Posted by: Barry Bickmore | May 4, 2010

Enemies of Democracy

The Commie Fighters

In my previous post, I recounted how Rep. Chris Herrod (R-Provo) had indicated that his reason for dismissing the vast majority of climate scientists’ views was that he was concerned the political solutions proposed to address climate change would lead to loss of freedom and an inevitable slide toward Totalitarianism.  Yes, he’s a Commie Fighter.  Now, I’m a political Conservative, too.  I don’t like Big Government, and if there is any way to get around dealing with climate change by levying huge taxes, and so on, I’m all for giving it a try.  Even if I sympathize with such sentiments, however, I have a hard time going along with some members of the Utah Legislature when they try to paint mainstream climate science as part of a global conspiracy to impose a Totalitarian regime.

During the last Legislative Session, Rep. Kerry Gibson (R-Ogden) introduced House Joint Resolution 12 (HJR 12), which was a non-binding resolution urging the EPA to hold off enacting any planned carbon emissions reduction policies.  Opposition to a particular type of policy is one thing, but the reasons given in HJR 12 gave me visions of tinfoil hats and bomb shelters.  The original version of the resolution referred repeatedly to a “climate data conspiracy,” and proceeded to back up this claim with a number of red herrings, and the like.  When the bill was first considered in committee (click here for the audio file,) Rep. Mike Noel (R-Kanab) argued that climate science has been serving a global conspiracy to impose population control by forced sterilization.  The Salt Lake Tribune reported,

But Noel defended the “conspiracy” wording, pointing to an out-of-print textbook, Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment , written in the 1970s by biologist Paul Ehrlich, Ehrlich’s wife, Anne, and physicist John Holdren about the potential hazards of unchecked population.

The Kanab Republican, referring to Holdren as the Obama administration’s “energy czar,” read from passages of the 1,000-plus-page tome about population-control alternatives that included abortion and forced sterilization. He did not share the authors’ conclusion: that voluntary population-limiting methods are “a far better choice.”

“Now, if you can’t see a connection [of a conspiracy] to that,” the legislator said, “you’re absolutely blind to what is going on. This is absolutely — in my mind, this is in fact a conspiracy to limit population not only in this country but across the globe.”

When asked whether he thought there was a huge conspiracy, Rep. Gibson responded, “I’m not sure we’ll ever know the depths of it.”

Skipping Science Class

Now, I realize it’s a losing proposition for scientists to reason with people who think there’s a global conspiracy of scientists trying to attack their reproductive organs.  (They tend not to listen to what we have to say, for some reason.)  But being an eternal optimist, I decided to write another letter to the Legislature, hoping that at some point at least the voters would listen, if not the legislators.  I got a number of other scientists at BYU to help edit and sign it, then sent it along to several of the legislators involved and local media outlets.

In our letter, we critiqued several of the worst arguments given in HJR 12, showing that they were based on half-truths, out-of-context quotations, and physical impossibilities.  We also showed that some of the arguments contradicted one another.  Note that we didn’t say a thing about what the EPA should do, because we didn’t agree with one another about that.  We didn’t even say that there are no rational arguments against the scientific consensus.  Rather, we focused on the fact that the particular arguments marshaled in the bill were absurd.   Over fifty scientists and other scholars at universities around Utah subsequently endorsed our letter.

To my knowledge, none of the legislators involved (Gibson, Noel, etc.) ever offered any rebuttal to our critiques of their arguments.  The legislators simply ignored them.  Why?  When faced with a bunch of actual scientists telling them their “scientific” arguments were deeply flawed, why did these politicians not even bother to reply?  I can think of three reasons.

1) Gibson, Noel, and Co. didn’t have the scientific background to tell whether our criticisms were sound.

Kerry Gibson, the sponsor of the bill, is a dairy farmer.  When he first introduced his bill in committee (click here for audio,) he had Randy Parker, CEO of the Utah Farm Bureau do a presentation about the state of the climate change debate.  Gibson introduced Parker as “something of an expert on this issue.”  Yep, Randy from the Farm Bureau is an expert on climate science.  In fact, Randy from the Farm Bureau seems to have had a profound effect on the text of HJR 12.  His article about climate change in the Feb. 2010 issue of the Utah Farm Bureau News contains much of the same language as the bill.

