File this one under, hey, how did we miss that? Time reports that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has ruled that cars belch CO2 and CO2 causes global warming and global warming will kill us all later soon. In other words, “On March 20, the EPA sent what is called an “endangerment finding” to the White House, a proposal that means the agency found that there is a scientific case that man-made global warming poses a threat to human welfare.” A threat to welfare! How can government exist without welfare? Anyway . . . “By concluding that greenhouse gases pose a threat to human welfare, the EPA’s finding could lay the groundwork for nationwide regulation of CO2 emissions — just as the EPA is require to regulate pollutants like smog-causing sulfur dioxide.” So, cars?
While the EPA has so far been silent about how it might actually regulate CO2 — and the endangerment finding is only an early step in a process that could take a year or longer — environmentalists say it’s difficult to imagine that the agency would attempt to control every possible source of greenhouse gas emissions. “People running the EPA have common sense,” says Frank O’Donnell, head of the environmental group Clean Air Watch. “They’re going to focus the efforts on the biggest sources” like the auto industry and the utility sector.
Lucky auto sector, then.
The EPA will forbid all human beings and all other warm blooded species from exhaling CO2. I plan to hold my breath until I turn blue.
Please inform yourself and watch:
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=the+great+global+warming+swindle&emb=0&aq=0&oq=the+great+glo#
“Global Warming” is nothing more than a political agenda to further regulate and to tax everything you eat and touch. It is designed to CONTROL you. You are subservient to their “agenda”…their mind-warping global agenda.
Hey, if it’s a “global problem”…we need a “global solution“….that is, a global regulating body…ie, global government.
Why..we need a threat…one which involves everyone on the planet!!!…so we come in and propose the “solution”.
Get it? Problem, Reaction, Solution.
Are you prepared to pay a “global warming tax” on each and every hamburger you eat?…payable to some unelected body at the United Nations?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2163964/posts
Trust me, this is on the plate (literally) too. And if they can tax cows, they can and will pursue your next unborn child…after all, he / she will be exhaling that deadly poison called CO2.
Taxing childbirth will be delayed only until Asimo becomes sentient…
Mark Steyn said it best.
In the East they flat tax. In the West, they tax flatulence.
If the EPA and Time Magazine both agree on global warming, then the only logical conclusion is that global COOLING is going to emerge as the new crisis-du-jour within the next ten minutes or so.
Excuse me, but I’ve got an appointment to go buy a Hummer…
Now passersby can get a free Hello Kitty tattoo
I’ve been saying this global warming this was just another way for the powers-that-be to try to control EVERYTHING for years.
Here’s yet more information supporting that:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92557
(It does appear to be down right now; at least I can’t get wnd to come up on my computer tonight; in fact quite a lot is not working on the web for me at home tonight) (Last time this happened, it was 9/11, which gives me a bit of pause…)
Wow, our CO2 emmisions have extended all the way to Mars:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
Oh my gawd, we must be stopped.
Uh, the EPA Carbon Registry (funded in Obama’s 2010 budget)only covers “13,000 facilities, accounting for about 85% to 90% of greenhouse gases emitted in the country,” according to the wackos at the WSJ.
“The EPA said the new reporting requirements would apply to suppliers of fossil fuel and industrial chemicals, manufacturers of motor vehicles and engines, as well as large direct emitters of greenhouse gases with emissions equal to or greater than a threshold of 25,000 metric tons a year, which is roughly equivalent to the annual greenhouse gas emissions from just over 4,500 passenger vehicles.
The vast majority of small businesses would not be required to report their emissions because their emissions fall well below the threshold, the agency said.
The direct emission sources covered under the reporting requirement would include energy intensive sectors such as cement production, iron and steel production, and electricity generation, and other energy-intensive operations.”
Anyway, the auto industry doesn’t appear to be in the sights… for the moment. There are fears that the Clean Air Act is too blunt an instrument and that things will get out of control, but I wouldn’t worry too much about a one-world government just yet.
