Warmists really do not like when people disagree with their cult. Which is funny, when you consider they say they’re into science and education and.treating people with respect. In practice, they are more like the Taliban. Little fascists
(UT San Diego) I was terribly disappointed with the U-T’s pair of interviews on climate change Oct. 24 (Op-ed). It is absurd that the U-T had provided a microphone for fossil fuel industry shills in an editorial interview. The Heartland Institute is of course a front for the fossil fuel companies. The so-called scientific report it is touting is not peer-reviewed — just another lie. All have taken lots of dollars from the oil, gas and coal companies for their efforts. (WT-someone should ask the writer if she has given up all fossil fueled travel)
And how can the U-T be surprised that there’s a “public disconnect†on climate change when media outlets like the U-T print rubbish from climate deniers in the pay of the fossil fuel companies, placing them on equal footing with respected climate scientists from our own Scripps Institution of Oceanography, an international leader on climate research?
This is not journalism, and future generations will look back and know that media outlets were part of the reason climate change was not addressed when there was still time to avert most of the impacts.
Masada Disenhouse
Hilariously, on the same page which are letters to the paper, there are several more that say providing both sides is great, that Warmists are full of it, and that the “95%” notion is opinion, not science.
Yet, that is all they are about. Silencing dissent.
Recall the uproar over cigarettes? Recall how the bigots will cite science after science and demand that smoking be banned all over? How they want all buildings to be smoke free, that private restaurants be smoke free despite what the owner wants, that public-open-air parks be smoke free?
They claim they are doing it for our own health. As if we are too stupid to know or make our own choices. Granted, that is what they don’t want us doing.
So, now comes along E-Cigs. No fumes, no tar, no smell. Should be embraced or at least accepted, right? Nope. Many places are now banning E-Cigs because of …. “health effects”.
One is planning a resolution to ban all E-Cigs on city properties and that includes open-air parks. The author says he hates the smell of them and wants to protect our children from their fumes.
I’ve started using an e-cig by Blu, helped me cut down a lot (it’s my only vice), and you can barely smell it as the user.
This tells you that this banning of cigs is not about protecting your health. It has always been about 1) attack on “big tobacco” and 2) controlling personal choice.