Fake Science Gets Smoked -- And What It Means for Climate Science

No serious person thinks smoking is not bad for your health. But the overreach on second-hand smoke is a perfect case study of what happens when an issue become badly politicized. There were no “smoking deniers”—just some scrupulous people who noted scientists and policy makers were cutting corners, but who got slimed for doing so. That’s what so-called “climate deniers” are doing today, and the same thing is going to become apparent about the climate change cabal someday, and for the same reasons. This is why I have complete contempt for the “climatistas,” even if warming turns out to be a serious problem. The issue doesn’t deserve the mountebanks who have perverted the science and policy of the whole domain.

Click to expand...

A remarkable article in Slate, of all places, details the fake science behind the idea of second hand smoke. Some of us have known all along that second hand smoke is a crock of bull.

Fake Science Gets Smoked -- And What It Means for Climate Change | Power Line

Some people think the left is abandoning the 2nd hand smoke hoax in preparation for the legalization of pot

How do people who live with smokers but have never smoked themselves end up with COPD?

LowDown said:

A remarkable article in Slate, of all places, details the fake science behind the idea of second hand smoke. Some of us have known all along that second hand smoke is a crock of bull.

Fake Science Gets Smoked -- And What It Means for Climate Change | Power Line

Click to expand...

Absolutely, and the second hand smoking study is flaunted as bad science. Paid for by... I forget who, but they market the idea of paid science. Pathetic since the governments of the world, with political motivations of power, are who funds the alarmist studies.

Gonzo Rodeo said:

How do people who live with smokers but have never smoked themselves end up with COPD?

Click to expand...

Children are the only ones at risk of second hand smoke, or those who already have respiratory problems.

LowDown said:

A remarkable article in Slate, of all places, details the fake science behind the idea of second hand smoke. Some of us have known all along that second hand smoke is a crock of bull.

Fake Science Gets Smoked -- And What It Means for Climate Change | Power Line

Click to expand...

The list of BS studies that became policy and crammed down our collective throats is a long one.
Acid rain, the ozone hole, global warming, attention deficit disorder, 2nd hand smoke, asbestos
abatement, the obesity crisis, the new math ... These things are always left-wing causes.

LowDown said:

A remarkable article in Slate, of all places, details the fake science behind the idea of second hand smoke. Some of us have known all along that second hand smoke is a crock of bull.

Fake Science Gets Smoked -- And What It Means for Climate Change | Power Line

Click to expand...

Lord of Planar said:

Absolutely, and the second hand smoking study is flaunted as bad science. Paid for by... I forget who, but they market the idea of paid science. Pathetic since the governments of the world, with political motivations of power, are who funds the alarmist studies.

Click to expand...

Steve Case said:

The list of BS studies that became policy and crammed down our collective throats is a long one.
Acid rain, the ozone hole, global warming, attention deficit disorder, 2nd hand smoke, asbestos
abatement, the obesity crisis, the new math ... These things are always left-wing causes.

Click to expand...

I don't suppose any of you guys bothered to actually read the Slate article... did you? Of course not. Because if you had you would have seen that it doesn't actually disprove that second hand smoke is harmful.

What the article discusses is when cities starting enacting smoking bans and scientists started looking at changes in the number of deaths due to heart attacks they initially found significant reductions. Some of these early studies were used to push more smoking bans in more and more places. Problem was that these studies were both too small and flawed. And as larger cities, then states, and finally whole countries started to do the same the studies got bigger and better. And now we can see that early studies were obviously wrong about smoking bans preventing large numbers of heart attacks. Problem is that this is all that was disproven. There is still lots of evidence and plenty of debate surrounding the the many other effects of being exposed to second hand smoke.

Now as far as I am concerned the Slate article was written by someone with a fair amount of bias against smoking bans but makes some good points and is basically correct. But the Powerline article is just more denialist BS.

First it talks about the Tobacco Settlement and how the EPA under Clinton issued it's report on second hand smoke in the middle of negotiations. This is a lie. The EPA report was published in 1993 almost a full year before the first state lawsuit against the tobacco companies started in 1994. You can learn about the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement on Wikipedia.

It also claims that the EPA was saying that second hand smoke was almost as bad a first hand smoke. This is another lie. And if you want to see the report you can find it but it is over 500 pages long. I would instead suggest reading this EPA response to criticism of the report. It covers both what the study is about and explains their reasoning.

And then the biggest lie of them all is that the Slate article disproves the EPA study. It does not because the EPA study never even addresses the effects of second hand smoke on heart attacks.

So.... the notion that this Slate article shows anything about the EPA's calculations of the social costs of carbon is pure fantasy.

You guys have been suckered yet again.

Buzz said:

I don't suppose any of you guys bothered to actually read the Slate article... did you? Of course not. Because if you had you would have seen that it doesn't actually disprove that second hand smoke is harmful.

What the article discusses is when cities starting enacting smoking bans and scientists started looking at changes in the number of deaths due to heart attacks they initially found significant reductions. Some of these early studies were used to push more smoking bans in more and more places. Problem was that these studies were both too small and flawed. And as larger cities, then states, and finally whole countries started to do the same the studies got bigger and better. And now we can see that early studies were obviously wrong about smoking bans preventing large numbers of heart attacks. Problem is that this is all that was disproven. There is still lots of evidence and plenty of debate surrounding the the many other effects of being exposed to second hand smoke.

Now as far as I am concerned the Slate article was written by someone with a fair amount of bias against smoking bans but makes some good points and is basically correct. But the Powerline article is just more denialist BS.

First it talks about the Tobacco Settlement and how the EPA under Clinton issued it's report on second hand smoke in the middle of negotiations. This is a lie. The EPA report was published in 1993 almost a full year before the first state lawsuit against the tobacco companies started in 1994. You can learn about the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement on Wikipedia.

It also claims that the EPA was saying that second hand smoke was almost as bad a first hand smoke. This is another lie. And if you want to see the report you can find it but it is over 500 pages long. I would instead suggest reading this EPA response to criticism of the report. It covers both what the study is about and explains their reasoning.

And then the biggest lie of them all is that the Slate article disproves the EPA study. It does not because the EPA study never even addresses the effects of second hand smoke on heart attacks.

So.... the notion that this Slate article shows anything about the EPA's calculations of the social costs of carbon is pure fantasy.

You guys have been suckered yet again.

Click to expand...

I was an adult in 1990s and I remember the over-the-top campaign ads. One in particular had a well known baseball star repeat over and over again for a full minute, "Second Hand Smoke Kills People Second Hand Smoke Kills People Second Hand Smoke Kills People Second Hand Smoke Kills People Second Hand Smoke Kills People Second Hand Smoke Kills People Second Hand Smoke Kills People Second Hand Smoke Kills People Second Hand Smoke Kills People Second Hand Smoke Kills People Second Hand Smoke Kills People Second Hand Smoke Kills People Second Hand Smoke Kills People Second Hand Smoke Kills People Second Hand Smoke Kills People Second Hand Smoke Kills People Second Hand Smoke Kills People Second Hand Smoke Kills People Second Hand Smoke Kills People Second Hand Smoke Kills People Second Hand Smoke Kills People Second Hand Smoke Kills People Second Hand Smoke Kills People Second Hand Smoke Kills People Second Hand Smoke Kills People Second Hand Smoke Kills People Second Hand Smoke Kills People Second Hand Smoke Kills People Second Hand Smoke Kills People Second Hand Smoke Kills People Second Hand Smoke Kills People Second Hand Smoke Kills People Second Hand Smoke Kills People "

Steve Case said:

The list of BS studies that became policy and crammed down our collective throats is a long one.
Acid rain, the ozone hole, global warming, attention deficit disorder, 2nd hand smoke, asbestos
abatement, the obesity crisis, the new math ... These things are always left-wing causes.

Click to expand...

Holy mackerel. You think acid rain, the ozone hole and asbestos are BS studies?

Buzz said:

What the article discusses is when cities starting enacting smoking bans and scientists started looking at changes in the number of deaths due to heart attacks they initially found significant reductions. Some of these early studies were used to push more smoking bans in more and more places. Problem was that these studies were both too small and flawed. And as larger cities, then states, and finally whole countries started to do the same the studies got bigger and better. And now we can see that early studies were obviously wrong about smoking bans preventing large numbers of heart attacks. Problem is that this is all that was disproven. There is still lots of evidence and plenty of debate surrounding the the many other effects of being exposed to second hand smoke.

Click to expand...

https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/basic_information/health_effects/heart_disease/index.htm

Wait, is the CDC fake news?

This thread is like the CT forum. "It's all fake!!" haha

Smoking is one of numerous examples of perceived conflicts between general societal well-being and vested business interests - some other obvious examples being lead in paint and petrol, the ozone hole, asbestos and so on - but the funny thing is, if anyone who accepts the conclusions of climate science makes the obvious comparison they can surely expect any number of 'sceptics' to scream blue murder at being lumped in with those dupes and idiots who think that smoking or lead or CFCs or asbestos are harmless.

The moral of this story, as far as I can see and as Buzz has already excellently explained, is that unfounded or dubious claims tend not to stand up too long under the scrutiny of the scientific community, even if - as in the case of miracle public health benefits from smoking restrictions - there were some general inclination to want them to be true.

Somehow, this poor deluded Power Line blogger had managed to twist that around into his head to mean that denial and 'scepticism' of the conclusions reached through decades of research and observations in the field of climate climate science must be good and justified :doh

Mithrae said:

Smoking is one of numerous examples of perceived conflicts between general societal well-being and vested business interests - some other obvious examples being lead in paint and petrol, the ozone hole, asbestos and so on - but the funny thing is, if anyone who accepts the conclusions of climate science makes the obvious comparison they can surely expect any number of 'sceptics' to scream blue murder at being lumped in with those dupes and idiots who think that smoking or lead or CFCs or asbestos are harmless.

The moral of this story, as far as I can see and as Buzz has already excellently explained, is that unfounded or dubious claims tend not to stand up too long under the scrutiny of the scientific community, even if - as in the case of miracle public health benefits from smoking restrictions - there were some general inclination to want them to be true.

Somehow, this poor deluded Power Line blogger had managed to twist that around into his head to mean that denial and 'scepticism' of the conclusions reached through decades of research and observations in the field of climate climate science must be good and justified :doh

Click to expand...

Climate News
[h=1]Fake Polar Bear Scare Unmasked: The Saga of a Toppled Global Warming Icon[/h]In spite of claims that polar bear populations are facing pressure from loss of Arctic summer sea ice, their numbers have in fact grown. Video follows. Guest essay by Dr. Susan Crockford For more than ten years, we’ve endured the shrill media headlines, the hyperbole from conservation organizations, and the simplistic platitudes from scientists as…

[h=2]AS POLAR BEAR NUMBERS INCREASE, GWPF CALLS FOR RE-ASSESSMENT OF ENDANGERED SPECIES STATUS[/h]

• Date: 27/02/17
• Global Warming Policy Foundation

On the occasion of International Polar Bear Day, the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is calling on the U.S. Administration to re-assess the ‘endangered species’ status of polar bears. On May 15, 2008, the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service listed the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. The listing is based on […]