But for Kerry Gibson, you don’t need any book learning to understand climate science.  All you need is a dairy farm.  In the Senate committee hearing (click here for audio) he said,

All of you know that I don’t have a bunch of letters behind my name.  And I don’t propose to know any more than anyone else.  What I will tell you is that my opinion matters just as your opinion matters….

I own and operate a 6th generation dairy and crop farm in Western Weber County.  For some people that disqualifies me from entering into an issue like this.  To me, I think it gives me all of the knowledge that I need.

Some of the legislators involved have some scientific background, at least, though not in closely relevant fields.  However, when I listened to their attempts to make scientific arguments, it became clear that they simply were not up to speed about climate change.  Mike Noel (R-Kanab), for example, has had a long career as a rancher and BLM manager, but in the early 70’s he received a Master’s degree in some kind of plant ecology.  He even went on to a PhD program for a while (he didn’t finish), though I have found no evidence that he ever used his degrees for anything.  When Joe Andrade (a U of Utah scientist) commented on HJR 12 in the House committee, Noel leapt into action.  Here’s how the Salt Lake Tribune reported the incident.

But Noel really got heated when Joe Andrade, a professor of bioengineering at the University of Utah, calmly said that he worried that passage of the resolution would slow down the movement to find new, clean energy sources such as nuclear, solar and wind.

Noel asked Andrade: “Are you stating on record that CO2 is a pollutant?

Andrade: “I’m saying that CO2 has a unique molecular structure which absorbs infrared radiation, and that that is in part responsible for the effects you’re concerned with, Rep. Gibson is concerned with….”

Noel: “I want to get this on the record: Are you saying we have to rid the planet of carbon dioxide?”

Andrade: “Of course not!”

Noel: “It’s not a pollutant, then it’s not going to kill you. It’s not going to kill plants. Is that correct? I have a degree too, Professor.”

Finally, the exchange devolved enough that the committee chairman broke it up.

“I’m sorry, I’m sorry, I’m sorry,” Noel said. “It got out of hand.”

Now, as an environmental geochemist, I have to say that Noel’s argument is about as bad as it gets.  The EPA regulates a number of substances that are plant nutrients, because they can cause severe problems if there is “too much of a good thing.”  For example, phosphate and nitrate are essential plant nutrients that are in every fertilizer.  But if some of the fertilizer (and detergents, etc.) we use gets into the rivers and wastewater streams, it ends up in lakes and coastal areas.  Algae blooms like crazy, and then dies, but when there is so much rotting algae around it tends to use up all the oxygen in the water, causing fish and other organisms to die.  This is the well known problem of “eutrophication.”  In other words, it is reasonable to regulate plant nutrients as “pollutants” when they have indirect effects that don’t necessarily involve poisoning anyone.  Whether or not it’s a good idea for the EPA to regulate CO2, I think it has to be admitted that Noel’s reasoning about the issue is deficient.

When the bill came up for clearance by the relevant Senate committee, the chairman was Sen. Dennis Stowell (R-Parowan).  Stowell, who lists himself as a rancher and engineer, received a Master’s degree in Chemical Engineering, so I was hoping that at least he would have some understanding of the scientific issues.  But here’s what he said (click here for the audio.)

I am a chemical engineer.  Uh, CO2, I, you know, know a lot about CO2.  It’s odorless, colorless, stable, I view it as being self-regulating.  Uh, that is when concentrations of any chemicals in a reaction increase, the reaction speeds up.  Uh, when, uh, the temperature rises, normally in a reaction, uh, the reaction speed, uh, speeds up.  We call that the kinetics of the equation.  And so, I view CO2 as being self-regulating.

Stowell was right that if you increase the concentration of a chemical, the reactions that consume that chemical tend to speed up.  Raising the temperature generally increases reaction rates, as well.  So… what?  Does that mean that CO2 consumption rates (as it is dissolved in the ocean, or consumed by plants, or used up weathering silicate rocks,) rise so much that extra CO2 can’t build up in the atmosphere?  This is obviously not true, since atmospheric CO2 concentrations have been exponentially increasing since the Industrial Revolution.  So Sen. Stowell’s argument is baseless, because while he could spout a few truisms about chemical kinetics, he forgot about what happens when you perturb an equilibrium system (i.e., Le Chatelier’s Principle).

