Why Do Academics Do It?

I read a very interesting post on a blog this evening about the Climate Change debate. Here is the link:


Of course, according to the Climate Control zealots there is no debate. The science is settled. The author of the above post asked why it is that the zealots, who have all the big guns, are so worried about small blogs, which have no weapons to speak of at all, if they have all that power? Why do  the zealots have to attack every dissenting voice with all the force that they have available?

It can only be because their case is very weak.

I don’t intend to go into the matter of global warming – read the article. It is claims of consensus which intrigue me – claims like “95% of scientists agree”. I wonder what scientists they are talking about. If they mean ALL scientists, I would ask what self-respecting scientist would put his name to a ‘consensus’ which is outside his own field, the subject of which he knows nothing about? So the reality is almost certainly that the ‘95%’ means ‘me and my mates’ – those climate ‘scientists’ who have been collaborating over a period of many years.

But why do they do it?

I think that it is much the same as Tobacco Control. TC goes back as far as King James 1, as we know, along with other ‘Kings’, ‘Sultans’, ‘Imams’ and whatever.

I think that it all starts with someone having a bee in his bonnet. For example, in the case of Richard Doll, he was a communist in his youth. I have no doubt that he seethed with anger when he thought about the way that Big Industry exploited people. His anger, at the time, would have been directed at all Big Industries. He had a cause. Later, he would realise that Big Industries are here to stay, and direct his ire at the owners, and militate for better conditions for the workers. He would become a Socialist. But some industries were still anathema – tobacco is one. Not only do Tobacco Companies exploit workers, but they also cause death and destruction.

He finds that there are others who share the same ideals. Somehow or other, he gets a Rockefeller scholarship. Pre WW2, he visits Germany and links with the anti-tobacco zealots there. After the war, he joins up with Hill, and so the semi-secret attack on Big Tobacco begins. First, the quick ‘Hospital Study’ as proof of concept (that more smokers get lung cancer than non-smokers), and then the Doctors Study. That study was funded by the British Health Council (or whatever), but where did the Council get its money from?

At the same time, and consequent upon the collapse of Prohibition in the USA (including tobacco), the USA clique of Zealots began studies of their own. Not quite the same studies, but with the objective of ‘proving’ that smoking causes LC. All these studies were coordinated.


And so the first Surgeon General of the USA’s report on smoking and health appeared in 1964. That was the result of the USA studies and a couple of others. The Doctors Study was ‘in reserve’. Doll admitted that the original intention of the Doctors Study was not to go beyond around 1970. I suppose that the Doctors Study was the basis of the Royal College of Physicians anti-tobacco blast of 1972.


But nothing much happened. I remember reading that Prime Minister McMillan was not happy about acting against tobacco. He said (something like), “What is the point of losing billions in tax in order to keep people alive from 82 years old to 84 years old?” I don’t know if that is true or not, but it shows, if true, why Tobacco Prohibition is proceeding in small, incremental steps. At the time, politicians were not prepared to take steps to ban tobacco.


So we see how the present pursuit of Tobacco Prohibition is proceeding at a snails pace.

We may have arrived at an answer to our question of why academics do it. It is because it is a nice little earner. There is nothing else. They care little or nothing about Public Health. They are onto a good thing.

Doll did care. He seethed at the iniquities of Big Business. But that is not the case now. Now, there is a new industry on the block – the Tobacco Control Industry. It is just as much a Global Industry as is the Tobacco Industry, and to be a ‘big wheel’ in that industry is very remunerative.


Will it end?

It must end, eventually, and not necessarily when tobacco is prohibited. It is a case of ‘diminishing returns’. We are seeing this effect in the USA. The Master Settlement (which was an agreement between the tobacco companies and the States, don’t forget) provided lots of new money to States which tobacco control expected to fund their venom. Now, more and more States are using that money to prop up their budgets. Very little of it is going to TC. In fact, many States have foolishly mortgaged those receipts in return for loans. Now, some of them are in trouble because the expected returns are vanishing as people stop smoking. That was not part of the plan.

Is that why ecigs are being attacked with such venom? I think so. Tobacco Control will die out due to diminishing returns causing the curtailment of funding. Other exigences will take over. Sugar anyone? Salt anyone? It may take some time, but, eventually, someone in the Treasury will say, “Hang on. When I tot up the costs of all these ‘charities’, including industry costs, I get a figure far greater than the ‘health’ savings. If fact, all these costs have resulted in no NHS savings at all”.

Because that is the truth. ‘Non-communicable diseases’ are an attribute of old age. It does not matter whether people smoke or not. Eventually, they will die from ‘non-communicable diseases’, if they do not die from ‘communicable diseases’ beforehand.


Climate Change is exactly the same essentially. It started as anti Big Business interests and gradually morphed into a form of Health. However, the Health is the health of the planet. Big Coal, Big Oil, Big Gas, will make the planet unhealthy. There is the cause, and there is the entry gate for the charlatans.

Politicians these days are ignorant. The days of knowledgeable politicians, like Enoch Powell, are long gone. Lots of MPs have come out of universities, done some time as researchers or whatever, and then been parachuted into constituencies. This system depends upon voters voting in a habitual manner.

It cannot last. Theoreticians describe ‘social mobility’ in economic terms. I think that there is appearing a different outlook. Most people just want a decent living wage and a decent home. That is all. The rich can go hang. They do not matter.

Ideas are changing. For the most part, people simply want a pleasant, trouble-free life.


The anti-tobacco crowd have created trouble. The ‘global warming’ crowd have created trouble. Isn’t the purpose of the United Nations to prevent trouble? The stench of corruption is becoming intolerable.

Weird, is it not that Cameron, Clegg and Miliband do not see it. They do not see the inherent corruption in the EU or Climate Change or tobacco control or the UN.

There is no need for a referendum. Just stop giving them our money. Stop giving the FCTC organisation our money. Stop giving the the UN our money. Stop giving the Global Warming crowd our money. Stop giving the EU our money.

It is easy.



%d bloggers like this: