re: #15 Aceofwhat?

Forgive me for being obtuse, but i read the article at the link and didn’t see anything about smoking - but clearly you all know what Charles intended to mean through the link. Would someone remedy my ignorance here?

thanks-

The article is a fluff piece by Malkin for TASSC, which, I guess, is a science-denier group that previously ‘taught the controversy’ with regards to Big Tobacco, and now does the same for climate change. It’s unsurprising to see Michelle Malkin advocating for such folks, but I agree, the link and controversy therein in and of themselves seems very tenuous.

I have, however, long noted that the climate deniers bear striking similarity to big tobacco deniers. It wasn’t so long ago that Rush Limbaugh was making the health effects of tobacco a political issue, and had people calling his show telling him how proud they were to be a smoker. Politicising matters of science, whether it be tobacco or vaccination, is a very dangerous thing, especially in this ridiculous age of media equivocation where every idiotic assertion is ‘one side of an issue’ that ‘has to be presented equally’.