So after all that posturing about their degrees, Noel and Co. couldn’t come up with any arguments for their case that were even remotely plausible.  All they really had going for them was summarized by Rep. Gibson in the Senate committee hearing for HJR 12.

I am proud of the science that has stood up for this resolution.  There are many more, who we can’t hear from in a short period of time, but they are there.

That’s right.  In the absence of any scientific arguments that even make sense, Rep. Gibson copped out with the dreaded appeal to “consensus” among some undisclosed number of scientists that are out “there” somewhere, and presumably agree with him about… something.  I’m not sure what.

2) They could save themselves the work of trying to address our criticisms by hiding behind a fake expert and resorting to baiting us.

Question:  What do unscrupulous legislators do when they haven’t gone to school for several years to get up to speed on climate science, and can’t even make a coherent argument about the subject, but still want to impress upon their constituents that they are hard-nosed public servants who are making sure that all sides of the debate are heard?

Answer:  They choose a “champion” to hide behind.  It would be preferable to recruit an actual climate scientist, but barring that, a fake expert will do.  And when their opponents make arguments against their bill that they can’t answer, such legislators should try to bait their opponents into a public debate with their champion.  After all, how can anyone really settle a complex technical issue in front of the general public in an hour or two of he-said-she-said?  So if their opponents accept, the champion can blow a bunch of smoke for an hour, and nobody will know whom to believe.  But if their opponents decline, the legislators can bait them with it ad nauseum.

The “champion,” in this case, was none other than Lord Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount of Brenchley.  Bob Ferguson of the Science and Public Policy Institute sent a threatening letter (he later apologized for the tone) to a number of BYU scientists who had spoken out about the Climate Circus in the Legislature, and challenged us to debate some undisclosed climate skeptic.  (See a Salt Lake Tribune article about the challenge here.)  We all declined, because we didn’t think a public, oral debate was a legitimate forum to sort out a complex, technical issue.  But what Bob “forgot” to tell our esteemed legislators was that I offered to do a written, online debate instead.  My reasoning was that this would give me a chance to do some fact-checking on my opponent’s claims, and it would allow for proper sourcing, linking to the primary literature, and so on.  When it turned out that Bob’s skeptical champion was Monckton, it appeared that my conditions were wise indeed, because as I told the Salt Lake Tribune, His Lordship “has a reputation for making up stuff.”  (See this previous post for evidence that Monckton makes up data to discredit the IPCC and goes about falsely claiming to be a member of Parliament, to boot.  If you really want to go nuts Monckton watching, consider this interview, where he revealed that he thinks he may have come up with a cure for AIDS, MS, the common cold, and flu.  I can’t wait to see what it is–I’m betting on h0meopathy or vitamins.)

Well, our legislators didn’t know Monckton was such a charlatan.  How could they?  (Unless they checked the Internet to find out about his claims to membership in the House of Lords.)  And Bob Ferguson apparently didn’t tell them that I had agreed to debate Monckton in a forum that allowed for fact-checking, but was flatly refused.  So instead of arguing against any of our criticisms of HJR 12, they hid behind Monckton and tried to bait us.  Rep. Mike Noel said this at the House committee meeting where HJR 12 was considered.

I would like to challenge them, and we have challenged them, in fact.  They have not answered, but Lord Christopher Monckton of Benchley [sic], who’s a world-renowned individual that’s spoke on this particular subject for years, used the IPCC’s own models to show that they are in error, will be here on the 23rd of March at UVU for a full day debate and talk on this issue.  I would encourage all of you to attend that, and for the public to attend that.

Sen. Margaret Dayton (R-Orem) followed suit in the subsequent Senate committee meeting:

But I would just like to mention that those who want to keep discussing climate change and have a scientific discussion, that the scientists from BYU, and I think the University of Utah if I have correct information, have been invited to come and present with Lord Christopher Monckton is coming to our state and is going to a presentation and these scientists who have information have an opportunity to do a side-by-side with them, and the public can be there, and we’ll have an opportunity for some science on both sides.

3) They didn’t care that much about accuracy.

The bottom line is that these legislators were supporting a bill that made scientific arguments they didn’t really know how to defend.  Instead of stopping to check on the disputed claims, they blindly pressed on, hiding behind some nebulous body of scientists who supposedly agree with them, or behind a fake expert provided by the Science and Public Policy Institute.  Why couldn’t they just hit the “Pause” button long enough to make sure they weren’t putting their names on something really stupid, like the South Dakota legislators who recently passed a resolution urging schools to teach climate change as “just a theory” because there are “astrological” arguments against it?  (At least their Senate amended the resolution to omit the reference to “astrology” and sent it back to the House.  Our Senate did nothing.)  The answer is that, in the end, these legislators just didn’t care whether their arguments were scientifically accurate.

They didn’t care because their overarching purpose was to block the expansion of Federal power, which they see as a sort of creeping Socialism.  Immediately after baiting us to debate Lord Monckton, Sen. Dayton explained,

I would like to speak to the motion, however, and say that, um,  the purpose of this resolution is to ask the EPA to halt carbon dioxide reduction policies and endangerment findings.  Um, I’m very concerned about an expanding bureaucracy, to which people are not elected, and where we are losing the voice of the people.

As I said, it’s abundantly clear that these legislators don’t understand the science behind climate change.  And that’s ok!  Nobody can be an expert in everything, after all.  But instead of just admitting their ignorance and deferring to the scientific community, they insisted on siding with a tiny minority of the experts and a few crackpots like Monckton.  The legislators weren’t in a position to make informed judgements, but they chose to go along with the small minority because it isn’t as easy to support more government regulation if there is no climate problem to be solved.

Am I painting with too broad a brush?  Weren’t there ANY Republicans in the Utah Legislature who crossed party lines and tried to have the scientifically illiterate nonsense amended out of HJR 12?  Well, at least the House voted to amend out the references to a “conspiracy,” because it wasn’t respectful, you know.  Of course, the substance of the charges of fraud and graft among thousands of scientists remained, and by my count, EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN in the House and Senate who was present for the floor votes supported the bill.

I was expecting the bill to pass, but this really shocked me.  Why wouldn’t any of the Republicans suggest substantive amendments?  After the Senate committee hearing about the bill, I talked with a guy who was associated with Rep. Gibson.  He told me that he didn’t think the resolution needed all those outrageous charges, either, but if they stopped to amend that stuff out of the bill then, it would have to go back to the House, then back to the Senate, and he didn’t think they would be able to pass it by the end of the legislative session.  Accuracy trumped by political expediency again.

Enemies of Democracy

Unfortunately, Utah’s Republican legislators aren’t alone in using these kinds of tactics to fight the Enemies of Democracy.  The well known science historian Naomi Oreskes (UC San Diego), along with coauthor Erik Conway, has written a book called Merchants of Doubt:  How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming (release date–May 25, 2010).  You can preview the subject matter of the book by watching this talk by Naomi Oreskes.  Oreskes documents the fact that many of the most prominent scientists who go about spreading the message that the science behind human-induced climate change is uncertain, have done EXACTLY the same thing in the past about issues like the health effects of second-hand smoke.  These efforts have largely been funded by the tobacco and fossil fuel industries through “think tanks” like the George C. Marshal Institute and the Heartland Institute.  Yes, the SAME organizations (and some of the same scientists!) that fought against regulation of second-hand smoke now fight against regulation of greenhouse gases.

Why have they done this?  Are they all just hired guns trying to make a buck from fat industrial wallets?  Maybe some of them are, but I think this characterization would be an oversimplification if too broadly applied.  Oreskes shows that many of the scientists involved worked in the weapons complex during the Cold War.  For them, the threat of Communist expansion is a fresh memory, and ever increasing government regulation seems like a kind of creeping Socialism that will inevitably lead to loss of freedom.  If they can succeed at bringing to the forefront any uncertainties in the science behind the health risks of second-hand smoke or anthropogenic global warming, they can forestall further liberty-stealing government regulations.

