The BBC put out another of its propaganda pieces recently. I didn’t watch it because there is no point. It’s the BBC. It’s not going to be in any way unbiased, and the programme’s content could be predicted in its entirety from a summary paragraph. Even the title, ‘Burning Desire’, allows one to generate the entire script armed with just those two words and the knowledge that it is aboiut smokers. Not about tobacco. Smokers.
Others have watched it and nicely shredded its vicious message already.
Australian antismokers are in overdrive now. They are really pushing very, very hard with thieir fake science and fabricated facts. Why now?
Junican has the answer – the Australian government is ‘unpopular’ because it is no longer wasting taxpayer’s money on a bunch of control freak wasters. They have cut the feed to Tobacco Control’s free trough and are only funding real science now.
The Beast is hungry and that makes it even more delusional than it was already. It believes we share in its delusions so it has released more fake science to back up its previous nonsense.
They declare that they now have proof that third hand smoke causes cancer in (wait for it) …the cheeeldren.
Third hand smoke is a magical substance that is created when second hand smoke reacts with indoor air. To accept this as fact you have to be stupid enough to believe that a) indoor air is not the same as outdoor air (hint: unless you have an airlock, outdoor air gets in when you open your door) and b) something that has already been burned can react with air in the absence of any flame or catalyst.
They used to teach in school that indoor air is almost 80% nitrogen and it’s very hard to get nitrogen to react with anything at all. Of the remaining 21% or so, almost all of it is oxygen and that has already reacted with the tobacco when it burned. It took an open flame to start that reaction, yet we are to believe that a wisp of mythical second hand smoke at room temperature can react spontaneously with the air – without exploding.
The very concept is so easy to debunk that it’s hardly worth mentioning and yet the tobacco control loons get this stuff into peer reviewed journals! There can be only one conclusion.
Peer review is now meaningless and science is dead. Science has more of the paranormal about it than any religion ever devised.
Stewart Cowan gets a lot of stick for his beliefs but what is science based on now? There is more credibility in a one-man religion called the Church of the Militant Elvis than there is in science now. I don’t believe what Stewart believes although I do support his right to believe it. He might be right or wrong, I don’t know and frankly don’t much care. He is not threatening to blow up planes or behead unbeleivers so as far as I am concerned, his beliefs are entirely his business. I am not interested in trying to change them.
Science was not – and should never have been allowed to become – a vehicle for a bunch of crazed control freaks to push their beliefs on the rest of us. It’s no different to having the Scientologists lecturing in universities on the reality of Xenu and government grants paying for their daft Thetan test boxes. Really. No different at all.
Science has become religion now. You have to believe in what the high priests say or you will be damned. The only difference is that your damnation comes not in the next life but in this one.
It’s a shame, as a scientist, to watch it all fall to such a depraved level. When I started out it was all so honest and open. You had an idea, you applied for a grant to study the idea and if the ones with money thought it was a good idea, they stumped up the cash for you to try it out. We didn’t care about the money as such, that was just a means to an end. What we cared about – all we cared about – was the knowledge. Science used not to be a highly paid job, you know. It didn’t matter. We only wanted enough to live on and to buy or build the gadgetry for our experiments. Money was not something we knew much about (and at least one of us [ahem] seriously buggered up by ignoring the earn/spend equation).
Now all the scientists care about is the money. They’ll make up any old shit to get it. Knowledge? Who needs it? They’d rather have a Porsche.
The Australian government are now trying to fix this destruction of the scientific way. They are forerunners in the return of proper science to the world. Once, the UK was in the innovation/invention/discovery game in a really big way. Now it’s Australia who will take the lead in innovation while we thrash about like mediaeval peasants looking for witches to blame.
The Cleggeron Coagulation are just going to let that happen. They are going to go ahead with the plain-packs shite that was the final straw for Australia.
Let’s hope it’s the final straw here too. Then we can get back to real science and inventing wild and bizarre things too.
If it happens in time I’d even consider going back to science. As it stands, there is nothing worth going back to.
underdogs bite upwards 
Yeah. I had the same ‘science as religion’ idea a while ago. I thought it was funny how a bunch of ‘science’ types are running around basically saying ‘don’t believe in God, believe in what we say instead’. God created everything or, there was a really big bang and everything was created out of nothing. Just two different ways to describe the same thing. The problems arise when some twat decides to use one or the other to control every other fucker.
I’ll bet God just laughs his almighty bollocks off at all this. Life, the universe and everything – the original reality show.
LikeLike
It all sort of discredits the funadmentalist atheists, doesn’t it? When science is no more credible than reigion, where do you turn?
It took years to set up and it was no accident.
LikeLike
I like When Atheists Attack! A good one is where they talk about the human eye and if that’s ‘intelligent design’ then why does it have a blind spot? Like God’s not allowed to use ‘undocumented features’. Besides, it was pretty much corrected in the software.
LikeLike
Hmm. I agree. The eye is not a great argument against ‘intelligent design’. How about haemorrhoids?
LikeLike
As a fellow scientist (geneticist) I feel your pain. But don’t give up on it just yet. There are charlatans in every field, and yes there is bad science. But there is a lot of good science and scientists too. What’s all this about a Porsche? What field of science pays that well? Bugger, I can just afford to keep my knackered VW on the road.