Im sorry but methane (CH4) is a bigger contributor to global warming… we should be able to drive fast cars but NOT eat beef. People need to realize that becoming vegetarian will let them live longer -and- save the planet. Leaving us more time to drive twin turbo cars!
Anyone who has bought a hybrid would do better to go vegetarian.
Way to go Rastus. Hegelian dialectic. Problem, reaction, solution.
So here we are, March 23. Spring bulbs are popping out of the ground, trees are beginning to bud, about 3 weeks early. Year after year, 30 years of my life when I was aware, spring consistently comes earlier than it used to, heating season starts later…warmer than normal weather outnumbers colder than normal by 2:1. I don’t need Al Gore or Rush Limbaugh to tell me the times are a-changin…I can see it with my own eyes. What this means in the future we can debate all day, but as to the actual happening, it’s already well under way.
Jayparry ya, but you just move the CH4 production to people… ever have to sit in a meeting room next to a vegetarian? To quote someone “hipper” then me…
“You can’t cut the cheese wherever you please… that was NASTY!”
Doesn’t the earlier arrival of spring, the later start of winter, and lower winter temps mean that the winter is shorter and cooler, and that we burn less fuel to keep our caves warm? Don’t longer growing seasons mean that we can grow more food to feed more people? Then we can tax more births … oops, guess that doesn’t save the planet any better … Oh Asimo, please hurry-up, the planet can’t wait forever for your “I think, therefore I am” moment to come…
Rastus, you need to get “the facts” on “the Great Global Warming Swindle.” The producer skewed the science something wonderful to get the results he wanted. It was a hack job, pure and simple.
—
golden2husy, Obama was filmed in front of flowering trees the other day for a 60 minutes segment. Seems awfully early for that.
For my part, it seems to me that I am not scraping ice from the car windows as often as I once did, nor are the dews on the car anywhere near as heavy as 20 years ago, when I moved to our current home. This seems to me to the the most interesting confirmation of the basic science of ACC – the increased CO2 content doesn’t let the atmosphere form heavy dews and frosts as often as it once did. When we first moved here, scraping a heavy frost from the car windows in the morning was a given. Nowadays, I just look out the window and see that I generally have time for a second cup of coffee.
Lets start with the idea that data can be manipulated to say whatever the granting agency and publishing journal need it to say.
http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2008/sep/11/global-warming-may-bring-cooler-summers-near-not/
Pacific Decadal Oscillations and North Atlantic Oscillations, amoung others, create higher and lower pressure zones and warmer and cooler zones, and wetter and drier zones. Any sort of climate change – decadal, yearly, or even millenial, can exaccerbate or temper these zones to make the warmer areas warmer or less warm, and the cooler areas even cooler or less cool.
Which zone of the NAO and PDO are you golden2husy and Kixstart? Maybe we can figure out what is happening that is making your areas warmer?
Thank God the EPA is going after Congress in an attempt to regulate all that CO2 emissions going on over there.
What most conspiracy theory people fail to realize is that congress does not need climate change to further tax you and dictate what kind of car you drive.
Congress already has the power to do that without the need to convince people that the climate is changing.
Safety regs have done more to influence the type of car you drive more than climate change ever will.
-ted
So here we are, March 23. Spring bulbs are popping out of the ground, trees are beginning to bud, about 3 weeks early. Year after year, 30 years of my life when I was aware, spring consistently comes earlier than it used to, heating season starts later…warmer than normal weather outnumbers colder than normal by 2:1.
All those early flowers and green leaves are a conspiracy to convince the electorate to bow to the jackboots of the liberal elite. Al Gore has bribed the plants of the world with carbon dioxide from his big ass jet. The ultimate goal: To Michael Moore in control of GM. I saw the whole dastardly plan revealed in an Internet video.
I definitely remember a few days in Chicago this winter where I didn’t feel the need to wear my warmest coat.
Home sale numbers are showing some improvement.The bears are sniffing around Wall street once more.