Sound familiar?  If Priority #1 is to fight the Enemies of Democracy by opposing increased government regulation, then it is easy to justify trumpeting (or even exaggerating) uncertainties in the science that indicates there might be a problem.  If we’re not sure there’s really a problem, then why impose new regulations?  The problem with this approach is that there is always some uncertainty involved in any complex scientific conclusions, so the mere fact that uncertainty exists is beside the point–unless we want to forego making ANY policy decisions based on scientific input.

By exaggerating the degree of uncertainty, these scientists (and people like the Utah legislators who follow their lead) have become what they claim to fight–Enemies of Democracy.  Democracy requires well informed citizens, and when these people participate in targeted disinformation campaigns, with little regard for scientific accuracy, they are fighting Democracy.  I don’t care whether these people have good intentions of saving us from creeping Socialism.  I don’t even care whether I sometimes agree with their politics.  I still cling to the (deluded?) belief that elected officials don’t have to be truth-deficient opportunists.

In my next post, I’ll play nicer and explain why I don’t think our esteemed legislators are entirely to blame.  The scientific community has to take some of the rap for the public confusion.



  1. Barry – it sounds like there’s a pretty deep need for some public lectures on the science throughout the state. Obviously whoever was funding Monckton isn’t going to fund a bunch of scientists to do that, but is there some way to organize at least the group that signed the letter to the legislature to get out there and talk to the public a bit more? Scott Mandia here has a great collection of slides – most of the info on this page:

    or I could put you in touch; I’m sure he’d share his presentation.

    • Great idea, Arthur. I’ll keep that stewing in the back of my mind for a while, although I don’t have time to follow up on it right now.

  2. The only ones who are lying about tobacco are the anti-smokers. They are guilty of flagrant scientific fraud for ignoring more than 50 studies over a period of over 20 years, which prove that human papillomavirus infects at least a quarter of all non-small cell lung cancers. It doesn’t require a university degree to figure out that ignoring evidence is fraud! And because the anti-smokers’ studies are based on nothing but lifestyle, they’re designed to cynically exploit the circumstance that smokers and passive smokers are more likely to have been infected, in falsely blame tobacco.

    Furthermore, those so-called “opponents” she denounces are nothing but phonies, because they never mention HPV, or anything else that really refutes the anti-smokers. Their real job is to drown out the real critics, with the collaboration of lying media, to create the false impression of dissent, and their weak strawman arguments are intended to provoke provoke public derision. It’s the anti-smokers themselves who give the phonies a forum, and censor the real critics, and then lie to us that they presented “both sides of the issue”!

    And she is concealing the fact that the same anti-smoker who lobbied for the EPA to take up the issue of secondhand smoke, John C. Topping Jr., subsequently went on to found the Climate Institute.

    And she’s concealing the fact that Seitz’ association with the tobacco industry was really to monitor Stanley Prusiner’s work on prions, which was being funded by R.J. Reynolds after the Rockefeller Institute, with which Seitz had been associated, stopped doing so. (Why was smokers’ money being used to fund prion research in the first place? Apparently purely as a crony favor.) Any so-called “historian of science” who can’t ferret out the fact that Seitz was merely doing site visits on Prusiner, and had nothing to do with tobacco research, is nothing but a propagandist hack!

    Yours truly,
    Carol Thompson

    • Yep, the vast majority of cancer specialists don’t know how to statistically analyze their data to control for other lifestyle factors. Bunch of idiots.

      Incidentally, the vast majority of climate scientists have almost the exact same problem! It must be a conspiracy! No, I don’t mean the few scientists who say tobacco isn’t bad for you and that humans don’t have a significant effect on climate–I’m talking about a really GIANT conspiracy involving almost all the others. Because we all know that GIANT conspiracies are more likely than small ones.

  3. All right, you phony-baloney who thinks he can sneer me away:


    There aren’t any. And there is no mention of HPV as a cause of lung cancer.

    And those people aren’t “the vast majority of cancer specialists, either. They’re a little handpicked clique of politically connected and corrupt charlatans, ring-led since the 1980s by a certain Jonathan M. Samet.

    Jon Samet has been an anti-smoking activist since the Fifth World Conference on Smoking and Health in 1983. He was one of three “consulting scientific editors” and “prepared draft chapters or portions” of the 1986 Surgeon General Report, “The Health Consequences of Involuntary Smoking,” and was also involved in the 1984, 1985, 1989, 1990, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2001 and 2004 SG Reports, and was Senior Scientific Editor of the 2006 Surgeon General Report, “The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke.” He was also a member of the Science Advisory Board of the so-called “EPA” Report on ETS, the key chapters of which were actually secretly written by an anti-smoking activist crony of Samet’s, using illegal pass-through contracts to conceal his role. Samet was Chairman of the IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) committee which produced the fraudulent Monograph on Smoking and Involuntary Smoking in 2003. In 2005, Samet and three anti-smoking activist cronies formed a majority of the voting board of the ASHRAE Position Document on ETS. In addition, he committed perjury in 1998 in the State of Minnesota lawsuit against the cigarette companies, and testified in the US Department of Justice lawsuit against them as well.

    And now, he heads the FDA section on tobacco regulation. How’s that for unbiased?

    • I get it. There is a secret cause of lung cancer that nobody but you knows about, and you can’t get any real cancer researchers to check it out. If anyone disagrees with you, they are “activists” who “commit perjury” if they testify about the health dangers of smoking.

  4. And what about all those researchers who did those more than 50 studies of HPV and lung cancer, all of which had more than one author? Why are they being excluded from the realm of science, while the quacks who pass out lifestyle questionnaires pose as experts and monger fear about a whiff of secondhand smoke, because they’re pals of the politicians? And then you try to bully and smear ME personally, by pretending that I’m claiming to be the only one who knows about it, and pretending that I “can’t get any real cancer researchers to check it out,” as if I’m a solitary kook. WHAT ABOUT THOSE 50-PLUS STUDIES? Your beloved quacks with the lifestyle questionnaires never had to wait for 50 studies before they trumpeted their absolute certainty that secondhand smoke causes cancer. You really are corrupt, dishonest and personally evil.

    And look how your quack, Jonathan Samet, lied that smoking causes ulcers. He ignored the evidence that Helicobacter pylori causes those ulcers he blamed on smoking on the basis of lifestyle questionnaires, because smokers are more likely to have been infected, for socioeconomic reasons. Furthermore, those HP infections nearly always begin during childhood, before people even start smoking. And then his lies were used in the Minnesota tobacco lawsuit as the basis to blame smoking for the cost of operations for peptic ulcers, for operations which would have unnecessary if the patients had been treated with an inexpensive course of antibiotics, instead of with propaganda and BS!

    • How did Samet become my quack?

      And why are you so adamant about posting on a climate blog?

  5. Furthermore, your magical solution to “statistically analyze their data to control for other lifestyle factors” DOESN’T WORK IN THE FIRST PLACE. When there is a true true cause with an odds ratio of more than 5, as is the case with infections, failure to identify even a few cases easily results in bogus “risk factors” of 2 or more that are actually the result of confounding. Not to mention that they’re ignoring the sound epidemiological principles such as how much exposure to infection people have had. This has been proven mathematically, that controlling for proxy variables for infection such as socioeconomic status doesn’t work. And your quacks ignore this, because their goal is to manufacture political propaganda.

    • Yeah, MY quacks (i.e., the vast, vast majority of cancer researchers) don’t know how to adjust for response rates and sample sizes when analyzing risk factors.

      I sincerely hope nobody gets killed by listening to your idiotic conspiracy theories.

    • Oh, and if you don’t want people to brush you off as a nut, maybe you should stop signing your posts with:


  6. You ask how did Samet become your quack – well, you believe in him, and you think his little clique of politically-connected charlatans represent “the vast majority of cancer researchers.” You believe in the Surgeon General reports, which have all been by Samet et al. And on the EPA ETS report, Samet was there. And the IARC report – Samet was chairman. And the ASHRAE position paper – Samet again. And Samet and his clique represent the most fanatical and corrupt believers in lifestyle questionnaires, who lock out the real scientists who are researching real causes such as HPV, in order to push a political agenda. And you are so dumb you think that because THEY are the only ones the mass media tell you about, that means they’re the real thing and anyone who doubts them is a quack.

    What a moron you are to think that “adjust[ing] for response rates and sample sizes when analyzing risk factors” is what’s wrong with your pseudo-science. It’s fundamentally fraudulent because it ignores the role of infection, PERIOD. Because smokers and passive smokers are more likely for socioeconomic reasons to have been exposed to those infections, they falsely blame tobacco for diseases that are really caused by those infections.

