smoking scientists discredited

It sounded like a good debate to watch -- Gore's Inconvenient Truth v. Durkin's Global Warming Swindle -- but Lottie was gobsmacked when one of the debating panellists attempted to destroy the life work of an eminent scientist by saying, shock horror, that the man was a smoker and had published a paper debunking second hand smoke.

"Imagine the furore if he had said, instead, that the scientist was a Muslim and had published papers, say,debunking the medical benefits of alcohol," says Lottie. "Since when have scientists been forbidden to be smokers, Muslims or anything they want to be -- and publish papers accordingly?"

"I fully expected the panellists to shred to pieces each other's pro and anti global warming theories," says Lottie, "but I didn't expect a debate between so-called science intellectuals to sink into a personal attack and especially so when the man whose personal habits were being attacked wasn't there to defend himself."

"To their credit, or perhaps not, the other panellists ignored this personal attack and kept strictly to the global warming debate," says Lottie, "and it did not surprise me one bit when I checked this guy out later and discovered he was employed by the government, being paid from taxpayer funds."

"His remark came in the context of a personal interview he once had with the eminent scientist -- oops, the filthy, dirty, nicotine stained, cancer riddled, moronic smoker -- and this guy actually counted the number of cigarettes the scientist had smoked in his presence."

"Hopefully, the scientist had politely asked his guest whether he minded if he smoked -- and naturally the guy would have said, okay, because he was, after all, a guest in the private space of a smoker -- and in this convivial environment the scientist relaxed, talked and smoked. Not twenty cigarettes, not ten but three lousy cigarettes."

"OMG, for the poor guy to have actually counted the cigarettes smoked he must have been incredibly uncomfortable and fearful of dropping dead on the spot from second hand smoke," laughs Lottie. "If so, why didn't he object straight off on the smoking issue or suggest that they go outside?"

"No, he sat there, pretending to be friendly and interested in what the scientist had to say but all he wanted was a reason to discredit the man," sighs Lottie. "What a jerk!"

"Had the scientist slugged three whiskeys, or ate three chocolate eclairs or scratched his backside three times would that have discredited him, too?" asks Lottie. "Probably. That guy was hell bent on finding something not quite kosher about the scientist in order to discredit his anti-global warming stance, and a smoking habit and support for the rights of smokers was it."

"The global warming debate was, of course, inconclusive -- neither side was able to convince the other, or the audience -- but I did pick up some facts about scientific research funding that made me understand not only how global warming came to be such a big issue but also how cigarette smoking got such a bad rap."

"Apparently, because the clique of global gnomes who rule the world behind the scenes have two pet hates -- smokers and rising third world polluters, China being a threat on both counts -- the word went out to the puppet western governments to stamp them out."

"Second hand smoke and global warming were quickly invented for this purpose," says Lottie,"and a mass of funding became available to any researcher willing to give credibility to these invented hazards."

"That's why there is now an avalanche of literature in medical and scientific journals about the hazards of smoking -- and very little about any of the terrible diseases that continue to plague us," sighs Lottie. "Our governments deliberately reduced the funding available for the diseases that the researchers wanted to study, and the only way the medicos and scientists could get around this was by linking whatever they wanted to research with smoking."

"Do a search of PubMed and the number of articles linking the most esoteric diseases to smoking is a joke," says Lottie. "I don't blame the researchers -- because it's clear from their articles what their real passion is -- but it is nevertheless an abominable way for our governments to manipulate researchers."

"Similarly, there is now an avalanche of literature in all types of journals about the hazards of global warming," says Lottie, "and if more scientists appear to support Al Gore it is only because they are the ones getting the big funds to do so."

"The politicizing of science -- like the politicizing of other so-called independent bodies -- is an abomination similar to the crazy religious climate in which Galileo worked and suffered," says Lottie. "An avalanche of government funded research does NOT represent conclusive evidence of anything other than politcal interference."

"While I remain undecided about climate change, I nevertheless applaud the maverick scientists who went out on a limb -- some with threats on their lives believe it or not -- in order to present publicly an opposing theory," says Lottie. "I applaud them not because I smoke -- or because some of them, apparently, have also presented an opposing theory to the hazards of second hand smoke -- but because science would not be science without dissent and scepticism."

"If today's 'politically correct' science community is encouraged to discredit the work of a fellow scientist on the basis of a personal smoking habit," says Lottie, "then what is it going to do about the work, for instance, of Albert Einstein, and how is it going to attract brilliant young minds with attitude?"

"Undoubtedly, after the debate the panellists retired to a lounge where, awash with alcohol and whatever other drug was being used, a convivial atmosphere prevailed," sighs Lottie. "I hope they didn't relax too much because who knows who was COUNTING and storing this information for a future discrediting."