doses (0.002, 0.005, or 0.01 mg/kg/day) of nicotine tartrate in the drinking water.
Evidence from both animal studies and a human epidemiology study suggests that this nicotine-induced lowering of blood pressure may be the result of the buildup of cotinine.
McKennis and Bowman (43) described cotinine as an antispasmodic and blood pressure-lowering agent in a 1962 Australian patent. These authors were able to lower the blood pressure of dogs after acute administration of cotinine.
In addition, the increase in blood pressure following administration of nicotine was blocked by pre- treatment with cotinine.
Connor (44) subchronically dosed rats with cotinine at the level experienced by human cigarette smokers. After 7 days, statistically significant decreases in systolic blood pressure were observed.
Benowitz (45) recently reported a significant inverse correlation between serum cotinine and systolic and diastolic blood pressure in a cross-sectional study of 288 normotensive bus drivers.
For smoking bus drivers, the average decrease in blood pressure was 10.7 and 7.0 mm mercury for systolic and diastolic blood pressures, respectively.
This decrease could not be accounted for by age, body weight, or alcohol consumption. Epidemiology studies have generally reported that smokers have slightly lower blood pressures than nonsmokers (46). This association may be due to the blood pressure lowering effects of cotinine."
http://tobaccodocuments.org/product_des ... -2885.html
- Rose
- Posts: 912
- Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 6:51 am
by Rose » Thu Nov 19, 2009 2:17 pm
The anti-tobacco campaign of the Nazis: a little known aspect of public health in Germany, 1933-45
Tobacco in the Reich
"One topic that has only recently begun to attract attention is the Nazi anti-tobacco movement. Germany had the world's strongest anti smoking movement in the 1930s and early 1940s,supported by Nazi medical and military leaders worried that tobacco might prove a hazard to the race.Many Nazi leaders were vocal opponents of smoking.
Anti-tobacco activists pointed out that whereas Churchill, Stalin, and Roosevelt were all fond of tobacco, the three major fascist leaders of Europe-Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco-were all non-smokers.
Hitler was the most adamant,characterising tobacco as "the wrath of the Red Man against the White Man for having been given hard liquor."
At one point the Fuhrer even suggested that Nazism might never have triumphed in Germany had he not given up smoking"
http://www.bmj.com/archive/7070nd2.htm
Tobacco policies in Nazi Germany: not as simple as it seems
Objective
"Reluctance to develop effective tobacco control measures in Germany has been attributed to the anti-smoking stance taken by the Nazis, which has encouraged pro-smoking groups to equate tobacco control advocacy with totalitarianism.
This paper reassesses the scale and nature of tobacco control in Germany during the Third Reich".
"Memorandum from the Propaganda Office to Goebbels about further talks with Conti and Sauckel, and agreement that anti-tobacco campaigns were futile while tobacco advertisements appeared in the press and figures of authority smoked or denied harmfulness of smoking. However, if a campaign was to be launched, it should be in no way aggressive, insulting or abusive towards smokers."
"What this paper has been able to do, particularly through the account of discussions within the Reich Propaganda Department, is provide additional insights into the differing views within the Nazi hierarchy, and indeed how measures were taken to constrain what were seen as the excesses of the anti-tobacco lobby.
Furthermore, as will be shown in a subsequent paper, the Nazi authorities in Austria were even more tolerant.
In conclusion, the widespread use of Nazi imagery by pro-smoking groups to attack those seeking to limit the harm caused by tobacco is a distortion of history that cannot be justified."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
Tobacco in the Reich
"One topic that has only recently begun to attract attention is the Nazi anti-tobacco movement. Germany had the world's strongest anti smoking movement in the 1930s and early 1940s,supported by Nazi medical and military leaders worried that tobacco might prove a hazard to the race.Many Nazi leaders were vocal opponents of smoking.
Anti-tobacco activists pointed out that whereas Churchill, Stalin, and Roosevelt were all fond of tobacco, the three major fascist leaders of Europe-Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco-were all non-smokers.
Hitler was the most adamant,characterising tobacco as "the wrath of the Red Man against the White Man for having been given hard liquor."
At one point the Fuhrer even suggested that Nazism might never have triumphed in Germany had he not given up smoking"
http://www.bmj.com/archive/7070nd2.htm
Tobacco policies in Nazi Germany: not as simple as it seems
Objective
"Reluctance to develop effective tobacco control measures in Germany has been attributed to the anti-smoking stance taken by the Nazis, which has encouraged pro-smoking groups to equate tobacco control advocacy with totalitarianism.