REJOICE! Folks break out the bubbly, its official the recession is over!
The Global Warming people have returned!!
jschaef841: Yes, in the middle of what was the coldest winter in what, 15 years? Does that mean we had a few days of global warming interspersed with months of global cooling?
darkwing: We can’t let a few inconvenient facts get in the way of our little Climate Chaos alarmist scheme. Just point out that such data was funded by Big Oil and manipulated by right wing, nut job deny-ers! Take pictures of melting ice. Show video of polar bears swimming. There are agendas to push and riches to redistribute!
jschaef841: Yes, in the middle of what was the coldest winter in what, 15 years?
Agnotology. Agnotolgy. Agonotology!
The winter here in Texas was, as the ‘new normal’, much hotter than the historical record. That’s why they measure global temperatures to look at climate, you geniuses.
Next up: Cigarettes are good for you! All that ‘science’ was just a liberal conspiracy!
Where, oh, where are the voices of reason? Does the preponderance of scientific thought mean nothing to this readership? And if so, then whom do they choose as their authorities? As their guides? Of course, experts do sometimes disagree, and sometimes the majority of them can be wrong. But should a layman presume to second-guess their collective wisdom? Especially when the second-guessers enter the fray with the shallowest of scientific training? To question is the hallmark of scientific inquiry certainly, but the questioning must be grounded in a substantial knowledge. The commenters’ opinionions about cars strike me as much more persuasive than those concerning global warming.
Jeff Waingrow – you’re obviously part of the grand conspiracy of scientists and socialists. Shame on you. What job have you been promised, in the new World Government?
Explain this then – why was it so cold yesterday? I had to wear my woolly hat. Everyone knows global warming means it will be warmer, not colder. Can’t answer can you? That’s all the evidence I need, buddy.
Scientists; not worth nothing. You can take your models, your simulations, your peer-reviewed papers, your correlations, your historical data, and your commie caveated conclusions – it’s all nonsense. I get my science the proper way – with politics and tinfoil.
cheers
Malcolm
Jeff Waingrow: I don’t think a healthy skepticism of “proof by authority” is ever detrimental, particularly when those authority figures stand to benefit significantly from a result rather than the research itself. But yes, the religious “damn liberals” vs. “ACC deniers are nuts” debates are fruitless.
I think you may be conflating the legitimate scientific consensus with the climate change fad of the moment. They’re quite different, but unfortunately that distinction isn’t made clear.
Not flaming or anything, but could we actually use serious sources when discussing global warming, as opposed to extremist websites such as Free Republic? The B&B had me used to a higher level of debating.
Especially when links are followed by rants about a great worldwide conspiracy. Please.
There was no great neocon conspiracy led by Cheney to control the Middle-East and the world, and there’s no UN-led commie-liberal conspiracy using global warming to take over the world either.
Now the funny thing about global warming can be simplified in one word: “hedging”. You know, lie taking an insurance, that sort of things. If there’s a risk that your house may one day burn down, you will most likely insure it. And yet, we shouldn’t do anything about global warming. At all. Even if there is just a CHANCE that it is happening, why not do something about it? It’s not as if conserving natural resources in the face of a rapidly mercantilizing world with increasing population levels would be a bad idea, now is it?
Whenever I hear about global warming I always think of what alarmists of the past said and notice how wrong they were. And then I see that it’s the same people or disciples of those people who are pushing the global warming agenda.
I have a BS in geology and can firmly say that the models these people are using are deeply flawed. The climate is never the same. While there are long term trends, during those trends, there are wild fluctuations. We haven’t been measuring climate long enough to tell if global warming is really a long term problem. And if it is a natural occurance or man-made one. 100 – 200 years is a blink of an eye for the Earth.
Of course, living in Michigan, I’m glad there is global warming. Otherwise, I would be living next to a three mile high glacier. Thank god those cave men invented fire to create that earlier global warming!
They say that now. Next week they’ll be giving carbon dioxide a bailout.
msmiles: “Which zone of the NAO and PDO are you golden2husy and Kixstart? Maybe we can figure out what is happening that is making your areas warmer?”
The frequency and amount of dews and frosts is directly related to how the atmosphere cools. If the atmosphere isn’t cooling as frequently to the dew point, dews and frosts will not form as often or as heavily.
This has little to do with decadal oscillations of anything… it’s directly related to how much heat the atmosphere allows to escape, which is, in part, dictated by the greenhouse gases.
Increased CO2 & CH4 => increased heat retention => less dew and frost.
Could I be imagining it? Perhaps. But our hours recently shifted and my wife usually leaves the house first nowadays. She routinely takes whichever car happens to be in the driveway and if she was scraping every day, I’d hear about it and she’d insist that I move the frost-coated car out of the way and let her take the one from the garage.
An alternative reason would be a change in the local heat island effect and, sure, we’re more built up than 20 years ago, but not remarkably so and there’s not much use of concrete and asphalt (no increase, locally, in roads).
I’ve had no luck finding a long-term series of observations on this. You can get the daily dew point history for most locations but whether or not dew/frost precipitate out overnight is another matter.
@AKM: Even if there is just a CHANCE that it is happening, why not do something about it?
I sure would, if I could find a way to trust the people who ostensibly would be the ones to “fix” things; frankly I don’t have much faith that the governments of the world would help – most likely the opposite would occur.
It’s not as if conserving natural resources in the face of a rapidly mercantilizing world with increasing population levels would be a bad idea, now is it?
While this statement on the face may make sense, doesn’t it encourage a lack of innovation? I’m pretty sure the auto industry has been pretty stagnant for almost a century with this focus on ICE – preserving resources so that they can continue doesn’t sound like a great idea… In the end, it’s all just philosophy…
I’ve already gone over this, not but a day or so ago, so I’m not going to rehash more than a few points:
moedaman: Whenever I hear about global warming I always think of what alarmists of the past said and notice how wrong they were. And then I see that it’s the same people or disciples of those people who are pushing the global warming agenda.
So who’s pushing back? Could it be—shockingly—people who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, if not lessening regulations?
Two sides to every story…
menno: I’ve been saying this global warming this was just another way for the powers-that-be to try to control EVERYTHING for years.
I never understood this. The green movement offers a pathetic amount of value for the dollar if what you want is control. I mean, it doesn’t make anyone any real money, it does allow you to crack down on dissent or thought, and it tends to favour the poor at the expense of the rich.
If you want to look at ways the powerful are extending control, the green movement is a pretty lame target. Now, the current paranoia about security, that’s far more 1984 than the green movement could ever hope to be. Heck, the push towards disenfranchising the middle class has a significantly better oppression-per-dollar ratio.
jayparry: Im sorry but methane (CH4) is a bigger contributor to global warming… we should be able to drive fast cars but NOT eat beef. People need to realize that becoming vegetarian will let them live longer -and- save the planet. Leaving us more time to drive twin turbo cars!
I’m assuming you’re joking, but you do know that methane from cows is part of the existing carbon cycle, and doesn’t incur a deficit, while burning sequestered carbon (petroleum) very much is.
Look, everyone. Here’s the deal:
1. The scientific community more or arrived at a consensus on this, and the talking points against it are really, really easy for anyone who wants to look to refute.
2. The costs of curtailing our impact on the environment are not insignificant, but they’re not insurmountable. The costs (social and economic) of not doing so are unpleasant and the scale not entirely understood.
So, why not hedge your bets on the side of people who want to minimize the damage, rather than side with the people who are trying to make a quick buck?
Because, when you scratch a skeptic, chances are they’re a skeptic because of two reasons; a) they’re a libertarian and resent any form of regulation (which is ok, it’s a philosophical thing) and the science is irrelevant or b) they don’t like Al Gore**, which is just knee-jerk ideological behavior.
