Media,

In your exhortation not to believe anything that the government tells you, do you include the government's admonition that cigarette smoking is hazardous to your health? You don't believe that? Or do you examine what the government tells you and, if it is important enough to you, go to the sources of information?

The Heartland Institute, whose work you reference in this topic, is the organization that was hired by the tobacco companies to question the link between cigarette smoking and cancer. They (the Heartland Institute) challenged the surgeon general's report and published "scientific" papers and did their own "scientific studies" that demonstrated that the surgeon general's claim of the tobacco/cancer link and other impacts on human health were incorrect and an alarmist hoax. Remember? They had "scientific conferences" much like they now have on Climate Change, and they paid their "scientists" a fortune to write papers and do studies, with the papers being published only in the "conferences" that they sponsored, of course. In fact, the Heartland Institute is most famous for its long time association with the tobacco industry, and continued work with the tobacco sellers to addict children to toxins.

Now you know the kinds of work that they are hired to do.

In fact, right on their website, they disclosed how much they paid their "researchers" (university researchers should be so lucky) because they had to in order to stay the kind of "non-profit" organization that they filed for. They then hired some attorneys who figured out a way how not to disclose this information anymore. Just go read their website.

So much for their credibility.

As a thorough researcher, I have looked at some of their stuff. They are great at cherrypicking information from published papers and stolen emails, and taking things way out of context. That's their forte. Science is not their forte, I am afraid.

Anyway, as a thorough researcher, I am familiar with the efforts of the Heartland Institute in this similar issue, have read much of their stuff, and it is all such nonsense that I am sure that if you investigated further you would concur.

I know that you won't listen to me, but I think that you should keep right on "write on?" going after the alarmists, dumbells, and political hacks. But going after the fundamental science is going to prove to be ill-conceived in the long run. I know that you don't believe me, but I am trying to help you.

Have fun no matter what you decide. That's what counts, I think.

John,

One of the videos that I posted refered to interpretation of data. You need to look at much more than the last 10 years, which was, incidentally, predicted quite well by several models.

Perstare et praestare. Per aspera ad astra.

Last Edited By: Florida Jeff 03/24/12 7:29 PM. Edited 1 times.