This paper reassesses the scale and nature of tobacco control in Germany during the Third Reich".
"Memorandum from the Propaganda Office to Goebbels about further talks with Conti and Sauckel, and agreement that anti-tobacco campaigns were futile while tobacco advertisements appeared in the press and figures of authority smoked or denied harmfulness of smoking. However, if a campaign was to be launched, it should be in no way aggressive, insulting or abusive towards smokers."
"What this paper has been able to do, particularly through the account of discussions within the Reich Propaganda Department, is provide additional insights into the differing views within the Nazi hierarchy, and indeed how measures were taken to constrain what were seen as the excesses of the anti-tobacco lobby.
Furthermore, as will be shown in a subsequent paper, the Nazi authorities in Austria were even more tolerant.
In conclusion, the widespread use of Nazi imagery by pro-smoking groups to attack those seeking to limit the harm caused by tobacco is a distortion of history that cannot be justified."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
- Rose
- Posts: 912
- Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 6:51 am
by Rose » Sat Nov 21, 2009 8:45 am
Climate scientists accused of 'manipulating global warming data'
"Some of the world’s top climate scientists have been accused of manipulating data on global warming after hundreds of private emails were stolen by hackers and published online.
The material was taken from servers at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit – a world-renowned climate change research centre – before it was published on websites run by climate change sceptics.
It has been claimed that the emails show that scientists manipulated data to bolster their argument that global warming is genuine and is being caused by human actions.
One email seized upon by sceptics as supposed evidence of this, refers to a “trick” being employed to massage temperature statistics to “hide the decline”.
The university yesterday confirmed that research data had been stolen and published online and said it had reported the security breach to police.
A spokesman said: “We are aware that information from a server used for research information in one area of the university has been made available on public websites."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/enviro ... -data.html?
Climate chaos? Don't believe it
"Last week, Gordon Brown and his chief economist both said global warming was the worst "market failure" ever. That loaded soundbite suggests that the "climate-change" scare is less about saving the planet than, in Jacques Chirac's chilling phrase, "creating world government".
This week and next, I'll reveal how politicians, scientists and bureaucrats contrived a threat of Biblical floods, droughts, plagues, and extinctions worthier of St John the Divine than of science."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... ve-it.html
Today’s forecast: yet another blast of hot air
"Am I worried about man-made global warming? The answer is “no” and “yes”.
No, because the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction has come up against an “inconvenient truth”. Its research shows that since 1998 the average temperature of the planet has not risen, even though the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has continued to increase.
Yes, because the self-proclaimed consensus among scientists has detached itself from the questioning rigours of hard science and become a political cause. Those of us who dare to question the dogma of the global-warming doomsters who claim that C not only stands for carbon but also for climate catastrophe are vilified as heretics or worse as deniers."
"The last peak global temperatures were in 1998 and 1934 and the troughs of low temperature were around 1910 and 1970. The second dip caused pop science and the media to cry wolf about an impending, devastating Ice Age. Our end was nigh!
Then, when temperatures took an upward swing in the 1980s, the scaremongers changed their tune. Global warming was the new imminent catastrophe"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 709551.ece
Climate change hits Mars
"Mars is being hit by rapid climate change and it is happening so fast that the red planet could lose its southern ice cap, writes Jonathan Leake.
Scientists from Nasa say that Mars has warmed by about 0.5C since the 1970s. This is similar to the warming experienced on Earth over approximately the same period."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 720024.ece
Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?
"If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)
When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at Hadley CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:
Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james ... l-warming/
"Some of the world’s top climate scientists have been accused of manipulating data on global warming after hundreds of private emails were stolen by hackers and published online.
The material was taken from servers at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit – a world-renowned climate change research centre – before it was published on websites run by climate change sceptics.
It has been claimed that the emails show that scientists manipulated data to bolster their argument that global warming is genuine and is being caused by human actions.
One email seized upon by sceptics as supposed evidence of this, refers to a “trick” being employed to massage temperature statistics to “hide the decline”.
The university yesterday confirmed that research data had been stolen and published online and said it had reported the security breach to police.