    And how pray tell will anyone “get killed by listening to [my] idiotic [sic] conspiracy theories” – such as what, treating ulcers with antibiotics instead of BS and operations? And preventing cancer with HPV vaccine? Instead of believing in chemical hobgoblins and persecuting innocent people to prevent cancer?

    As for climate change, I know that the same political machine was behind this as was behind the anti-smoking persecution. And that those among the supposed opponents of climate change who also pretended to oppose the anti-smokers were absolutely incompetent morons when they did so. So bad, that with “friends” like them, we don’t need enemies. Obviously, they’re just as worthless about climate change, but I haven’t had time to research this issue.

    And, the reason I posted on your blog is because you think that fraudulent “science historian Naomi Oreskes” and her anti-smoker heros are telling the truth. This fraud who embraces lifestyle questionnaires as science, and pretends that Seitz doing site visits on Prusiner constitutes engaging in anti-anti-tobacco research on behalf of the tobacco industry.

  7. The American Cancer Society has been plotting to turn the world into a totalitarian dictatorship ruled by frauds and charlatans, ever since their international conference at Lake Mohonk in 1926 – which was attended by Mussolini’s private physician; Dr. Henri Hartmann.

    They used their political pull to create the National Cancer Institute, to deliberately commit scientific fraud at taxpayer expense. Original members of the National Advisory Cancer Council of the National Cancer Institute, appointed by Surgeon General Thomas Parran in 1937: James Ewing, Director of Memorial Hospital; Dr. Francis C. Wood, Director of the Crocker Institute of Cancer Research at Columbia University; Harvard University President James B. Conant; Dr. Arthur H. Compton of the University of Chicago; C.C. Little, Managing Director of the American Society for the Control of Cancer; and Dr. Ludvig Hektoen of Chicago. In 1938, Dr. James B. Murphy of the Rockefeller Institute and Dr. Mont R. Reid replaced Ewing and Wood. (Named to Cancer Council. New York Times, Dec. 11, 1938, p. 30.) Ewing, Hektoen, Little, Murphy, Parran, and Wood were all affiliated with the ASCC.

    Mary Woodard Lasker was the head of the American Cancer Society, and the nost powerful health lobbyist in history. “For the past twenty years, Mrs. Lasker has been, in the words of one federal health official, ‘the most important single factor in the rise of support for biomedical research.’ In the process, she has helped the NIH budget to explode from $2.5 million in 1945 to $1.4 billion this year, influenced Presidents, immobilized Secretaries of Health, Education, and Welfare, selected health policy makers, and pushed health policy in controversial directions.”

    “Mrs. Lasker’s network is probably unparalleled in the influence that a small group of private citizens has had over such a major area of national policy. One federal official refers to it as a ‘noble conspiracy.’ Gorman calls it a ‘high class kind of subversion, very high class. We’re not second story burglars. We go right in the front door.'” (The Health Syndicate / Washington’s Noble Conspiracy. By Elizabeth Brenner Drew. The Atlantic Monthly 1967, Vol. 200, pp. 75-82)

    Public Interest, Thursday, Sep. 27, 2001 interview with Judith Robinson, author of “Noble Conspirator,” on Florence S. Mahoney and the rise of the National Institutes of Health (The Francis Press, 2001).

    And, Mary Woodard Lasker’s stepson was on the board of directors of Philip Morris for 20 years!!!!! Now, that tells you who is in control of Philip Morris.

  8. […] if the South Dakota legislators could do better, they still put Utah’s legislators to shame.  All we got was Rep. Mike Noel (R-Kanab) yelling, “It’s not a pollutant, then it’s not going to kill you. […]

  9. […] Joint Resolution from the Utah Legislature Last year, I wrote about our unsuccessful attempts to get the Utah Legislature to at least modify House Joint Resolution 12, which urged the EPA to […]

  10. […] it any wonder, then, that conspiracy theorists like Mike Noel (R-Kanab) and Kerry Gibson (R-Ogden) can get elected and push their agendas through the Utah Legislature with barely any […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: