?

Log in

No account? Create an account
frank_davis4

frank_davis


Frank Davis

Banging on about the Smoking Ban


Previous Entry Share Next Entry
More Intolerance Needed
frank_davis4
frank_davis
After a year of indecision and relative silence, it seems that the BBC has returned to plugging the message of Global Warming. There was the Horizon and then Storyville a few weeks back. Last Thursday there was a Radio 4 programme, In Denial: Climate on the Couch.

The programme began by saying it wasn't about climate science, and that it assumed that the scientific consensus about it was right, and that there would be a 4 degree increase in temperature by 2070. It then addressed the Big Problem: despite forecasts of terrible changes, nobody was much bothered or doing much about it. What could be done? How could people be motivated to act? Global warming had become a complete downer, and people rolled their eyes at the mention of it. Virtually every strategy that had been used to motivate people had been counterproductive.

A woman was interviewed who'd been conducting face-to-face encounters with knitting groups, as well as rugby and badminton and art clubs, to get people to sign up to reducing their carbon footprint with a 'Carbon Cutter' plan, and was aiming to reach 35,000 people.

There was some debate about how to motivate people. Green eco-psychologists said that if you appealed to individualistic or materialistic values (such as saving money) you were doomed, and that what was needed was an appeal to communal values, and people made to be less materialistic and more eco-conscious. An outfit called Natural Change took people on nature trips to 'reconnect with the natural world' and with 'deeper values', hoping to bring 'personal epiphanies'. It was suggested that this amounted to 'eco-brainwashing' and that Greens didn't just want to save the planet, but to re-engineer the human race. Framing climate change as a Green issue was part of the problem. Worse was that in the USA, Climate Change was strongly associated with the liberal progressive left. It had been a 'communication disaster' to have the cause fronted by a Democrat Vice-President, Al Gore. Furthermore, the very terms 'global warming' and 'climate change' had become 'toxic'. 'Our deteriorating atmosphere' worked much much better. Another psychologist said that there been an attempt to sell a 'double negative'. Firstly the negative of the threat of climate change, and secondly the negative of the need for sacrifices. A better approach would be to find some positive messages, and find what was good about a low carbon lifestyle. You had to 'sell the sizzle' of a 'low carbon heaven'.

The first time I listened to the programme I found myself almost screaming and throwing things, it annoyed me so much. But, thinking about it afterwards, I began to sense that there was a cheering message in there. And the message was that they simply couldn't motivate anyone to do anything about climate change, and the whole thing had become a complete turn-off. 'Global Warming' had become a toxic term. And they really hadn't a clue what to do about it. And that's really good news, as far as I am concerned.

Because I've had it up to here with Global Warming and Climate Change. I think if someone knocked at my door and asked if I'd like to sign up to a Carbon Cutter Plan, I'd have to restrain myself from burying a meat cleaver in their head. And I'm not the only one. Here's Grandad in Ireland writing about it a few days ago:

"After a short time in government they have managed to turn me into a rabid anti-eco-terrorist. I am now willing to do anything that would annoy Gormless and his pals. I know it is illogical but it just shows what a profound effect they have had. I will have nothing to do with anything ‘green’ If it’s bad for the planet, it’s good for me... I am now going to spend the rest of the afternoon cutting down trees and burning tractor tyres."

It's the same with climate change as it is with smoking. The more you nag and bully people to change, the more likely they are to dig their heels in and resist. In both cases, the premise is the same: We know what's good for people; how do we get them to do it? We know that carbon dioxide causes warming; how do we get people to reduce their carbon footprint? We know that smoking causes lung cancer; how do we get people to quit? In both cases, there is breath-taking arrogance. We know best. You must do what we tell you.

The difference, perhaps, is that with Climate Change, doing something is still a matter of personal choice. In the case of smoking, naked coercion is now being used to force people to stop smoking. How long before coercion is used to enforce compliance with Carbon Reduction laws? How long before people are issued personal carbon consumption limits on their cars, foreign holidays, home heating? If they're prepared to use coercion to make people quit smoking, then they're most likely prepared to use coercion to combat Climate Change. Or anything else that they're in a lather about.

James Delingpole a couple of days back wrote how climate alarmists saw scepticism as "perverse self-deception":

We saw it in that sinister bit in the Prince of Wales’s recent speech to the European Parliament where he made a thinly-veiled plea for climate sceptics to be tried in the future for heresy:

"I wonder, will such people be held accountable at the end of the day for the absolute refusal to countenance a precautionary approach?"

Today Delingpole highlights chief science advisor Professor John Beddington, who is telling civil servants that they shouldn't be tolerant of the 'nonsense' of cherry-picked sceptical pseudo-science.

In closing, Beddington said: “I’d urge you—and this is a kind of strange message to go out—but go out and be much more intolerant.”

So, if the good news is that people are sick to the back teeth of global warming, and won't do anything about it, the bad news may be that, just like with smoking, freedom of choice will give way to naked coercion. When people refused to choose of their own accord to quit smoking, they had to be forced to do so. And when people refuse to voluntarily choose to reduce their carbon footprint, they'll just have to be forced to do that too. Scepticism or 'denialism' will become as intolerable as racism or homophobia or paedophilia. And denialists will be made to answer for their heretical nonsense.

But will the alarmists have to answer for their particular brand of nonsense when global warming proves to be as illusory a problem as Avian Flu? Probably not.


P.S. Further straws in the wind: Andrew Montford, author of the Hockey Stick Illusion, has just been on a BBC Climate Change Question Time.
Tags:

  • 1
The climate-change advocates are, I think, discovering something which the anti-smoking movement are discovering at the same time - if you exaggerate your case too much, eventually hard reality will prove you wrong and people will lose interest in whatever you have to say. The story of the little boy who cried “wolf” is very pertinent to both movements. As any decent PR or advertising man will tell you, once people have rumbled that you’ve lied to them once, they’ll tend to not then believe anything you say, even if what you say afterwards is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Just changing the name to “climate change” instead of “global warming” simply doesn’t cut it once the public’s faith has been shaken. I think they’ve blown it, basically, by coining the term “global warming” in the first place.

Perhaps they should stop for a minute and consider why other eco-movements are so well supported, such as recycling or not using so many plastic bags (even where this isn’t compulsory, as it isn’t in my area – yet!) whereas the whole “carbon footprint” thing has been such a damp squib.

More intolerance needed

I saw that quote from Prince Charles a couple of days ago. When I saw it, it gave me a little teeny mental shock, in the same way that the question: "Have you stopped beating your wife?" gives you a little shock.

Prince Charles:

"I wonder, will such people be held accountable at the end of the day for the absolute refusal to countenance a precautionary approach?"

Didn't Chamberlain try that one?

I wonder who wrote that sentence? Sounds much like a filthy, stinking, dirty fag ASH lil troll to me. But then, they are all tarred with the same propagandist speak, aren't they? Where did he get the phrase 'absolute refusal' from? And why link the phrase with 'precautionary approach'? What we absolutely refuse to do is accept the propaganda, lies and fake science - and the hockey stick.

There was a time, not long ago, when the Prime Minister would have requested an interview with said Prince and politely told him to shut the f*ck up - the matter is a political matter for the Gov to decide.

I will not believe a word that these fake scientists say unless they start again and publish all the unexpurgated data on a website in the same way that the Office of Nat Stats publishes death stats, for example - up front and clear. Oh...and no 'smoothing'...the basic data.

I have just had a look at the Arctic ice data again (it is really good! - updated every few days). Have a look at it - the URL is:

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php

(The graph is quite small - what I do is click 'view' and then 'zoom' and them 150%. You then get a good clear picture)

You might be interested to know that last year (Apr 2010) was the greatest extent of ice since 2005. Actually, if you look at the graph carefully, you can see how the fake-scientists generated the hysteria. In 2005, the winter ice cover was about 11 million sq kilometres. In 2006, this had fallen to 10.7. But, and here is the killer scream, in the Sep of 2007, the ice cover had dropped frighteningly to about 3, as compared with about 4.5 in 2006! How would the American Senate react when told that the ice cover had fallen by about 30% in one year!