A spokesman said: “We are aware that information from a server used for research information in one area of the university has been made available on public websites."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/enviro ... -data.html?
Climate chaos? Don't believe it
"Last week, Gordon Brown and his chief economist both said global warming was the worst "market failure" ever. That loaded soundbite suggests that the "climate-change" scare is less about saving the planet than, in Jacques Chirac's chilling phrase, "creating world government".
This week and next, I'll reveal how politicians, scientists and bureaucrats contrived a threat of Biblical floods, droughts, plagues, and extinctions worthier of St John the Divine than of science."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... ve-it.html
Today’s forecast: yet another blast of hot air
"Am I worried about man-made global warming? The answer is “no” and “yes”.
No, because the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction has come up against an “inconvenient truth”. Its research shows that since 1998 the average temperature of the planet has not risen, even though the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has continued to increase.
Yes, because the self-proclaimed consensus among scientists has detached itself from the questioning rigours of hard science and become a political cause. Those of us who dare to question the dogma of the global-warming doomsters who claim that C not only stands for carbon but also for climate catastrophe are vilified as heretics or worse as deniers."
"The last peak global temperatures were in 1998 and 1934 and the troughs of low temperature were around 1910 and 1970. The second dip caused pop science and the media to cry wolf about an impending, devastating Ice Age. Our end was nigh!
Then, when temperatures took an upward swing in the 1980s, the scaremongers changed their tune. Global warming was the new imminent catastrophe"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 709551.ece
Climate change hits Mars
"Mars is being hit by rapid climate change and it is happening so fast that the red planet could lose its southern ice cap, writes Jonathan Leake.
Scientists from Nasa say that Mars has warmed by about 0.5C since the 1970s. This is similar to the warming experienced on Earth over approximately the same period."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 720024.ece
Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?
"If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)
When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at Hadley CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:
Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james ... l-warming/
- Rose
- Posts: 912
- Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 6:51 am
by Rose » Wed Nov 25, 2009 9:13 am
How climate change scientists dodged sceptics
"Some commentators claimed his emails showed that scientists at the centre manipulated data to bolster their argument that global warming is genuine and is being caused by human actions.
In one email seized upon by sceptics, Prof Jones referred to a 'trick' being employed to massage temperature statistics to 'hide the decline'.
Today, he said the email 'caused a great deal of ill-informed comment, but has been taken completely out of context and I want to put the record straight'.
He said: 'The word 'trick' was used here colloquially as in a clever thing to do. It is ludicrous to suggest that it refers to anything untoward.'
But Lord Lawson, the former chancellor who is now a prominent climate change sceptic, called for an independent inquiry into the claims."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ptics.html
Scientist in climate change 'cover-up' storm told to quit
"The scientist at the heart of the climate change scandal was under growing pressure to quit last night.
George Monbiot, a leading environmentalist, said Phil Jones should resign from the Climatic Research Unit over leaked emails that appear to show researchers suppressed scientific data.
More emails came to light yesterday, including one in which an American climatologist admitted it was a travesty that scientists could not explain a lack of global warming in recent years."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -quit.html?
"Some commentators claimed his emails showed that scientists at the centre manipulated data to bolster their argument that global warming is genuine and is being caused by human actions.
In one email seized upon by sceptics, Prof Jones referred to a 'trick' being employed to massage temperature statistics to 'hide the decline'.
Today, he said the email 'caused a great deal of ill-informed comment, but has been taken completely out of context and I want to put the record straight'.
He said: 'The word 'trick' was used here colloquially as in a clever thing to do. It is ludicrous to suggest that it refers to anything untoward.'
But Lord Lawson, the former chancellor who is now a prominent climate change sceptic, called for an independent inquiry into the claims."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ptics.html
Scientist in climate change 'cover-up' storm told to quit
"The scientist at the heart of the climate change scandal was under growing pressure to quit last night.
George Monbiot, a leading environmentalist, said Phil Jones should resign from the Climatic Research Unit over leaked emails that appear to show researchers suppressed scientific data.
More emails came to light yesterday, including one in which an American climatologist admitted it was a travesty that scientists could not explain a lack of global warming in recent years."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -quit.html?
- Rose
- Posts: 912
- Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 6:51 am
by Rose » Thu Nov 26, 2009 6:39 am
Climate change scandal deepens as BBC expert claims he was sent leaked emails
"The controversy surrounding the global warming e-mail scandal has deepened after a BBC correspondent admitted he was sent the leaked messages more than a month before they were made public.