LikeLike
If you don’t believe in Global Warming you are damned, as well as damned stupid.
PS. Have Smokers been blamed for Global Warming yet?
LikeLike
“Science has become religion now. You have to believe in what the high priests say or you will be damned. The only difference is that your damnation comes not in the next life but in this one.” Absolutely.
<==Nutrition skeptic.
LikeLike
“I don’t believe what Stewart believes although I do support his right to believe it. He might be right or wrong, I don’t know and frankly don’t much care. He is not threatening to blow up planes or behead unbeleivers so as far as I am concerned, his beliefs are entirely his business. I am not interested in trying to change them.”
That’s how it was up until a few years ago and we all seemed to all get on with each other pretty much hunky dorilly (except in Glasgow, where the religious wings of the football clubs Rangers and Celtic, both supposedly ‘Christian’ (haha), detested each other (and I used to be party to that while growing up – I actually believed Celtic supporters and Catholics to be sub-human).
Then along came political correctness and also a new kid on the religious block: fundamental atheism, which some evolution scientists admit is a religion. Then the intolerance grew exponentially. The atheist minority looks down on everyone else, believing them to be sub-human and therefore ripe for obeying the ways of the atheist, whose ‘god’ is science and whose high priests are scientists, who of course, are never wrong, as we know, whether on climate change or smoking (to give readers of this blog something to relate to).
Piltdown Man (supposedly a ‘missing link’) fooled ‘experts’ for over 40 years when it was just parts of a human skull with the lower jawbone of an orang-utan.
Duh!
Now what the ‘experts’ do is pretty similar, but even weirder. They collect fragments of bone from many miles apart and insist they came from the same ‘hominid’ and get an artist with a vivid imagination to draw a creature which looks half ape and half human. And people still fall for it.
For further information, I have been debating with Flaxen Saxon on the thread of two posts ago.
Perhaps the most interesting quote is one I just discovered yesterday while reading about Max Planck, who won a Nobel prize for originating quantum theory. He said,
“As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.”
So, Leggy, if I am right, und Herr Planck ist richtig, it matters one Hell of a lot. Literally.
LikeLike
Just read your comment on Anna’s page suggesting a factory reset. Genius! Get those soppy Jesus loves you posters down and get Divine Tech Support up on the boards!
LikeLike
I no longer waste my time arguing with arrogant ‘atheists’ who think they’re superior to everyone else.
My comment at Anna’s was in regard to the spread of Fabian ideology as you well know, but you people like to confuse issues and get nasty because it’s all you have.
I sincerely pity you.
LikeLike
Stewart as an atheist, scientist and unabashed rationalist I would like to challenge your view of atheists. Atheists only share one belief in common- a lack of belief in deities; that’s it. Some atheists are notoriously communist, some are fascists. Some are morally good, some morally bad. Most, like many folk, are of mixed character and lie somewhere in between. The common view, amongst many people of religion is that we are all froth mouthed fanatics dedicated to destroying religion and religious beliefs. I detest fanaticism in all its manifestations. Personally, I believe that folk should have the freedom to believe in whatever they want. I am not out to prothelise, convert, or burn churches.
Science is often wrong, but unlike religious dogma, at least if it is to remain good science, is self-correcting and open to progressive change.
LikeLike
Erm, ‘the debate is over’? Maybe ‘good science’ needs to step up and make more noise.
LikeLike
The problem is that good science is often not news worthy. Ain’t dat the sad truth?
LikeLike
Flaxen – there is no right and wrong outside of religion. To re-quote Dawkins:
“The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.”
And ‘atheists’ think they have a monopoly on rationality for some reason. In fact (and no offence), I class atheism as a mental illness. It is a denial which produces inner turmoil (hence the rudeness). It makes a person assume they are superior. The most stupid of people are suddenly deluded into believing they are more intelligent than I am. It would be funny if it wasn’t so dangerous for the majority.
LikeLike
Stewart, surely you are not advocating that all atheists are mad. That is insanity itself. Tis true I’m a bit odd and right off centre but my psychiatrist has signed a piece of paper to say I’m ‘mentally fit’ to return to society, How many sane people can claim that?
LikeLike
To be fair, I know nobody I would consider totally sane. ‘Atheists’ aren’t all mad per se, but if you consider that delusion is a mental condition, then that is what I meant. The delusion lies in the belief that discarding the Almighty magically increases one’s intelligence. I would like to see the evidence!
Also, you seem to believe that atheism makes you more rational. Does that make Max Planck irrational and all his work of no effect?
What about the Christians I named yesterday: “Newton, Boyle, Kepler, Faraday and far too many more to mention”?
LikeLike
I think, Stewart, that to label atheists as ‘delusional’ is verging on the fanatical. I consider myself an atheist insofar as I can deduce no rationality in any of the organised religions, and the fact that they all claim to be The One True Religion further muddies the water. Faith in what somebody else has conceptualised doesn’t do it for me. It’s just dogma. My wife was brought up in the Theravada Buddhist faith, where reincarnation is a given. Can you really say that what millions of Theravadic Buddhists believe is wrong, and that your version of God is right? How can you justify that? And what about the Muslims? Are they all wrong too?
I’m quite open minded about the whole affair, and if I was to witness some manifestation of ‘God’, I’d be happy to accept it. But not bound up in all the mumbo-jumbo of ritualistic shamanism that is religion as we know it. I see that as a crutch for people to lean on; a sort of celestial insurance policy.
I don’t, however, condemn those who choose religion as a way of life. If that’s what suits them, then good luck to them. One of my sons (in Aus) is what I suppose you would call a ‘born-again’ Christian. Fine. It suits him and his family, and gives structure to their lives. But I consider his choice no more superior than my godless one. And I certainly don’t think I’m ‘delusional’ or ‘in denial’. I just remain to be convinced.
LikeLike
Point of order. One can believe in “God” without believing in a particular religion. For example, I’ve found that I prefer to create my own as I go, not trusting scientists to be unbiased in their reports of the universe. I don’t actually trust language to be unbiased. If you can find me a Bible that is written in language that doesn’t have bias and I can understand that language, I’m already disappointed. I think there is a big difference between begin anti-religion and atheist. I’m not anti-religion or atheist, I’m just a writer, and therefore understand all too well how language frames bias, with Dawkin’s language being particularly suited for framing and bias.
LikeLike
nisakiman – by delusional, I was referring to the real psychological phenomenon where people genuinely believe that simply by declaring themselves to be ‘atheists’ makes them more intelligent and ‘free-thinking’.
On Dawkins’ FB page I have never seen so many utter fools exhibiting their ignorance both of science and scripture while condemning me in the foulest of language for dissing their religion and spiritual leader. I had to unsubscribe in the end to preserve my sanity!
I didn’t think that Buddhists believe in god(s) as such. Not by name, anyway. If you have an open mind then you’ll hopefully find the real God. There was only one Creator.
“I’m quite open minded about the whole affair, and if I was to witness some manifestation of ‘God’, I’d be happy to accept it. But not bound up in all the mumbo-jumbo of ritualistic shamanism that is religion as we know it. I see that as a crutch for people to lean on; a sort of celestial insurance policy.”
The evidence of creation is all around us. Life is so complex that there can be no excuse for not dismissing the Theory of Evolution for a while at least and thinking about the alternative.
I haven’t been to a church in about four years because I think they’ve all lost the plot.
The ‘crutch’ accusation is very common. Oftentimes (I love that word) the opposite seems true. For example, you want to sin but are (usually) prevented!
To believe Islam you have to accept Muhammad’s word that he had that ‘flight’ and the warmongering alleged paedophile became the last great prophet. That seems to be Islam sussed for me! No disrespect to people who are Muslims. I was a Mormon for a short time (the missionaries started visiting me during my decade of alcoholism – they tend to snare people when they’re weak).
After being detoxed, I started thinking again and realised it was a horrible heresy based on Freemasonry, not Christianity.
The answers are out there – and inside you.
LikeLike
I always imagine that all scientists everywhere – even the good ones – live in this place.
The decent ones are quietly boffining away behind the scenes in the basement somewhere, while the real batshit fruitloop ones are up on the roof…
LikeLike
If I may comment, tentatively.
Since God does not appear in the night sky, as some sort of ‘hologram’, at 9pm, to gives us Earthlings the ‘Nine o’clock Heavenly News’, then there must be a reason that he does not. The most obvious reason is that it is not possible. There are two (or more!) reasons that it is not possible. One is that ‘eternity’ and ‘perfection’ are ideas which we can accept, but that we cannot possibly really understand. That is because we are tied to material bodies and brains and also that we have, as a matter of fact, free will. There are those who say that ‘free will’ is a delusion and that we are ‘driven’ by instinct and emotion. That may be true, but it is a matter of fact that calculation of the motion of the planets is a purely intellectual matter. Newton gained nothing that was instinctively or emotionally of value by working out the mathematical equations involved, other than, perhaps, some joy when he succeeded. But did he undertake the endeavour to gain that joy? That is the crucial idea. It could be so. Or was it simply a matter of curiosity? Curiosity is an attribute of animals, just as it is of humans. The difference is that animal curiosity is physical, whereas human curiosity can be intellectual.
Is there such a thing as ‘intellectual food’? And is it physical?
As a result of the complexities stated above and others, the only sensible position for those who chose not to be ‘religious’ is to be agnostic. To ‘believe’ that there is no deity is just as much a matter of faith as is to ‘believe’ that there is.
LikeLike
“To ‘believe’ that there is no deity is just as much a matter of faith as is to ‘believe’ that there is.” Rubbish! Atheists do not ‘believe that there is no deity’, they do not believe that there is one. World of difference. Not believing something is not a matter of faith.
LikeLike
Sorry Edgar, I disagree.
This case is black or white. One is either dead or not dead. One cannot be half dead.
Either there is a deity or there is not. Atheists believe that there is not, but since they cannot prove it, it must be ‘a faith’.
LikeLike
I am an Agnostic. I hope this helps.
LikeLike