Thus is propaganda used.


That's the graph Frank!

Looking at 01/09, the blue line at the bottom is ice cover Sept 2007; the green line at the top is Sept 2006.

This year is the black line which ends mid Feb. (I think that the graph is actually updated daily by satellite data.) We note that we are currently in a situation at the low end of ice coverage. I suppose that this is a consequence of the fact that, while we were having our coldest December since records began, Greenland was having quite warm weather.

It's Hard to Stay on Message...

(Anonymous)
...When you're making it up as you go along.

It's even harder when you'll say go along with anyone saying anything, so long as it supports your case.

For all of their talk about "consensus", the AGW alarmists have had a horrible time delivering specifics that the public could understand. Regardless of whether the question was "When?", "Where?", "What?", "Why?", or "How?" the "established science" is not able to provide anything close to a specific answer.

Al Gore tried to sell "the hockey stick" as a specific that people might hold on to. A soon as he tried, he had his claim attacked from every direction.

Then they attempted to change the whole terminology from "global warming" to "climate change". At the same time, eager researchers are trying to blame every ill under the sun on "climate change", no matter how implausible. (Mark Levin's book "Liberty and Tyranny" contains an actual list of the ills that someone or another has attempted to blame on "climate change" at one time or another. The list might be on the net somewhere.)

It's kind of like doomsday predictions made based on the Bible. All of the preachers at all of the churches agree that it's coming, but they all disagree as to the details. The simplest, specific question seems to have at least a dozen different answers.

Meanwhile, if the public wants to go to find source information regarding AGW, it's scattered across hundreds (if not thousands) of different government agencies, universities, research groups, and special interest groups.

In the end, almost no one in the public-at-large has been left with any specific facts or predictions.

I won't pretend to know a great deal about these things, but I've read books and other material on Einstein's Theory of Relativity and the workings of the atomic bomb, and from reading multiple sources I found consistencies in fact, and explanations based on those facts that made some kind of reasonable sense to me.

With AGW, I don't know of one fact or measurement that is agreed upon, but I'm then asked to believe in a theory that seems to both begin and end without any specifics that are consistent across references, even when people are on the "same side" of the debate.


-WS


They will fail.
Us smokers have been getting shoved around by the state for years now and as you state dug in the heels.
But we are but a quarter.
But coercing everyone ?
Bring it on .

Non smokers don't care

(Anonymous)
Somewhat OT, but I just had to tell of my experience earlier today, in West London. I was delivering some parcels to a company, and couldn't raise anyone on their warehouse door bell. Another courier arrived who is obviously used to delivering to this firm. He simply opened the door and walked in and went to find someone. He found a gentleman who came over to the warehouse door SMOKING A PIPE, and signed the other courier's paperwork and then delt with me. The other courier obviously didn't even notce the pipe, or more importantly I think, couldn't care less about it. And this is what finally brought home to me - that non smokers simply don't care about smokers. They are happy for them to do want they want and where they want. I've read it on here countless times, but this proved it to me. It is the same in my pub, all the non smokers would be quite happy for smoking to return to the pub. I spend my whole evening outside with my smoking friends, and the non smokers are inside. We are the ones having the fun

This got me thinking. What is the anti's motivation? Roy Castle, why did he say that SHS caused his cancel when he had smoked cigars himself in the past? Someone or some organisation must have hung a carrot in front of him, but what was the carrot? The only thing that is obvious is money. I read the anti's comments all over the place, but have never met an anti in person (lucky for them as I'd probably seriously hurt them). What are they so venomous? There just has to be more to them than just hating smokers. Money seems too obvious!

Mike

Re: Non smokers don't care

(Anonymous)
But the drugs companies care very much.


WHO LAUNCHES PARTNERSHIP WITH THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY TO HELP SMOKERS QUIT - 1999

"The WHO European Partnership Project on Tobacco Dependence is being set up with the objective of reducing tobacco related death and disease among smokers. The Partnership Project, which is open to both private, non-commercial and public sector partners, will support implementation of the key strategic goals of the World Health Organization's Tobacco Free Initiative.

The strength of the Partnership Project lies in the fact that it has brought together three major pharmaceutical companies, Glaxo Wellcome, Novartis Consumer Health and Pharmacia & Upjohn, all manufacturers of treatment products for tobacco dependence, to support a common goal that will have a significant impact on public health"
http://www.who.int/inf-pr-1999/en/pr99-04.html


2000

Zyban

Anti-smoking drug given go-ahead

Clive Bates, of Action for Smoking on Health, said: Clive Bates director of the anti-tobacco campaigning group Action on Smoking and Health said: "This should end any doubt or hesitation about prescribing these life-saving drugs that still persist in the NHS."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1921338.stm

Anti-smoking drug deaths triple

"The number of people who have died after taking the anti-smoking drug Zyban has more than tripled in a year, official figures show
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1767758.stm

Smoking pill link to 35 deaths

"GlaxoSmithKline, the world's second largest drug company, conceded yesterday that the anti-smoking drug Zyban was suspected of causing adverse reactions in 35 people who have died in the UK since it was introduced last June."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2001/apr/26/smoking.medicalscience

Zyban death link inquiry is 'flawed'

"A Government inquiry into the controversial anti-smoking pill Zyban has been seriously undermined after it emerged that campaigners against the drug have not been asked to give evidence."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-102905/Zyban-death-link-inquiry-flawed.html#ixzz0QA1748TB


2007
Damage to the Insula Disrupts Addiction to Cigarette Smoking
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/315/5811/531.abstract


A Small Part of the Brain, and Its Profound Effects

"According to neuroscientists who study it, the insula is a long-neglected brain region that has emerged as crucial to understanding what it feels like to be human.

They say it is the wellspring of social emotions, things like lust and disgust, pride and humiliation, guilt and atonement. It helps give rise to moral intuition, empathy and the capacity to respond emotionally to music."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/06/health/psychology/06brain.html

Can GlaxoSmithKline take its medicine? - 2010

"Big Pharma is in big trouble. Superficially, the world's largest drug companies seem in good shape - profitability remains buoyant, and they have certainly ridden out the recession in fine style by comparison with those engaged in more volatile industries. After all, people get sick and need treatment, with scant regard for the phases of the business cycle.

But beneath this healthy-looking exterior, a malignancy has been spreading through Big Pharma's body corporate.
The business model that helped create some of the highest-earning firms of modern times - names such as Pfizer in the US, Bayer in Germany, and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and AstraZeneca in the UK - is running out of road."
http://www.managementtoday.co.uk/news/985297/can-glaxosmithkline-its-medicine/


FDA approves Pfizer's anti-smoking drug - 2006

"Chantix sales could help Pfizer on its comeback trail, as it tries to fill its impending, multibillion-dollar sales vacuum that will result from some of its older blockbusters losing patent protection"
http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/11/news/companies/pfizer/

Ala. Judge Preps for Thousands of Chantix Lawsuits - 2011
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=12541261


Rose

I am a human bean

(Anonymous)
We need more tolerance.

I am not a "smoker", I am a man who smokes.

The Negro Community no longer exists. They became People of Color, and then African-American. They defined themselves, and opposed outsiders saying who they were.

I am not a "smoker".

I am a human being, with thoughts and feelings and all the usual urges that all other human beings experience.

If you prick me, do I not bleed? If you tickle me, do I not laugh? If you poison me, do I not die? If you wrong me, shall I not revenge....?

I am a human being.

I smoke. Therefore I smell of smoke. Bother you? You don't have to stand next to me, and I don't necessarily want your company.

"Oh My God, you stink!"

In spite of the fact that smoking apparently desensitizes the olfactory senses, I can smell the garlic on your breath, underneath the over-heavy perfume you reapplied when you went last to the toilet. Stale garlic-breath is bad enough, but the perfume is cloying, and I can feel it lining the back of my throat, so I suck even harder on my cigarette to take away the taste. Fuck getting a cab, I will walk home. Behind me, there is laughter.

I am a human being. I smoke.

"My word! This boy smells like WD & HO Wills factory!"

My maths teacher, and a good one too. He did his utmost to make my life a misery after this event, and ridiculed me constantly. It was for my own good. Thankfully, he never turned me off mathematics. He had a heart attack in his mid-50s. Fuck him.

I am a human being. I think, I feel, I smoke. I also drink alcohol, and eat butter, and red meat, and fish, and vegetables.

I am a human being, and I smoke.

This isn't a confession.

It's a fact.

I am A Person Who Likes To Smoke.

And you can take my right to smoke out of my cold dead hands.

Thank you



Well said Anon. But there is a danger. The more that you feel the need to assert your independence, the more GUILT creeps into your mind.

A couple of days ago, a friend of my daughter called round to our house. They were going out for a meal and were waiting here for their transport. While she was here, I fancied a fag, but I went into the kitchen to light up and made a cup of tea for myself and wife while there. The horrible thing is that I knew precisely what I was doing. I was succumbing to the propaganda.

Thinking back on the situation, what I should have done, in my own house, is said, "I don't know whether or not you smoke, but if you do, then you are welcome to do so" - and, at the same time, lit my own fag.

Of course, I did not have to say anything, but making that statement would have had the effect of removing any doubts whatsoever from my own mind.

Thus we see how insidious the creeping 'verboten' can be!

For three years we have suffered this attack - not only physically but mentally. We need ways to turn the mental attack around. One way, as an example, is to be prepared. For example, if persons wave their hands and cough and splutter as they pass, be prepared to do exactly the same - wave your hands and splutter. Problem solved! The secret is to be prepared!

Junican, only this morning did I make a statement on the German BFT (Buendnis for Toleranz) facebook page: 'The other thing the antismokers hate is confident smokers.'

This is my experience and view only but I believe that to combat this malignant "denormalisation programme" this is the best method.

In my house there are numerous ashtrays in use and I do light up - people who visit me know that I smoke. End of. As yet I had only one visitor who moaned and I kindly put her chair by the open back door. At the end of the day it is my house.

Yes, it is time to hit back with confidence.

With respect to the global warming warnings - I personally believe that our ever increasing numbers do have an effect on the planet; however, I do have doubts to what extend. Gross exaggeration and nurturing fear appears to be a popular method of controlling mass behaviour. It usually is too late when common sense has been put into it's grave.

celery

(Anonymous)
In my opinion you are not right. Write to me in PM, we will communicate.

how to get your lover back

After 6 moths of Broken marriage, my husband left me with two kids, I felt like ending it all, i almost committed suicide because he left us with nothing, i was emotionally down all this while. Thanks to a man called Dr Aisabu of Aisabu temple which i met online. On one faithful day, as I was browsing through the internet, I came across several testimonies about this particular man. Some people testified that he brought their Ex lover back, some testified that he restores womb,cure cancer,and other sickness, some testified that he prayed to stop divorce and get a good paid job so on. He is amazing, i also come across one particular testimony, it was about a woman called Shannon , she testified about how he brought back her Ex lover in less than 2 days, and at the end of her testimony she dropped his email. (aisabulovespell@gmail.com) After reading all these, I decided to give it a try. I contacted him via email and explained my problem to him. In just 48hours, my husband came back to me. We resolved our issues, and we are even happier than ever. DR Aisabu you are a gifted man and thank you for everything you had done in my life. If you have a problem and you are looking for a real and genuine spell caster, Try him anytime, he is the answer to your problems. you can contact him on aisabulovespell@gmail.com,,,,,,,,

  • 1