Peter Sinclair: ManBearChicken Crock

ManBearChicken

ManBearChicken

Video-making Climate Crocker Peter Sinclair is appalled Fred Singer would say ‘smoking is fine for your baby’. That is literally how he perceives Singer’s view that environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) is not an effective carcinogen. Sinclair got so mad that Singer—having been maligned as a baby-killing second-hand smoke promoter for long—is contemplating legal action, he succumbed to a moment of weakness and wrote:

So have at it, guys. Let’s open this discussion up.  I’m all ears on that crazy, alarmist, second hand smoke thing.

Except this wont make it through for discussion on his website:
crock of sinclair

Advertisements

3 comments

  1. stewgreen

    Shub – that very comment is visible to me in the discussion.
    – It is met with a sneer and quickly moves to ignore and to DramaGreens normal “Big Tobacco” like disinformation tactics of ignore tricky questions and shift the discussion ..as they go off on a tangent discussing Monckton claiming to be a member of the House of Lords (a strawman cos he has never actually made that claim)

  2. J Calvert N(UK)

    The comment also contains a typo – right in the punch line – which makes it rather hard to understand. Is that supposed to be an “I” or an “it” in the second-last sentence?

  3. stewgreen

    For the record Shub followed up with a request for evidence
    “What is your basis for concluding second-hand smoke exposure is an effective lung carcinogen? Since you seem to have accepted it, you must have a basis for it.

    Babies, addiction, lung disease and aged mothers is rhetoric. Let us set it aside and get straight to the point.”

    – 3 people found the time to downrate his comment but only 1 bothered to supply any evidence .which was just not a list of peer reviewed studies, but rather a link to ONE book “Golden Holocaust: Origins of the Cigarette Catastrophe and the Case for Abolition” The good chapter summary ..show no mention of second hand smoke. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/j.ctt1pnxdm#

    Yes it seems to have lots of info about Tobacco companies being deceitful.
    but ironically the book does begin with an example of a tobacco company telling children not to smoke.
    \\PROLOGUEPages: 1-12
    It was 1970, and I was sixteen and a junior at Southwest High School in Kansas City. All the students were called into the auditorium to hear a guy from the tobacco industry tell us how bad it was for us to smoke. I don’t remember much about the man, except that he was young and groovily dressed, with a striped shirt and white shoes. But his message was clear: smoking is not for children. “An adult choice” is what sticks in my mind. Smoking was like driving or drinking or having sex—things we weren’t even supposed to be…//
    ( I guess that could have been a clever cynical trick, if the intent was tell them it’s forbidden then they’ll go for it)
    ….
    4 further comments but they didn’t address Shub’s question

    (IMHO it’s disgusting that ovs addiction to Tobacco Tax seems to have stopped them doing action to make the industry safe for consumers)