** To be more elaborate: they don’t like that AGCC is being pushed by someone who isn’t “on their team”. They have to oppose it, just like I have to oppose the Montreal Canadiens.
I sure would, if I could find a way to trust the people who ostensibly would be the ones to “fix” things; frankly I don’t have much faith that the governments of the world would help – most likely the opposite would occur.
And you trust corporations to do the same? They’re worse than governments: you can’t control them, they have much more money and power and, this is important, you have even less control and they have even less accountability.
The market will not make a change unless there’s profit in doing so. There’s no profit in improving the environment until things have gotten so bad that you’re actually losing customers to pollution.** Similarly, there’s no profit in an uncorrupt military, a fair healthcare system, or publicly-accessible roads.
** If the market was allowed to deal with the environment, the result would be WALL-E.
I’m not so sure that an automotive web site is the best place for an informed debate about atmospheric science. I would, however, recommend not to base too much of your stance on this issue on videos you found on YouTube.
One doesn’t need an advanced degree in science to view apocolyptic claims with a healthy skepticism. This is especially true when there are radical policy proposals based on these theories that will dramatically transform society and standards of living.
Anthropogenic climate change is not a liberal vs. conservative philosophical argument. It either is or isn’t. And if it is, man is either able or unable to reverse it. There are many reputable scientists with studies and research that support ACC. There are other reputable scientists and studies that do not support this theory.
I’m not a knuckle-dragging neanderthal, incapable of understanding the science involved. But I won’t apologize for the cynicism well-earned by government and bureaucrats.
There are many reputable scientists with studies and research that support ACC. There are other reputable scientists and studies that do not support this theory.
The former vastly outnumber the latter. It’s not accurate to infer that there is broad disagreement within the scientific community, when the consensus is that climate change is occurring and is man made.
And not surprisingly, the skeptics tend to be on corporate payrolls and produce findings that are not subjected to peer review.
The only active debate over climate change is among laymen on the internet and talk radio. There is really little disagreement among those who actually study the subject. This is more like the creationists trying to fight in support of their Biblical views than it is a legitimate debate over facts and research.
The Bush administration went to great lengths to pretend that scientists are disputing this amongst themselves, but that was a baldfaced lie.
Well, okay, but when will the EPA finally start doing something about dangerous chemicals like hydrogen hydroxide? Don’t they care about how many people die due to hydrogen hydroxide poisoning every year?
And – fuel cell vehicles will produce even more hydrogen hydroxide!
Oh, the humanity!
Bruce
psarhjinian: There is so much more money in government. Have a look at US tax revenues. Then add its immense borrowings to the pile. What corporation compares? And what corporation can demand its revenues at the point of a gun?
And there’s plenty of money in the green movement. Had a look at the cap-and-trade proposal? Lots of corruption-inducing cash there!
I’m only saying we should keep a close eye on both government and corporations. Trust neither.
This is more like the creationists trying to fight in support of their Biblical views than it is a legitimate debate over facts and research.
Just to clarify: what that group does is push the idea that there’s a controversy, not push the idea itself. The former position is far more defensible, and far more effective (because it sows doubt without actually having a real, open debate) than the latter (because it’s patently silly). The Intelligent Design debate was notable in that what ID proponents were pushing for was not the teaching of ID in lieu or in addition to evolution, but to teach that there was a lack of scientific consensus on evolution.
This was the same tactic the tobacco industry used to sow doubt about whether or not cigarettes, and then second-hand smoke was harmful. It’s the same tactic that was used against seatbelts. It’s the same tactic that AGCC skpetics are using right now.
And it’s an intellectually dishonest tactic, at that.
psarhjinian: The green movement offers a pathetic amount of value for the dollar if what you want is control. I mean, it doesn’t make anyone any real money, it does allow you to crack down on dissent or thought, and it tends to favour the poor at the expense of the rich.
I think you have this exactly backwards:
* You get a direct production tax on nearly every traditional industry, plus a consumption tax on the vast majority of households — there’s huge money in that.
* I believe you painted your opponents as either nutty libertarians or Gore-haters, and that brush can paint pretty widely. Sounds anti-dissent to me.
* Production taxes, and even consumption taxes on staples, absolutely favor the rich over the poor. In this case, they’re horribly regressive, in that they increase the price of nearly every good and every service.
psharjinian: It’s the same tactic that was used against seatbelts.
The complaint was that they would jack up the cost of the car and that no one would wear them anyway. There wasn’t much disagreement about whether they would save lives if they were worn properly.
Which, until mandatory seat belt laws took hold in the 1980s, was true. We rarely wore them in the 1970s.
KixStart:
You commented about Obama’s appearance in front of “early” flowering trees, but in D.C. they were likely Cherry trees. The National Cherry Blossom festival in D.C. is Mar 28-Apr 12 to coincide with average “peak bloom” of Apr 4 (I assume average is calculated since the festival’s inception in 1912, but cannot verify). According to the fesitval’s website flowers are visible 12-17 days prior to peak bloom, which would have been within the past week. This would be perfectly average.
psarhjinian:
I think you oversimplify the skeptics’ perspectives. Also “skeptic” is been a large basket into which anyone resisting anti-AGCC legislative or regulatory efforts has been thrown which indicates to me the true intent of the AGCC true believers. There are skeptics who overtly state their belief that CO2 causes global warming but that we should spend our efforts dealing with this eventuality and shouldn’t do anything to avert the situation (Bjorn Lomberg). There are skeptics who state they believe the temperature has warmed but that we aren’t certain why (which I think is the most objective, factually-supported position). There are alternative modalities that have been demonstrated in the laboratory that explain significant portions of measured temperature increases (replacing CO2 as the cause). There are temperature measuring instruments that have been documented as having potential thermal offsets induced by surrounding objects that are in direct violation of the siting requirements (there’s a whole blog devoted almost exclusively to this). And the CO2’ers have some computer models that “prove” their theory. Now I’m an engineer; I’ve put together some computer models myself in the area of simple linear/static finite element analysis and I know all too well that it’s easy to make some mistake when defining inputs or limitations. Unless there is also data proving that your model reacts to a known forced input in the same manner the real thing does you cannot believe your model. Unfortunately (or fortunately?) we cannot bump atmospheric CO2 up or down by 100ppm to check implications. With more complicated (non-linear, dynamic) models you also have to remember correlation is not causation, past performance is no indication of future results, etc.
There is no debate: global warming is the grandest hoax of our time.
The global warming tree-huggers need to answer these questions:
1. How did the last 10 ice ages end?
2. What is the ‘correct’ temperature for the Earth?
3. If Al Gore said in 2003 that the oceans will rise 20″ in 100 years, where is that first inch of water that should be there by now?
4. Why are the temperatures of Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto all rising? Is it due to Republicans and SUVs?
5. Do you have a ‘solution’ that doesn’t involve more government control of the economy?
Gimme a break.
Aw gee, RF, you let the dogs out again.
I swore I wouldn’t do this, but I have some time to kill, so what the heck…
The global warming tree-huggers need to answer these questions:
1. How did the last 10 ice ages end?
The last several ice ages, discounting those triggered by a mass event, came and went slowly. This heating is not a slow event, and coincides lockstep with industrialization.
2. What is the ‘correct’ temperature for the Earth?
No one cares. What matters is “What is the correct temperature for avoiding the kind of change that could disrupt our ability to grow enough food, or to keep adverse weather from damaging biodiversity.
This is like misunderstanding acid rain. Global Warming will not result in you boiling to death in your own skin, much like acid rain won’t melt your skin off. The issue is the damage to the biosphere as a whole.
3. If Al Gore said in 2003 that the oceans will rise 20″ in 100 years, where is that first inch of water that should be there by now?
A) Al Gore is not a scientist
B) Melts of polar ice happens in fits and starts, not gradually, especially as big chunks break off. More big chunks will break off with greater frequency as the earth heats.
4. Why are the temperatures of Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto all rising? Is it due to Republicans and SUVs?
You’re cherry-picking.
Mercury and Venus are not, and Mars shows no evidence either way. Nor are a number of other bodies (moons and such). And Jupiter doesn’t count because it’s structure (it may or may not be subject to internal fusion) results in it pumping out more heat than it takes in from the Sun, something that is not the case for any other planet, certainly not Earth. Neptune has an orbit measured in decades and is just entering it’s “summer” (for a given value of summer, on a planet where methane freezes solid).
Do you want to pick another red herring?
5. Do you have a ’solution’ that doesn’t involve more government control of the economy?
Sure, be more responsible and use less fuel. I’d also like world peace and pony, but that’s not likely to happen, either. Because the effects of AGCC are not immediate, there’s no real way to get people to give a damn until it’s problematically too late.
You know, just like how we invaded Iraq**, even though there was no hard evidence.
** base canard, I know, but it’s to prove a point. If you don’t want government to try and take preventative action, you don’t get to cherry-pick the causes government should and should not be proactive about based upon your political leaning. Had the government been more proactive in deflating the economy, we might not be where we are now. And yes, I think government should be more decisive and interventionist. Across the board.
“This was the same tactic the tobacco industry used to sow doubt about whether or not cigarettes, and then second-hand smoke was harmful.”
Scientific opinion is now pretty clear that secondhand smoke is not harmful.
Scientific opinion is now pretty clear that secondhand smoke is not harmful.
This statement might be true in an alternate universe, but in this one, it is clearly false.
Just one example of many: “The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP), the U.S. Surgeon General, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) have classified secondhand smoke as a known human carcinogen (cancer-causing agent).”
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS
Wishful thinking and scientific research are not the same thing. Come on, folks, we can do better than this.
Scientific opinion is now pretty clear that secondhand smoke is not harmful.
No, it isn’t. That’s the “sowing controversy” again.
I’ve read those studies, too, and they’re generally tobacco people trying to create a controversy where none exists by misrepresenting the data on studies where the magnitude and nature of the effects of second-hand smoke are debated.
There’s no reputable study that says second-hand smoke is not harmful, just as there’s no reputable study that says anthropogenic global climate change is not happening. There are studies that discuss the effects, timeline and magnitude, and it’s the existence (and misrepresentation) of those studies that pose the basis for skepticism.
The point—and the industries are successful at this—is to generate cognitive dissonance in society as a whole and cloud our certainty on a given issue. For those of you opposed to the bail-out of the automakers, you should recognize the pattern, because it’s precisely what GM and Chrysler are doing: sowing just enough doubt to weaken the case against them without engaging in a full, knock-down, drag-out debate and examination of their books.
The secondhand smoke debate is a good lesson that when an issue has been politicized the science suffers.
Independent scientific studies designed specifically to measure the health hazards of secondhand smoke have all shown them to be minor. No more than other strong smells (in other words, allergies and respiratory effects).
Hyping Health Risks: Environmental Hazards in Daily Life and the Science of Epidemiology, by Geoffrey C. Kabat is the best source I’ve found for this.
Hyping Health Risks: Environmental Hazards in Daily Life and the Science of Epidemiology, by Geoffrey C. Kabat is the best source I’ve found for this.
Kabat’s study is not credible, and subsequent attempts by him to prove otherwise are the same “sowing controversy”. Kabat never addresses the core issues with his original study: that he never used a control group of non-smokers unexposed to second-hand smoke.
Subsequent work and comments haven’t addressed this. Instead, they’ve focused on the idea that there’s no “standards” for epidemiological effects. Recognize the words “no standards”? It’s a way to avoid discussing the actual issue. Again, why discuss facts when sowing doubt is enough to sway?
That he and James Enstrom’s funding comes, in a large part, from the Tobacco industry in general and Phillip Morris in particular is just icing on the cake.
Independent scientific studies designed specifically to measure the health hazards of secondhand smoke have all shown them to be minor. No more than other strong smells (in other words, allergies and respiratory effects).
For one, you’ve referenced a single study that is an outlier in the field, not a body of work.
For another, Kabat does claim that the effects are serious, but don’t include cancer:
Nonsmokers, however, did have an increased risk for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), a term that refers to chronic bronchitis and emphysema, the study found.
“For COPD, in both men and women, we found a 60 percent increase in people who had heavy exposure,” Kabat said. “That is suggestive of an effect.”
http://www.lifeclinic.com/fullpage.aspx?prid=513218&type=1
You’ve clearly misrepresented Kabat’s statements and how prevalent his views are in the community. His position is far from the consensus view; contrary to your assertion above, he holds a minority position that is firmly rejected by the mainstream.
You also didn’t indicate that he received money from the tobacco industry. Again, do your homework, check your sources, and be careful with the sweeping generalizations.
Just got back and saw your comment, Again, do your homework, check your sources, and be careful with the sweeping generalizations.
Those are the requirements for making a comment on TTAC? I’m fairly new here, and did not realize that from the comments by others that I have seen. My apologies.
Let me clarify a couple of things. First, I was not referring to a study by Kabat. I was referring to his 2008 book. Published by the Columbia University Press. A book where he discusses the principles of epidemiology, a discipline in which he has a PhD and in which he works at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine. One of the chapters discusses secondhand smoke, giving references to studies that have been done.
Second, I made the comments (sweeping generalizations, admittedly) about secondhand smoke in this thread about global warming because I see a connection between the two. While there is a kernel of truth underlying both, the hype overwhelms the truth. “Alarmists” fight “deniers.” Politics drives science. Insults replace reasoned debate. On both sides.
That’s a shame.
If you cannot explain the scientific distinction between “weather” and “climate,” you cannot credibly claim to be informed on this topic.
The secondhand smoke debate is a good lesson that when an issue has been politicized the science suffers. …
And that is exactly what is happening here. Many of those who argue against GW do so because they dislike the party and politics of those who generally believe that man is influencing the climate. They are so convinced that by looking at any evidence of support they are committing sacrilege to the Altar of the Right. Whenever somebody offers clear, sound discussion to support their stance, I will always respect their opinion, even if I disagree. Dismissing a topic as nonsense just because you don’t like Al Gore is stupidity at its finest.
Well said, golden2husky.
psarhjinian: “I swore I wouldn’t do this, but I have some time to kill, so what the heck…”
Thanks, I certainly appreciated it.
cheers
Malcolm
I made the comments (sweeping generalizations, admittedly) about secondhand smoke in this thread about global warming because I see a connection between the two.
You have the connection reversed.
You claimed that there are multiple studies confirming your argument, in an attempt to infer that there is an active debate within the scientific community about these issues.
That claim is false. The reality is that there is no such debate; these arguments happen among laymen, but not among those who are learned about these matters. There is no argument, but a single study, one which is outside the mainstream and widely rejected.
Psarhjinian got it right. This is a variation of the Big Lie, with falsehoods being repeated in the hopes of convincing the unlearned and uneducated of “facts” that have not been established and of “controversy” that doesn’t exist amongst those who know.
There is a difference between fact and opinion, and that difference has been obscured by the deniers on this thread. The science on the subjects is clear; the consensus opinions are that climate change and secondhand smoke are both problematic.
It’s your right to disagree with that consensus if you choose. But by disagreeing, you are actively rejecting the science. You have to make up your mind — if you want to reject the science because you don’t like it, then be content in playing the role of the iconoclast who actively rejects the science, rather than pretend that there is some raging debate that doesn’t exist. Arguing that the science is behind you is simply factually wrong, and not a defensible position to take.
I’ve noticed on this website, and on others, that most people who comment tend to do one of two things. They offer their own opinions and ideas. Or they attack others for their opinions. I admire the former and feel the latter are pretty worthless.