Suppose you are a politician looking for a new tax which can be accepted by the people. Easy you say: just increase the tax on smoking referring to its hazardous effect of lung cancer.
Or you say: Why not put a tax on "pollution of CO2 into the atmosphere" from burning of fossil fuels referring to its hazardous effects. Of lung cancer? No, on global climate.
How? Well, since its is not known what effect CO2 has on climate, warming or cooling or nothing, it will be safe to connect any climate change to "pollution of CO2". If global temperature goes up, connect it with CO2, if it goes down connect it with CO2, and it always changes some. Like the present cold winter must be connected somehow to CO2, because what else?
Oh, maybe smoking?! Maybe smoking is hazardous not only to the health of the people but also to the climate surrounding the people; after all smoking means pollution into the atmosphere.
So there you have a political program which may take you to the Congress: Increase the tax on smoking because of its potentially hazardous effect of climate change!
You can always get some scientists to back your proposal, by suitable research grants, because
the effect of smoking on global climate is unknown.
Do think this post is a joke? It is not. Compare with
Compare also with Tim Ball's Corruption of Climate Science Has Created 30 Lost Years. Up in Climate Science Smoke.
And listen to this very concise summary of the climate debate and reflect over UK Met Office
attacked by its former buddy BBC:
- BBC mounting a legal challenge to force ministers to admit the truth.
- Sceptics ask: Is the UK government’s climate propaganda machine finally falling apart?
Imagine that anything like this could happen also in Sweden...
Inlägg
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar