« Post-Halloween musings | Main | One year later »

Global warming and evolution

What do they have in common? Well, I think I've noticed a parallel in the way both topics are debated, at least among laymen. Think back over all the times you've ever heard an environmentalist trying to convince a skeptic that man-made C02 emissions are frying the planet. Notice how often they employ phrases like "overwhelming consensus," or "no serious debate" or "the scientific community is nearly unanimous." Their arguments typically rely very heavily on the logical fallacy of "appeal to authority." It doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong, of course; it just means their reasoning is fallacious.

(These folks also have a tendency to deliberately mischaracterize the debate as well. When they say "The scientific consensus is that global warming exists," what they typically leave unsaid is "...and therefore we must ratify Kyoto and accept the wisdom and teachings of the Prophet Gore, Peace Be Upon Him." In reality, however, the fault line of the current debate is not so much over the existence of global warming, but rather over how much alarmism is warranted. In any case, I digress. This post is about the "appeal to authority.")

I've also observed the same patterns during all those (unfortunate) occasions when I've observed an actual debate between evolutionists and creationists. The evolutionists are correct, of course, but they're often depressingly lacking in their "arguments," often losing the debate on points, while being factually correct in their assertions.

I am a scientist by training, so I am able to marshal arguments as to how the truth of evolution has been demonstrated through the usual scientific methods, such as prediction and observation. From what I've seen, however, most people can't. But that doesn't stop them from arguing the subject, of course. They look down their noses at the religious types who believe in creation simply because some authority (the bible in this case) told them so, when 99% of the time they are guilty of exactly the same intellectual laziness. They espouse evolution with a religious fervor only because some authority ("consensus," or the "scientific community") says it's so. That's much easier, of course, than citing a specific bit of evidence, or the outcome of a scientific experiment to support one's claim.

Ironic, isn't it? Despite the infinite disdain of evolutionists for creationists, the vast majority of both camps believe what the believe for precisely the same reason -- because some authority they trust told them it was true.


You, a scientist by training? Ahaha ... I doubt that. What did your major, Political Science?

Ignore the riff-raff, Barry - every one else does.

You are, of course, correct in your surmise.

Unlike you, I have no scientific background but I tend to recoil whenever one side not only claims all debate is now over on an issue but also savages the other side for having the temerity to continue to raise voices in opposition.

Last time this happened was the second-hand smoke issue.

I am sorry, but I am still awaiting the first obit which lists the cause of death as second-hand smoke.

Anybody else seen one?

Yeah, I didn't think so.

Somehow, it doesn't matter to most people.

I am sorry but you apparently ignore the vary basics. Second hand is very bad. That is not disputable any longer. It is an established thing by now. I wish you were right, but you are very wrong.

I've never read an obituary where the cause of death was listed as SMOKING. Doesn't mean it wasn't a contributing factor, though.

Second hand smoke sux. Thank god for the smoking bans. And I'M a smoker!

I'm not sure if there is a way around citing the credibility of authority figures in the global warming debate. Unless one is doing the research oneself or really taking the time to properly analyze the methods of those who have done the research, deciding which authority figure(s) appear more credible is going to be a key factor in where any individual stands on the issue.

Even one is a scientist, how do you really determine the integrity of the research unless one is willing to spend the time to really go over the logic and the data? Because even scientists don't have time to be expert in all areas of science, I think that even members of the scientific community often are influenced by the perceived integrity of the researcher(s) and/or those who advocate for the research's validity.

In any case, most Americans are not scientists, but they are citizens. So, when some scientists studying global warming are call for public action, non-scientists have to make basic decisions regarding which scientists to trust. I can not see how there is a way around this.

There's no problem with citing scientific authorities, but some people's arguments consist of nothing else.

It bugs me when people argue an issue with a passionate, religious, proselytizing certainty even though they don't actually understand it.

Everyone may not be a scientist, but most intelligent people can at least muster a bit of evidence or common sense reasoning to support (say) that the earth is round, or that it revolves around the sun. There are people who will insist that evolution is as firmly established as heliocentrism, and yet, when pressed, they can't tell you why, other than to say "most biologists think so."

You never cease to amaze me :-) You compare references to "scientific" authorities to references to "religious" authorities. Hmm...dont you think that hundreds of years of scientific work have more credibility than a religious fanatic who believes is "talking to God" and gets directions or signals? I understand that many do not have the scientific ability to argue or understand everything. However, to me it does not sound that inappropriate that they would respect a "scientific" authority. You are comparing apples with oranges. Or maybe watermelons with peanuts.


The irony here is that ONLY Mal had the foresight to simply say "I don't know," while everyone else here (except Barely, of course, who actually made no point, and no sense at all) continued to do exactly what BNJ said all zealots do, "Appeal to Authority."

Isn't that sought of funny, I mean, in a sad, ironic sought of way?

Well, I looked up a few studies and the actual science seems to agree with Mal!

"Research professor James Enstrom of UCLA and professor Geoffrey Kabat of the State University of New York, Stony Brook did a study in May 2003 and they reported in the British Medical Journal that their 39-year study of 35,561 Californians who had never smoked showed no "causal relationship between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) and tobacco-related mortality."

SEE: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=James+Enstrom+&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT

"A 1999 Environmental Health Perspectives survey of 17 ETS-heart disease studies found only five that were statistically significantly positive. ("Statistical significance" refers to whether an increased or decreased risk falls outside the bounds of what could be expected by chance.)

"In 2002, an analysis of 48 studies addressing a possible ETS link to lung cancer found only 10 that were significantly positive, one that was significantly negative, and 37 that, like the Enstrom and Kabat work, were insignificant either way."

How can research find second-hand smoke to be so benign, when research shows active tobacco smoking to be so dangerous? Perhaps in part because "the dose makes the poison." Perhaps because the tars and other ingredients in ETS are "filtered" through the klungs of the smoker, or perhaps because colder smoke is less reactive (it is).

DIRECT smoking is almost certainly "bad" for you.

Smoking however, DOES NOT appear to CAUSE lung cancer or heart disease.

If it did CAUSE those things, then EVERYONE who smokes would get ALL the things that smoking "causes," and of course, that's not the case. Many smokers live well into their eighties, as my maternal grandmother did, smoking over a pack a day all of her life.

How is that?

Almost certainly, genetics! We each have different triggers for different afflictions.

No scientist, nor any physician will say "Smoking CAUSES cancer, heart disease, etc.," as that would be making an unwarranted assumption that's can be observed to be false - some smokers do not develop lung cancer, emphysema, heart disease, etc., some develop only one of those, some devlop none.

What they WILL say is that "Smoking raises the risks for a number of cancers as well as heart and lung disease."

The latter statement is undeniably ACCURATE and TRUE, while the former statement is not, in fact, it's the kind of presumption that science and those who practice it tend to stay away from.

The studies on ETS or "second-hand smoke" don't show much of a substantial risk between cancer, heart and lung disease and exposure to ETS.

BUT BNJ didn't bring up ETS, he focused on the Appeal to Authority on the part of Global Warming Hysterics.

Science only tells us that the earth is indeed global warming.

It does NOT find that global warming is appreciably or demonstrably CAUSED by human activity.

My own view on that is that global warming is real, caused by the natural cycles of this planet and the Sun and thus the next Ice Age is inevitable and unavoidable.

We are probably better off trying to consider ways of dealing with the earth's natural changes, rather than looking for ways to control them, as at this point, we don't even fully understand them.

>You compare references to "scientific" authorities to references to "religious" authorities.

I am in the following sense: reliance on either should not be used as a substitute for thinking.

"I am in the following sense: reliance on either should not be used as a substitute for thinking."

No. We disagree. One can certainly rely to scientific authorities for certain aspects. In fact that is a "must" and we do it daily. Science has many different areas. You may be qualified in one area and totally unable to understand another one. Come on Barry, thats an obvious one. I can not believe that you equilibrate scientific reference to religious dogmatism.

"One can certainly rely to scientific authorities for certain aspects. In fact that is a "must" and we do it daily." (BW)

Then practice what you preach BW.

The ONLY "actual science" offered here in this thread is THIS: "Research professor James Enstrom of UCLA and professor Geoffrey Kabat of the State University of New York, Stony Brook did a study in May 2003 and they reported in the British Medical Journal that their 39-year study of 35,561 Californians who had never smoked showed no "causal relationship between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) and tobacco-related mortality."

SEE: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=James+Enstrom+&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT

Likewise, there is a lot of science that backs the view that the earth is getting warmer (it usually does between Ice Ages), there are however almost no reputable studies that show that a significant amount amount of global warming is caused by man's activities.

BUT, it HAS been PROVEN that the Kyoto Accords would, if rigidly adhered to decrease the earth's temperature by 0.05 degrees Celsius ("a negligible amount") and at an extremely high cost (America and the West reducing energy consumption by a full third).

Relying on science you don't understand or upon reports you haven't read or can't fully read and comprehend is called "superstitious thinking," and I think Barry's point is that relying on THAT or on "the word of God" is pretty much the same thing - "superstitious thinking."

>I can not believe that you equilibrate scientific reference to religious dogmatism.

But I don't. Never did. But I do have a problem with uncritical trust and reliance on [i] any [/i] authority, scientific or otherwise. Once upon a time, that would have been a very "liberal" opinion. I'm sorry that's no longer the case.

"Smoking however, DOES NOT appear to CAUSE lung cancer or heart disease."

If you believe things like that, it only makes sense that you also think Hitler was a socialist and a left-winger. Again, from in which planet you said you reside? Sorry, I forgot.

"But I do have a problem with uncritical trust and reliance on [i] any [/i] authority, scientific or otherwise.

But you do that in your everyday life all the time. All of us do. What I thought was inappropriate, was creating parallels between religious and scientific authorities. You discussed them as if they were equivalent (or at least I thought so). Anyway, I am sure that we agree that there is a huge difference between the two.

"Smoking however, DOES NOT appear to CAUSE lung cancer or heart disease." (JMK)

"If you believe things like that, it only makes sense that you also think Hitler was a socialist and a left-winger. Again, from in which planet you said you reside? Sorry, I forgot." (BW)

No physician alive, no researcher or scientist alive would say "smoking CAUSES lung cancer."

As I noted, if that were the case the claimant would HAVE TO prove that EVERY smoker gets lung cancer...and no studies show that.

What smoking does do is exactly what all those researchers, scientists and physicians ACTUALLY SAY it does, "raises the risk level for various cancers, heart and lung ailments, etc."

And as the study of 35,561 Californians who had never smoked showed no "causal relationship between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS)/"second-hand smoke" and tobacco-related mortality," Mal appears to be right about the grossly exaggerated dangers of ETS.

So you stand corrected on those, I'd say?

And, by his very own words, Adolph Hitler was indeed a Socialist; "We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." (Adolf Hitler)

(Speech of May 1, 1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306)

Now, if you, or anyone else can prove that quote is inauthentic, or otherwise "un-Hitlerian," I'd gladly reconsider that position.

But really! What could possibly be more disgusting and downright Hitlerian than someone/anyone railing against "today's capitalistic...system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance."

In my view, that is the most nauseatingly Hitlerian thing I've ever heard.

In fact, I'm almost certain that if Tom Jefferson ever heard those words, I'd bet TJ would've immediately jumped to his feet, challenged Adolph to a duel and as Hitler struggled to his own feet, our Tom would've plugged him with a breach muzzle loader, which is exactly what anyone who rails against "our Capitalist economic system" deserves.

BW and KK (how are you doing, old friend?), you both seem to have missed the major point of my comments while latching on to the secondary one.

To reiterate: it is now considered anathema to even dare to challenge the so-called overwhelming scientific evidence of the dangers of second-hand (or as most scientists call it: side-stream smoke).

This posturing is being replicated again with the global warming debate.

While holes are being blown, seemingly daily, in so many of the far-fetched claims of the GW proponents, they in turn are attempting to do what they (and others) succeeded in doing so well in the smoking debate - i.e. end said discussion and declare certitudinous victory.

Sorry, but there are just too many holes which have been blown in their 'irrefutable' evidence for me to emulate a lemming.

BTW, for the second year in a row, the 'experts' have screwed up by vastly overestimating the number and severity of Atlantic hurricanes.

Last year, the excuse was they failed to anticipate El Nino's effects. What will the apologia be this year.

Damn, two years of Draconian pronouncements left to shrivel under the reality of actual events.

Given this short-term ineptitude, please explain how scientists who are employing models projecting climate over the next 100 years can inspire you all to rally behind their incompetent banner?

NO 'Consensus' on "Man-Made" Global Warming

Skeptical Scientists:

A. Alan Moghissi, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry, Technical University of Karlsruhe, Germany
Aksel Wiin-Nielsen, Professor of Geophysical Science, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Alfred H. Pekarek, Ph.D. Geology, Associate Professor of Geology, St. Cloud State University, USA
Allan M.R. MacRae, B.Sc., M.Eng., P.Eng, Canada
Andreas Prokoph, B.Sc. Geology, Ph.D. Earth Sciences, University Tubingen, Germany
Anthony R. Lupo, Ph.D. Atmospheric Science, Purdue University, USA
Antonino Zichichi, Professor Emeritus of Advanced Physics, University of Bologna, Italy
Arthur B. Robinson, Ph.D. Chemistry, University of California, San Diego, USA
Arthur Rorsch, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands
Ben Herman, Ph.D. Atmospheric Sciences, University of Arizona, USA
Bob Durrenberger, Retired Climatologist, Former President of the American Association of State Climatologists, USA
Boris Winterhalter, Ph.D. Geology, Helsinki University, Finland
Bruce N. Ames, Ph.D. BioChemistry, California Institute of Technology, USA
Bruno Wiskel, B.Sc. Honours Geology, University of Albert, Canada
Carl Johan Friedrich (Frits) Böttcher, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Physical Chemistry, University of Leiden, The Netherlands
Charles Gelman, B.S. Chemistry, M.S. Public Health, University of Michigan, USA
Chauncey Starr, Ph.D. Physics, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, USA
Chris de Freitas, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Geography and Environmental Science, University of Auckland, Australia
Christopher Essex, Ph.D. Applied Mathematics Professor, University of Western Ontario, Canada
Christopher Landsea, Ph.D. Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, USA
Claude Allegre, Ph.D. Physics, University of Paris, France
Clinton H. Sheehan, Ph.D. Physics, University of Western Ontario, Canada
Craig D. Idso, M.S. Agronomy, Ph.D. Geography, Arizona State University, USA
Daniel B. Botkin, Ph.D. Biology, Rutgers University, USA
David Deming, B.S. Geology, Ph.D. Geophysics, University of Utah, USA
David E. Wojick, B.S. Civil Engineering, Ph.D. Mathematical Logic, University of Pittsburgh, USA
David Evans, B.Sc. Applied Mathematics and Physics, M.S. Statistics, Ph.D. Electrical Engineering, Stanford, USA
David J. Bellamy, B.Sc. Botany, Ph.D. Ecology, Durham University, UK
David L. Hill, Ph.D. Physics, Princeton, USA
David Nowell, M.Sc. Meteorology, Royal Meteorological Society, Canada
David R. Legates, Ph.D. Climatology, University of Delaware, USA
Dennis P. Lettenmaier, Ph.D. Professor of Hydrology, University of Washington, USA
Don J. Easterbrook, Ph.D. Geology, University of Washington, USA
Donald G. Baker, Ph.D. Soils, Geology, University of Minnesota, USA
Douglas V. Hoyt, Solar Physicist and Climatologist, Retired, Raytheon, USA
Duncan Wingham, Ph.D. Physics, University of Bath, UK
Edward Wegman, Ph.D. Mathematical Statistics, University of Iowa, USA
Eigil Friis-Christensen, Ph.D. Geophysics, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Elliot Abrams, M.S. Meteorology, Penn State, USA
Eric S. Posmentier, Adjunct Professor of Earth Sciences, Dartmouth, USA
Fred Michel, B.Sc. Geological Sciences, M.Sc. Earth Sciences, Ph.D. Earth Sciences, University of Waterloo, Canada
Frederick Seitz, Ph.D. Physics, Princeton University, USA
Freeman Dyson, Professor Emeritus, Physics, Princeton, USA
G. Cornelis van Kooten, B.Sc. Geophysics, Ph.D. Agricultural & Resource Economics, Oregon State University, USA
Garth Paltridge, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus, Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia
Gary D. Sharp, Ph.D. Marine Biology, University of California, USA
Gary Novak, M.S. Microbiology, USA
George H. Taylor, M.S. Meteorology, University of Utah, USA
George Kukla, Micropalentologist, Special Research Scientist of Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, USA
George V. Chilingarian, Ph.D. Geology, University of Southern California, USA
Gerd-Rainer Weber, Ph.D. Consulting Meteorologist, Germany
Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD Geology, New Zealand
Gordon E. Swaters, Ph.D. Applied Mathematics and Physical Oceanography, University of British Columbia, Canada
Graham Smith, Associate Professor of Geography, University of Western Ontario, Canada
Harry N.A. Priem, Professor Emeritus of Isotope and Planetary Geology, Utrecht University, The Netherlands
Hendrik Tennekes, Former Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, The Netherlands
Henrik Svensmark, Solar System Physics, Danish National Space Center, Denmark
Henry R. Linden, Ph.D. Chemical Engineering, Illinois Institute of Technology, USA
Howard Hayden, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Physics, University of Connecticut, USA
Hugh W. Ellsaesser, Ph.D. Meteorology, Formerly with Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, USA
Ian D. Clark, Professor Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Canada
Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology, University of Adelaide, Australia
Indur M. Goklany, Ph.D. Electrical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, India
Jack Barrett, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry, Manchester, UK
James O’Brien, Ph.D. Meteorology, Texas A&M University, USA
Ján Veizer, Professor Emeritus, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Canada
Jay H. Lehr, Ph.D. Groundwater Hydrology, University of Arizona, USA
Jennifer Marohasy, Ph.D. Biology, University of Queensland, Australia
Joe Sobel, Ph.D. Meteorology, Penn State, USA
Joel Schwartz, B.S. Chemistry, M.S. Planetary Science, California Institute of Technology, USA
John R. Christy, Ph.D. Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois, USA
Joseph Conklin, M.S. Meteorology, Rutgers University, USA
Joseph D’Aleo, M.S. Meteorology, University of Wisconsin, USA
Keith D. Hage, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta, Canada
Keith E. Idso, Ph.D. Botany, Arizona State University, USA
Kenneth E.F. Watt, Ph.D. Zoology, University of Chicago, USA
Khabibullo Abdussamatov, Ph.D. Astrophysicist, The University of Leningrad, Russia
Lee C. Gerhard, Ph.D. Geology, University of Kansas, USA
Luboš Motl, Ph.D. Theoretical Physicist, Harvard, USA
Madhav Khandekar, Ph.D. Meteorology, Florida State University, USA
Marcel Leroux, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France
Mel Goldstein, Ph.D. Meteorology, NYU, USA
Michael Crichton, A.B. Anthropology, M.D. Harvard, USA
Michael D. Griffin, B.S. Physics, M.S. Applied Physics, Ph.D. Aerospace Engineering, University of Maryland, USA
Michael Savage, B.S. Biology, M.S. Anthropology, M.S. Ethnobotany, Ph.D. Nutritional Ethnomedicine, USA
Michael R. Fox, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry, University of Washington, USA
Michel Salomon, M.D. University of Paris, Director, International Centre for Scientific Ecology, France
Neil Frank, Ph.D. Meteorology, Florida State University, USA
Nils-Axel Mörner, Professor Emeritus of Palegeophysics and Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden
Nir J. Shaviv, Ph.D. Astrophysicist, Israel Institute of Technology, Israel
Ola M. Johannessen, Professor, Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center, Norway
Olavi Kärner, Ph.D. Senior Research Associate, Atmospheric Sensing Group, Tartu Astrophysical Observatory, Estonia
Oliver W. Frauenfeld, Ph.D. Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, USA
Paavo Siitam, M.Sc. Agronomist, Canada
Paul Copper, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Canada
Paul Driessen, B.A. Geology and Field Ecology, Lawrence University, USA
Paul Reiter, Professor of Medical Entomology, Pasteur Institute, France
Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Ecological Climatology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA
Patrick Moore, B.Sc. Forest Biology, Ph.D. Ecology, University of British Columbia, Canada
Petr Chylek, Ph.D. Physics, University of California, USA
Philip Stott, Professor Emeritus, Department of Biogeography, University of London, UK
Piers Corbyn, B.Sc Physics, M.Sc Astrophysics, Queen Mary College, UK
R. Timothy (Tim) Patterson, Ph.D. Professor of Geology, Carleton University, Canada
Randall Cerveny, Ph.D. Geography, University of Nebraska, USA
Reid A. Bryson, B.A. Geology, Ph.D. Meteorology, University of Chicago, USA
Richard C. Willson, Ph.D. Atmospheric Sciences, University of California Los Angeles, USA
Richard S. Courtney, Ph.D. Geography, The Ohio State University, USA
Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT, USA
Roger A. Pielke (Sr.), Ph.D. Meteorology, Penn State, USA
Rob Scagel, M.Sc., Forest Microclimate Specialist, Canada
Robert C. Balling Jr., Ph.D. Professor of Climatology, Arizona State University, USA
Robert Giegengack, Ph.D. Geology, Yale, USA
Robert H. Essenhigh, M.S. Natural Sciences, Ph.D. Chemical Engineering, University of Sheffield, UK
Robert Johnston, M.S. Physics, B.A. Astronomy, USA
Robert (Bob) M. Carter, B.Sc. Geology, Ph.D. Paleontology, University of Cambridge, Australia
Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology, University of Wisconsin, USA
S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Physics, Princeton University, USA
Sallie Baliunas, Ph.D. Astrophysics, Harvard, USA
Sherwood B. Idso, Ph.D. Soil Science, University of Minnesota, USA
Simon C. Brassell, B.Sc. Chemistry & Geology, Ph.D. Organic Geochemistry, University of Bristol, UK
Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Ph.D. Department of Geography, University of Hull, UK
Steve Milloy, B.A. Natural Sciences, M.S. Health Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, USA
Stephen McIntyre, B.Sc. Mathematics, University of Toronto, Canada
Sylvan H. Wittwer, Ph.D. Horticulture, University of Missouri, USA
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Ph.D. Geophysics, University of Alaska, USA
Tad S. Murty, Ph.D. Oceanography and Meteorology, University of Chicago, USA
Timothy (Tim) F. Ball, Ph.D. Geography, Historical Climatology, University of London, UK
Tom Harris, B. Eng. M. Eng. Mechanical Engineering (thermo-fluids), Canada
Tom V. Segalstad, B.S. Geology, University of Oslo, Norway
Vincent Gray, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry, Cambridge University, UK
W. Dennis Clark, Ph.D. Botany, Sacramento State College, USA
Wibjorn Karlen, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden
William Cotton, M.S. Atmospheric Science, Ph.D. Meteorology, Pennsylvania State University, USA
William E. Reifsnyder, B.S. Meteorology, M.S. Ph.D. Forestry, Yale, USA
William J.R. Alexander, Professor Emeritus, Department of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa
William (Bill) M. Gray, M.S. Meteorology, Ph.D. Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago, USA
Willie Soon, Ph.D. Astrophysics, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, USA
Wolfgang Thüne, Ph.D. Geography, University of Wuerzburg, Germany
Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D. Ph.D. D.Sc., Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Poland

A.J. Colby, B.S. Atmospheric Sciences, AMS Certified Meteorologist, Meteorologist WKYC-TV, USA
Andre Bernier, B.S. Meteorology, Lyndon State College, Meteorologist WJW-TV, USA
Anthony Watts, AMS Certified Meteorologist, Chief Meteorologist KPAY-AM, USA
Arlo Gambell, AMS Certified Meteorologist, USA
Art Horn, B.S. Meteorology, Lyndon State College, Meteorologist WVIT-TV, USA
Asmunn Moene, former Chief Meteorologist, Oslo, Norway
Bill Meck, Chief Meteorologist WLEX-TV, USA
Bill Steffen, Meteorologist WOOD-TV, USA
Bob Breck, B.S. Meteorology & Oceanography, University of Michigan, Chief Meteorologist WVUE-TV, USA
Brad Sussman, Meteorologist, USA
Brian Sussman, Meteorologist, USA
Bruce Schwoegler, B.S. Meteorology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA
Christopher Plonka, Meteorologist USAF, USA
Craig James, B.S. Meteorology, Penn State University, Chief Meteorologist WOOD-TV, USA
Dan Maly, Retired Meteorologist WOIO-TV, USA
David Aldrich, B.S. Meteorology, North Carolina State University, Meteorologist WTXF-TV, USA
Dick Goddard, Chief Meteorologist WJW-TV, USA
Don Webster, Retired Meteorologist WEWS-TV, USA
Douglas Leahey, Meteorologist, Canada
Eugenio Hackbart, Chief Meteorologist MetSul Meteorologia Weather Center, Brazil
Herb Stevens, Meteorologist WNYT-TV, USA
James Spann, AMS Certified Meteorologist, Chief Meteorologist WCFT-TV, WJSU-TV, USA
Jason Russell, Meteorologist, WTEN-TV, USA
Joe Bastardi, B.S. Meteorology, Penn State, Expert Senior Forecaster AccuWeather, USA
John Coleman, Meteorologist, Founder of 'The Weather Channel', Chief Meteorologist KUSI-TV, USA
Jon Loufman, Meteorologist WOIO-TV, USA
Justin Berk, B.S. Meteorology, Cornell University, AMS Certified Meteorologist, Meteorologist WMAR-TV, USA
Karl Bohnak, B.S. Meteorology, University of Wisconsin, AMS Certified Meteorologist, Meteorologist WLUC-TV, USA
Kevin Lemanowicz, B.S. Meteorology, Cornell University, Chief Meteorologist WFXT-TV, USA
Kevin Williams, B.S. Meteorology, Cornell University, Chief Meteorologist WHEC-TV, USA
Mark Koontz, Meteorologist WFMJ-TV, USA
Mark Breen, B.S. Meteorology, Lyndon State College, Senior Meteorologist Fairbanks Museum and Planetarium, USA
Mark Johnson, AMS Certified Meteorologist, Chief Meteorologist, WEWS-TV, USA
Nick Morganelli, Free-Lance Meteorologist, USA
Rich Apuzzo, Chief Meteorologist Skyeye Weather, USA
Roy Leep, B.S. Meteorology, Florida State University, Meteorologist WTVT-TV, USA
Sally Bernier, B.S. Meteorology, Lyndon State College, Meteorologist WJW-TV, USA
Shane Hollett, Meteorologist WMJI-FM, USA
Steven Nogueira, NWS Senior Meteorologist, USA
Terry Eliasen, B.S. Meteorology, University of Massachusetts Lowell, Meteorologist WBZ-TV, USA
Thomas B. Gray, M.S. Meteorology, USA
Tim Kelley, B.S. Meteorology, Lyndon State College, Meteorologist NECN, USA
Tom Chisholm, B.S. Atmospheric Sciences, Lyndon State College, Chief Meteorologist WMTW-TV, USA
William Kininmonth, M.Sc, Colorado State University, Retired Head of Australian Bureau of Meteorology, Australia

Social Scientists:
Andrey Illarionov, Ph.D. Economics, St. Petersburg University, Russia
Benny Peiser, Ph.D. Professor of Social Anthropology, Liverpool John Moores University, UK
Bjørn Lomborg, Ph.D. Political Science, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Daniel R. Simmons, B.A. Economics, Utah State University, USA
Dennis Avery, M.S. Agricultural Economics, The University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA
James Inhofe, B.A. Economics, University of Tulsa, USA
John J. Ray, Ph.D. Psychology, Macquarie University, Mensa, Sydney, Australia
Marlo Lewis, B.A. Political Science, Ph.D. Government, Claremont McKenna College, USA
Margo Thorning, Ph.D. Economics, University of Georgia, USA
Myron Ebell, M.Sc. Economics, London School of Economics, USA
Richard Tol, Ph.D. Economics, Vrije Universiteit, The Netherlands
Richard W. Rahn, Ph.D. Business Economics, Columbia University, USA
Robert Bradley, B.A. Economics, Ph.D. Political Economy, University of Houston, USA
Robert Higgs, Ph.D. Economics, Johns Hopkins University, USA
Roger A. Pielke (Jr.), Ph.D. Political Science, University of Colorado, USA
Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Economics, University of British Columbia, Canada
Thomas A. Birkland, Ph.D. Political Science, University of Washington, USA
Thomas Gale Moore, Ph.D. Economics, University of Chicago, USA
Vaclav Klaus, app. Ph.D. Economics, University of Economics, Prague, Czechoslovakia
William Nordhaus, Ph.D. Economics, MIT, USA

August H. Auer Jr., Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science, University of Wyoming, USA (Died: June 10, 2007)
Michael J. Higatsberger, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Experimental Physics, University of Vienna, Austria (Died: January 7, 2004)
Tor Ragnar Gerholm, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Physics, University of Stockholm, Sweden (Died: June 27, 2007)
William (Bill) A. Nierenberg, Ph.D. Physics, Columbia University, USA (Died: September 10, 2000)
William Mitchell, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Physics, University of Oxford, UK (Died: October 30, 2002)

JMK and mal, I destroyed you long ago on the whole "smoking doesn't cause cancer" thing.

Here you go, dumbasses, right from the

American Lung Association:

Surgeon General:

Ah, what the hell, you never let facts get in the way before!

Carry on!

What I find most ridiculous is that sometimes the extreme far-right ideology ignores basic knowledge, facts and common sense. There is no question that many in the far-right hate science. But to get to the point to believe that smoking does not cause lung cancer is beyond ridiculous. It is totally out of line with reality.

"JMK and mal, I destroyed you long ago on the whole "smoking doesn't cause cancer" thing." (Barely Hanging)

Mal didn't SAY anything about ETS and cancer, he merely asked a prescient question.

As a matter of fact, I didn't say ANYTHING about ETS and cancer either, but two researchers (James Enstrom and Geoffrey Kabat) DID...and they said it in the British Journal of Medicine;

"Research professor James Enstrom of UCLA and professor Geoffrey Kabat of the State University of New York, Stony Brook did a study in May 2003 and they reported in the British Medical Journal that their 39-year study of 35,561 Californians who had never smoked showed no "causal relationship between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) and tobacco-related mortality."

SEE: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=James+Enstrom+&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT

Whenever I hear a lay person OR physician talk about ANYthig "causing" cancer, I know I'm talking to someone unfamiliar with proper terminology.

A great research team in NYC (Roderick and Deborah Wallace) have documented the health effects of firefighting and Deborah Wallace wrote a book on the health impacts of burning plastics called In the Mouth of the Dragon (http://www.amazon.com/Mouth-Dragon-Toxic-Fires-Plastics/dp/0895294400/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/002-6202579-8792863?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194374186&sr=8-2) and yet as ALL researchers are wont to do, the Wallace's NEVER speak of exposure to X and/or Y "CAUSING" cancer, because the word "CAUSE" = a "1-to-1 direct causal relationship." Meaning that if you take 100 firefighters exposed to X &/or Y and 99 of them contract a specific cancer and 1 is killed by getting hit by a bus without being diagnosed with that cancer, there is NO/ZERO "CAUSAL" relationship.

According to the Wallace's urban/"interior attack" firefighting is one of the highest risk (related to cancer) profesions in the world, along with some forms of mining and smelting operations. The risk factors for urban firefighters is, in their view higher than a two-pack a day smoker for the length of their tenure on that job.

Can they claim "firefighting CAUSES cancer?"

Absolutely NOT.


Because many firefighters die from other causes without ever contracting cancer. While some firefighters die of strange cancers (like brain cancer and germ cell cancer) at early ages, others live long lives and die in their 80s or 90s of other, more "natural causes."

Certain activities elevate one's risk factors, BUT, there is no activity that has a 1-to-1 direct "CAUSAL relationship" with any form of cancer.

Gee, I must have missed being destroyed by BH long ago.

If you and BW re-read my post, I do not claim that smoking does not cause cancer.

So why the misrepresentation and anger at something I didn't say?

I said, and will say again, that the determination of a person's death by ETS is not given by the coroners or doctors treating the deceased. Rather, it is attached impersonally by scientists with an agenda adding 2 + 2 and finding 5.

I would ask that when you attack me or my posts, please be sure to ascertain what I have said - not what you perceive I said.

"If you and BW re-read my post, I do not claim that smoking does not cause cancer.
So why the misrepresentation and anger at something I didn't say?

I was not responding to your post. My response was to the totally ridiculous claims of someone else that "smoking does not cause cancer". Not that I agree with you anyway, but my criticism was not directed at you.

That's right JMK, when you get caught in a lie, try to wordsmith your way out. Rush taught you well.

But not well enough ...

"Enstrom is a controversial figure who has accepted funding from the Philip Morris tobacco company and the Center for Indoor Air Research (a tobacco industry front group), and subsequently published research that contradicted scientific consensus about the health effects of secondhand tobacco smoke, also known as environmental tobacco smoke, or ETS. [3]"

Wow, you mean the TOBACCO INDUSTRY funded the research JMK found? Shocking!

But wait, there's more!

"In 1999 the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) brought a massive lawsuit against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers alleging that the companies had collaborated in an elaborate, decades-long conspiracy to deceive the American public about the health effects of active smoking and secondhand smoke. In August 2006, Judge Gladys Kessler of the U.S. District Court in Washington D.C. ruled against the companies. The court's Final Opinion contains a detailed timeline (starting in Section 5, paragraph #3781, on Page 1380) describing communication between Philip Morris and Enstrom to produce the 2003 BMJ study, and describes how the American Cancer Society had repeatedly warned Enstrom that using its CPS-I data in the manner he was using it would lead to unreliable results. The court's Final Opinion cites the 2003 Enstrom/Kabat study as a significant part of the companies' conspiratorial enterprise against the American public. [11]"

I'm sorry JMK, you are just so easy to humiliate.

Without question, there is NO single factor that "CAUSES" cancer.

A "cause" = a DIRECT "ONE-TO-ONE relationship. Any other definition of a "CAUSE," is imprecise.

There isn't a "CAUSAL" or "ONE-to-ONE" direct relationship between breathing in large amounts of roof or "cockloft smoke," or smoke from burning plastics, even though BOTH are more laden with carcinogens (a larger amount and a wider spectrum) than any other subatance we know of.

If any factor, either cigarette smoking, or breathing in large amounts of roof/"cockloft" smoke, or smoke from burning plastic "CAUSED" cancer, there'd be a "DIRECT, ONE-to-ONE relationship" between those factors and cancer - in other words, EVERY person who smoked cigarettes would get lung cancer, or EVERY person who breathed large amounts of roof or plastics smoke would come down with various, specific cancers.

That is NOT the case! There isn't a single study wherein 100% of the smokers studied came down with lung cancer.

Many people who smoke NEVER get lung cancer. Many die from either "other cancers," or heart disease, and many live into their 70s & 80s.

The SAME is true for guys (mostly firefighters) who breathe in large amounts of roof or plastics smoke.

While it's true that a large number (certainly a majority) do die at early ages due to any number of cancers, most likely because many of the components of all those kinds of smoke are well documented carcinogens, there is no DIRECT or "ONE-to-ONE relation between breathing large amounts of either or both forms of smoke and any sepcific form of cancer.

Moroever, the actual or most precise definition of a "CAUSE" is a "DIRECT, ONE-to-ONE relationship." That is, if action A (ie. breathing large amounts of roof smoke) "CAUSED," for instance, brain cancer, then EVERY person who engaged in that action would have to be shown to get brain cancer.

If a study of 1,000 people who engaged in that activity showed that even 900 of them came down with brain cancer, would NOT establish that activity A "CAUSED brain cancer," because not EVERY person in that study came down with brain cancer.

What a researcher and any good physician would say is that, "A number of the components of action A (roof or "cockloft smoke") are known carciongens and engaging in that activity (breathing in a large amount of roof, or "cockloft smoke") is an extreme risk factor for any number of various cancers, as well as other heart and lung ailments, or that there is a strong "causal link" (NOT the same thing as "CAUSES," which is a very precise term - a "direct, ONE-to-ONE relation) between that activity and brain cancer."

Next, you're going to say something like "Cell phones cause brain tumors."

Well, there's no verifiable link between cell phones and brain tuumors, either.


Don't many anthropomorphic global warming alarmists claim that the "skeptics" within the scientific community are "paid for by the energy industry?"

In the vast majority of cases, those skeptical studies were done on independent research grants.

Moroever, as Bjorn Lomborg (author of The Skeptical Environmentalist claims, "I is more likely than not, that most of the studies done by these alarmists are done at government expense via government grants and deliver results manipulated to indicate that more government action is the answer."

I think Dr. Lomborg makes a great point.

For that matter, so does PopTech (Popular Technology) above.

There is an absolute, unquestionable, causal relationship between cancer and smoking. Smoking causes cancer. Period. Other factors maybe also required, but there zero question and debate about the role of smoking. It is so simple and factual.

Hyuk! No there isn't Barry! I smoked a cigarette when I was 13, and I don't have cancer!

Cigarettes are perfectly safe!

Some people also think there is such a thing as GRAVITY, but that is a myth!

One time when I was 6, I let one of my birthday party balloons go, and it went UP!!! It went up into the sky, and flew away!

So, hyuk, you see, there is not a DIRECT ONE-TO-ONE causal relationship between mass and gravity! Sometimes objects fall up!

Durr, some people try to tell me that the balloon was full of helium -- so what! Helium has mass! OWNED!!! I OWNED THEM ALL! GRAVITY IS A LIE!

I'll post a response from an oncologist who treated my Dad;

Joseph, I think you’re being overly provocative, at the very least.

"I am a physician and I work at Sloan Kettering Memorial and treated Joseph's father.

"While you are technically correct that cigarette smoking does not directly cause lung cancer, it is certainly one of the primary precipitating risk factors and it raises the risks for many other diseases (as you mentioned) to an extreme level.

"Most laymen would call that level of extreme risk “cause,” even though that term IS technically inexact.

"You don’t smoke, if I recall correctly from when I treated your father, so it does seem as though you’re provocatively downplaying the risks associated with smoking to make a point about direct causality.

"For the record, while there is no direct or 1-to-1 causality between any cancer and any single risk factor, smoking is an extreme risk factor, in fact, one of, if not the most extreme, certainly the most common lifestyle risk in existence.

"I have seen the study you referenced about ETS and that is an interesting topic and one the jury is still out on.

"I’ll just say that the main point here about people often regarding “junk science” and either incomplete or dubious “studies” on everything from Alar to global warming, to cell phones and brain tumors, to the carcinogenic effects of various foodstuffs is a good one.

"Much poor public policy has resulted from either reliance on poorly understood science or dubious, or what is popularly called “junk science.”

Garrett D.

P.S. Where did you find that Hitler quote? For the record, I do find the virulently anti-capitalist views expressed in it revolting, but while I'm not at all expert on things Hitlerian, I've never heard that kind of quote attributed to Hitler before.

I used "cause" in a technically correct way, even according to this physician who disagreed with what he saw as my de-emphasazing the dangers of smoking, which I didn't intend to do.

In fact, I don't think merely saying that "there is no one specific actiity that directly (1-to-1) causes cancer, is "downplaying the dangers of smoking."

Hell, I've never smoked. You can, not only increase your chances of getting cancer, but emphysema and all sorts of other afflictions, as well.

But I think others should remain FREE to make their own decisions for themselves on that and other things, as well.

Dur hurrr, I be da dumbass hairsplittin CHAMPYUN!

I take da words an finds a reel technacul way to LIE MY ASS OFF, den I fall back on sayin it were all truuue!

Hyuk, everbody knows I wus sayin dat cigarettes don caus cancer when I wus aguuin dat peoples shud hav da right to do whadever dey like, cept have aborshions, civil rights, privacy, or anytang dat Bush don wan'em ta have!

ANYone who respects Civil Liberties respects the right to people to eat, drink, smoke or otherwise ingest whatever they want into their own bodies....and, of course, I support and respect the basic right of people to do with their bodies what they will.

There are religious people in Appalachia who drink strychnine and handle poisonous snakes and most often with NO ill effects whatsoever.

So, who is to say that such activities should be banned?


I believe in it, at least up until the fetus is a "fully-formed child who could exist outside the womb"(generally the Third Trimester), a view held by nearly 70% of Americans (the 70% who've thought that through).

I also believe in mandatory birth control, and when necessary abortions, for those institutionalized physically/mentally handicapped, incarcerated felons and those dependent upon public assistance.

The laws, as currently written and approved by our courts OK random DUI checks (to benefit good folks like you & I, who believe "no one has the right to drive while impaired,"....me, hell, I'd 'rat out' a friend over that because it's such a "violation of trust"), internet child-sex stings (they're NOT "entrapment" and they're NOT "invasions of privacy" either, as the internet belongs to everyone) and the courts have also OK'd much more intrusive searches when it comes to war crimes (since terrorism is defined as "an act of unconventional warfare directed at civilian populations," terrorists are actually engaged in committing "war crimes," and NOT merely violating civilian "criminal statutes.")

And again, as oncologist Gary D said, I was "technically correct that cigarette smoking does not directly cause lung cancer... I never said, nor implied that smoking isn't a primary risk factor for cancer, emphysema, heart disease, etc.

If someone can find a sentence of mine that can be construed to suggest that, highlight it and I'll gladly stand corrected.

ETS is an entirely different matter, that is as yet unresolved.

But AGAIN, free people are free to do to their OWN BODIES whatever they want.

Free people are NOT free however, to do anything to another person, that that person doesn't want done to them.

In other words, say you and some of your racist, xenophobic anti-Indian pals decide to blow up a doctor's office filled with Indian doctors, or a recruiting center that finds jobs for people here on H-1B Visas....the prevailing view is that you "have no Constitutional Right to do that," and thus no Constitutional protections regarding that.

"We the people" have the right to empower the police to use security cameras to track you, to infiltrate your group, to bug your homes and offices, to track your cell phone calls, to surveill you at will until they gather enough evidence to interdict you BEFORE you commit an atrocity against America.

The courts have approved those police powers for such "war crimes" and I believe polls show that "the people" support that by nearly 3-to-1 (75%).

Post a comment