Paul Hudson, weather presenter and climate change expert, claims the documents allegedly sent between some of the world's leading scientists are of a direct result of an article he wrote.
In his BBC blog three days ago, Hudson said: 'I was forwarded the chain of emails on the 12th October, which are comments from some of the world's leading climate scientists written as a direct result of my article "Whatever Happened To Global Warming?"
That essay, written last month, argued that for the last 11 years there had not been an increase in global temperatures"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ublic.html?
Comments from around the World.
Whatever happened to global warming?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2 ... l-wa.shtml
A simple question, attacked with surprising viciousness in some of the comments.
Global Warming ate my data
"The world's source for global temperature record admits it's lost or destroyed all the original data that would allow a third party to construct a global temperature record"
Nov, 2009 hacked emails
Professor Phil jones:
"If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone" and "We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/13/cru_missing/
"The controversy surrounding the global warming e-mail scandal has deepened after a BBC correspondent admitted he was sent the leaked messages more than a month before they were made public.
Paul Hudson, weather presenter and climate change expert, claims the documents allegedly sent between some of the world's leading scientists are of a direct result of an article he wrote.
In his BBC blog three days ago, Hudson said: 'I was forwarded the chain of emails on the 12th October, which are comments from some of the world's leading climate scientists written as a direct result of my article "Whatever Happened To Global Warming?"
That essay, written last month, argued that for the last 11 years there had not been an increase in global temperatures"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ublic.html?
Comments from around the World.
Whatever happened to global warming?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2 ... l-wa.shtml
A simple question, attacked with surprising viciousness in some of the comments.
Global Warming ate my data
"The world's source for global temperature record admits it's lost or destroyed all the original data that would allow a third party to construct a global temperature record"
Nov, 2009 hacked emails
Professor Phil jones:
"If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone" and "We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/13/cru_missing/
- Rose
- Posts: 912
- Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 6:51 am
by Rose » Thu Nov 26, 2009 11:59 am
This song has been playing in my head all day !
Hide The Decline - Climategate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk
It may be driving me nuts - but its still making me smile.
Hide The Decline - Climategate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk
It may be driving me nuts - but its still making me smile.
- Rose
- Posts: 912
- Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 6:51 am
by Rose » Fri Nov 27, 2009 6:29 pm
US Congress investigates Climategate e-mails: this could be the beginning of the end for AGW
"The United States Congress has begun the process of investigating the leaked climate change e-mails from the University of East Anglia, which means all attempts to suppress and shut down the scandal have failed. Already aides to Representative Darrell Issa (Republican, California), who is the ranking member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, have begun analysing the correspondence exposed by hackers.
At the same time, in the upper house, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works has been told by Senator James Inhofe (Republican, Oklahoma) that unless it acts promptly on the matter he will call for an investigation into the state of climate science. The e-mails are of huge interest to American legislators because one of them was sent by White House Science Adviser Dr John Holdren, in 2003, when he was at the Woods Hole Research Center, Massachusetts, to support Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University"
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geral ... d-for-agw/
Climategate: the scandal spreads, the plot thickens, the shame deepens…
"The alleged villains this time are the climate scientists at the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NiWA) – New Zealand’s answer to Britain’s Climate Research Unit. And to judge by this news alert by the Climate Science Coalition of NZ, both institutions share a similarly laissez-faire attitude to scientific accuracy.
Compare and contrast these two graphs and you’ll see"
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james ... e-deepens/?
Who's to blame for Climategate?
"The publication of damning emails about climate change could literally change the
The drab, drum-shaped home of the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit is an anonymous little outpost, blending seamlessly with its chunky concrete neighbours on a windswept campus just outside Norwich. To the uninitiated, it has the look of a Seventies bus station waiting for the council to pull it down.
Unlikely as it may seem, however, this little corner of East Anglia is now ground zero in a controversy which just might influence the entire future of our planet"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenh ... egate.html?
Climategate: the whitewash begins
"Breaking news from the splendid Bishop Hill. It seems the AGW establishment has launched an urgent damage limitation exercise in order to whitewash the Climategate scandal in time for Copenhagen.
Here’s the (so far unconfirmed) story:"
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james ... sh-begins/
"The United States Congress has begun the process of investigating the leaked climate change e-mails from the University of East Anglia, which means all attempts to suppress and shut down the scandal have failed. Already aides to Representative Darrell Issa (Republican, California), who is the ranking member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, have begun analysing the correspondence exposed by hackers.
At the same time, in the upper house, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works has been told by Senator James Inhofe (Republican, Oklahoma) that unless it acts promptly on the matter he will call for an investigation into the state of climate science. The e-mails are of huge interest to American legislators because one of them was sent by White House Science Adviser Dr John Holdren, in 2003, when he was at the Woods Hole Research Center, Massachusetts, to support Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University"
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geral ... d-for-agw/
Climategate: the scandal spreads, the plot thickens, the shame deepens…
"The alleged villains this time are the climate scientists at the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NiWA) – New Zealand’s answer to Britain’s Climate Research Unit. And to judge by this news alert by the Climate Science Coalition of NZ, both institutions share a similarly laissez-faire attitude to scientific accuracy.
Compare and contrast these two graphs and you’ll see"
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james ... e-deepens/?
Who's to blame for Climategate?
"The publication of damning emails about climate change could literally change the
The drab, drum-shaped home of the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit is an anonymous little outpost, blending seamlessly with its chunky concrete neighbours on a windswept campus just outside Norwich. To the uninitiated, it has the look of a Seventies bus station waiting for the council to pull it down.
Unlikely as it may seem, however, this little corner of East Anglia is now ground zero in a controversy which just might influence the entire future of our planet"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenh ... egate.html?
Climategate: the whitewash begins
"Breaking news from the splendid Bishop Hill. It seems the AGW establishment has launched an urgent damage limitation exercise in order to whitewash the Climategate scandal in time for Copenhagen.
Here’s the (so far unconfirmed) story:"
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james ... sh-begins/
- Rose
- Posts: 912
- Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 6:51 am
by Rose » Sun Nov 29, 2009 7:24 am
Climategate: The BBC is still pretending not to notice
"Most believers in AGW (who I accept include the majority of scientists in this field) acknowledge the significance of the Climategate scandal, breaking as it has on the eve of the Copenhagen summit. But the BBC is holding firm, providing far less than the bare minimum of coverage that licence payers have a right to expect. As Horbury puts it:
So far, the BBC has done virtually nothing about Climategate and, if anything, has cranked up its AGW reporting to fever pitch."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damia ... to-notice/?
Auntie BBC is not what she was,unfortunately, she got re-educated for telling the truth in 2004
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 005496.ece
The BBC and Climategate: was a reporter put under pressure to ignore the story?
"One of [the BBC's] reporters has revealed he was sent some of the leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia more than a month ago – but did nothing about them.
Despite the explosive nature of some of the messages – which revealed apparent attempts by the CRU’s head, Professor Phil Jones, to destroy global temperature data rather than give it to scientists with opposing views – Paul Hudson failed to report the story.
This has led to suspicions that the scandal was ignored because it ran counter to what critics say is the BBC’s unquestioning acceptance in many of its programmes that man-made climate change is destroying the planet"
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damia ... the-story/?
Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation
"Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with the Climategate whitewash, says Christopher Booker"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colu ... ation.html?
Lessons from the Tobacco Control Movement
Behavior, Energy and Climate Change Conference
November 17, 2008
Question for the Energy and Climate Control Community
Who are your leaders?
How can your leaders help increase the sustainability of the issue in the publics’ eye?
Do you have an opponent that can be the focus of public attention (or even animosity)?
Even if you do, could you achieve more through partnerships than confrontation?
Summary of Tobacco Lessons
"With tobacco, social change has taken decades. The challenge is to accelerate social change for energy and climate change behaviors so that it takes years, not decades."
http://piee.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/docs/b ... vement.pdf
"Most believers in AGW (who I accept include the majority of scientists in this field) acknowledge the significance of the Climategate scandal, breaking as it has on the eve of the Copenhagen summit. But the BBC is holding firm, providing far less than the bare minimum of coverage that licence payers have a right to expect. As Horbury puts it:
So far, the BBC has done virtually nothing about Climategate and, if anything, has cranked up its AGW reporting to fever pitch."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damia ... to-notice/?
Auntie BBC is not what she was,unfortunately, she got re-educated for telling the truth in 2004
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 005496.ece
The BBC and Climategate: was a reporter put under pressure to ignore the story?
"One of [the BBC's] reporters has revealed he was sent some of the leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia more than a month ago – but did nothing about them.
Despite the explosive nature of some of the messages – which revealed apparent attempts by the CRU’s head, Professor Phil Jones, to destroy global temperature data rather than give it to scientists with opposing views – Paul Hudson failed to report the story.
This has led to suspicions that the scandal was ignored because it ran counter to what critics say is the BBC’s unquestioning acceptance in many of its programmes that man-made climate change is destroying the planet"
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damia ... the-story/?
Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation
"Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with the Climategate whitewash, says Christopher Booker"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colu ... ation.html?
Lessons from the Tobacco Control Movement
Behavior, Energy and Climate Change Conference
November 17, 2008
Question for the Energy and Climate Control Community
Who are your leaders?
How can your leaders help increase the sustainability of the issue in the publics’ eye?
Do you have an opponent that can be the focus of public attention (or even animosity)?
Even if you do, could you achieve more through partnerships than confrontation?
Summary of Tobacco Lessons
"With tobacco, social change has taken decades. The challenge is to accelerate social change for energy and climate change behaviors so that it takes years, not decades."
http://piee.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/docs/b ... vement.pdf
- Rose
- Posts: 912
- Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 6:51 am
by Rose » Sun Nov 29, 2009 11:15 am
Climate change data dumped
"SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.
The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.
The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building."
"In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”
The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.
Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. “The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,” he said.
Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s, a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e ... 936328.ece
"SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.
The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.
The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building."
"In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”
The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.
Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. “The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,” he said.
Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s, a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e ... 936328.ece
- Rose
- Posts: 912
- Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 6:51 am
by Rose » Mon Nov 30, 2009 9:15 am
The great climate change science scandal
"The storm began with just four cryptic words. “A miracle has happened,” announced a contributor to Climate Audit, a website devoted to criticising the science of climate change"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e ... 936289.ece
Climategate: Science Museum's green propaganda backfires
"and, in its section on economics, it offers this bravura piece of sub-Marxist, ultra-Green theorising:
Conventional economics assumes that our prosperity depends upon economic growth. Recently, some experts have begun to question this. They argue growth, which relies on a society producing and buying ever more stuff, cannot be sustained forever. Crucial resources such as fossil fuels and metals will eventually run out.
Instead, these experts propose a sustainable economy which doesn’t measure success by growth. Although people would consume less, they could still flourish. Wealth could be more fairly shared between people. And importantly, our prosperity would not come at the expense of the environment.
You paid for all this, by the way, through your taxes.
But there is some good news. At the end of all this propagandising, the Science Museum asks you to vote for what it clearly believes is the only sensible solution:
PROVE IT! gives you the evidence to decide where you stand…
“I’ve seen the evidence. And I want the government to prove they’re serious about climate change by negotiating a strong, effective, fair deal at Copenhagen.”
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james ... backfires/
Apparently the "Count me out" vote counter that was in the lead has mysteriously stuck on 8551
"The storm began with just four cryptic words. “A miracle has happened,” announced a contributor to Climate Audit, a website devoted to criticising the science of climate change"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e ... 936289.ece
Climategate: Science Museum's green propaganda backfires
"and, in its section on economics, it offers this bravura piece of sub-Marxist, ultra-Green theorising:
Conventional economics assumes that our prosperity depends upon economic growth. Recently, some experts have begun to question this. They argue growth, which relies on a society producing and buying ever more stuff, cannot be sustained forever. Crucial resources such as fossil fuels and metals will eventually run out.
Instead, these experts propose a sustainable economy which doesn’t measure success by growth. Although people would consume less, they could still flourish. Wealth could be more fairly shared between people. And importantly, our prosperity would not come at the expense of the environment.
You paid for all this, by the way, through your taxes.
But there is some good news. At the end of all this propagandising, the Science Museum asks you to vote for what it clearly believes is the only sensible solution:
PROVE IT! gives you the evidence to decide where you stand…
“I’ve seen the evidence. And I want the government to prove they’re serious about climate change by negotiating a strong, effective, fair deal at Copenhagen.”
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james ... backfires/
Apparently the "Count me out" vote counter that was in the lead has mysteriously stuck on 8551
- Rose
- Posts: 912
- Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 6:51 am
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests