Big Tobacco Funded Anti-Global Warming Messages

An anonymous reader writes, "The UK Guardian is running an excerpt from the new book "Heat" by George Monbiot (to be published later this month) spelling out the network of funding opposing global action against global warming — specifically, limits on human carbon dioxide generation. The excerpt outlines a web of fake citizens' groups and bogus (but authoritative sounding) research institutes designed to convince laypeople that human causation of global warming is scientifically controversial. Not surprisingly, the article notes funding by ExxonMobil. More interesting is the role played big tobacco, tying their attack on the health risks of second-hand smoke to global warming skepticism." From the article: "What I have discovered while researching this issue is that the corporate funding of lobby groups denying that man-made climate change is taking place was initiated not by Exxon, or by any other firm directly involved in the fossil fuel industry. It was started by the tobacco company Philip Morris."

Big Tobacco Funded Anti-Global Warming Messages

[Nonillion (266505)]

All this from a company that paid for studies that declared smoking couldn't be linked to causing cancer.

Re:

[Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358)]

Tobacco smoke contains benzopyrene, which attacks position 157 of the gene that codes for p53, which is a tumor suppression protein.

The Japanese diet seems to have some protective effects. Japanese women who move the US have higher breast cancer rates, for example. If so that would account for some difference.

Even so the Japanese get lung cancer from smoking. From a Japanese lung cancer study [oxfordjournals.org]:

Elevated risks were found for squamous cell carcinoma in patients with a history of smoking (all had smoked v. 1

Really questioning my libertarian streak nowadays

[Mateo_LeFou (859634)]

For the free market to operate "correctly" (allocating money/resources to entities that generate value) its members must have access to good information about products -- their benefits and their costs. In the idealized theory, the market must have perfect information about products.

When the sources of information are so frequently corrupted by established power centers, how is there any home that efficient value-allocation will occur?

Re:Really questioning my libertarian streak nowada

[UbuntuDupe (970646)]

In the idealized theory, the market must have perfect information about products.

I think you mean to say that in an ideal world, the market *participants* have perfect information. Participants in markets don't need to have perfect information for markets to be preferable to other methods of distribution. Communism (for example) doesn't become superior because you have to call around town to find the best price, and you decide to stop searching before you've called them all, in other words.

Re:Really questioning my libertarian streak nowada

[RatBastard (949)]

Libertarianism is unworkable and deeply flawed. It, like Communism, relies on something that does not exist: the perfect human being. In order for Libertariansim to work all people must work towards their own elightened self interest. The problem is that's not how humans work. We (and I'm speaking in terms of populations more than particular people) are selfish, needy, dishonest and mean.

Libtertarianism also relies on corporations acting in their own best, long-term self interest. We've all see that modern corporations don't look any further down the road than their next quaterly statement and in every place where there is not sufficient regulations they abuse the system and their employees to the limits of human endurance. That chemical spill in India was the result of an American chemical company locating a plant in a country with lax environmental and safety laws and operating their plant at those minimum specs in order to save money.

To blindly trust businesses is folly at best and suicide at worst. The only time businesses care about you is when you spend your money on their products and services. Never forget that.

I grew up in a Libertarian household. None of them remain Libertarians.

Re:

[Kismet (13199)]

This sounds to me more like Objectivism - Ayn Rand stuff. I realize that a lot of self-styled "Libertarians" subscribe to the theories of Objectivism, but I don't think that the two are exactly the same. Or perhaps this is what Libertarianism has become. I've personally favored Libertarian ideals, but if these have become tainted by business and by Objectivism, then I will re-think the next time I consider supporting them.

Re:

[exp(pi*sqrt(163)) (613870)]

Libertarianism is the political position of advocating liberty.

Stop with the slogans already, and say what you actually mean. Your definition of 'liberty' does not include a starving man taking food from a billionaire. Your definition of 'liberty' considers a starving man prevented from eating the food he needs as 'liberty'.

rather it is limitations on our liberty that must be justified

But in your twisted perversion of 'liberty', when the starving man takes food from the billionaire it's the billionai

Re:

[dangitman (862676)]

Property is essentially the opposite to liberty. So, I'm not sure why libertarians bang on about freedom, when what they really want is ownership.

Re:Really questioning my libertarian streak nowada

[radtea (464814)]

There's a reason why we live better in the USA than people did in the Soviet Union, or in the typical middle-east dictatorship.

Indeed, and that reason is mostly to do with the rule of law and a well regulated market, which is not much like the "free market" libertarians defend. Nations with better-regulated markets than the U.S., like Canada, Denmark and Sweden to name but a few, have populaces that live better than people in the USA do. At least according the UN measure of quality of life.

Neither libertarianism nor communism require "perfect humans", whatever those might be. But they do require human beings to be other than they actually are, and therefore have not been notably successful in the creation of stable societies.

Futurama predicted this!

[orkysoft (93727)]

Poopenmeyer: Garbage ball, huh? That sounds serious.

Farnsworth: Very serious, Mayor Poopenmeyer.

Poopenmeyer: I gotta be sure this isn't another scientific fraud like global warming or second-hand smoke. [He presses the intercom.] Send in my science advisor.

They're not *lying* . . .

[StefanJ (88986)]

. . . they're employing their core competency to leverage creation of a favorable issue environment.

Put another way, what they're doing is encouraging the creation of a population of irate soreheads programmed to doubt anything on command.

I mean, dang, there are a lot of folks out there who think Penn Jillette and Micheal Crichton are authorities on global warming and second hand smoke.

I don't get the connection...

[mobiux (118006)]

What's the motivation behind Philip Morris trying to debunk global warming?

Re:I don't get the connection...

[squiggleslash (241428)]

It's in the article.

Global warming is one of the things they wanted to cast doubt about. The problem they were facing was that warnings on second-hand smoke were being taken seriously. The intent was sow a general distrust of scientists, making it appear that that consensus is rare. If they'd limited their focus to only research into second hand smoke, it'd have looked suspicious and Philip Morris's actions would have been fairly obvious. However, a general discrediting of science... well, until this article came out, I wasn't even aware that part of the cause of the Cato/Crichton/"JunkScience.com" axis of uncertainty was the tobacco industry.

I'm waiting to find out how much they paid the International Astronomers Union... ;)

George Monbiot

[colonslashslash (762464)]

I've read one of his previous books - The Age Of Consent - which is actually a really good read. Although the title may imply it, is has nothing to do with the legal age of consent for sexual intercourse (*audience groans*), but is about the current global political / economic climate and his somewhat radical (although well justified) ideas to even the playing field out a bit. Obviously, not a book for everyone, but it has a lot of insight into various popular political systems and organisations like the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, some of which is pretty damning.

After reading that a couple of years back, I would definately be interested in checking out his latest work.

Nothing but white noise...

[Eric Damron (553630)]

Yes, the art of deception. The doctrine of "perception is greater than truth" is followed by people and organizations of low moral standards. One would think that in the age of instant information one could ferret out these amoral jerks but it's not easily done.

A couple of enabling factors are present that contributes to the problem.

1. In general people are lazy, complacent sheep who hear what they want to hear and don't take the trouble of getting involved until a problem directly impacts their lives. When that happens it is usually too late.

2. There is such a volume of information and disinformation that it all blends into a kind of white noise that can make shifting the truth difficult for the few who really want to get at the truth. And if they do get at the truth problem one and two kicks in. Few will listen and their warnings just become part of the white noise.

I'm just as guilty as most. It's just easier for me to sit back and watch seeds of corruption grow and bear fruit. Oh, I add to the white noise with my complaints but there are so many issues and no one really listens anyway. The shame is that the fruit of corruption will eventually be the end of mankind or maybe even all life on Earth.

Heh, intelligent animals... Mother nature's greatest mistake!

new tagline

[revery (456516)]

A million tiny smoke stacks can't be wrong.

--
This is a joke. I am joking. You have been joked with.

A nice test for /.

[neonfrog (442362)]

The organization at the core of all of this is The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC). Odd linky [prwatch.org] which connects them to here [junkscience.com].

Ready for the brain-twister? They are pro nuclear energy [junkscience.com].

Demonize away!

The other interesting tidbit found here [exxonsecrets.org] (sorry about the horrid flash link) is that Exxon has moved $12+ million (discoverable) towards anti-global warming organizations. That sounds like a lot -- until you realize they make a billion $ a day ...

smell test

[bkirkby (133683)]

this doesn't pass the smell test. there's no sureer way of getting more people on the side of your cause than to lump the other side with existing known boogeymen.

next we're going to learn that people who don't believe the moon landing was faked are aligned with nazis

Fanatics, yes, proponents, no.

[Mateo_LeFou (859634)]

The people who want to blame Exxon for Hurricane Katrina are obviously picking and choosing. As I understand it, though, scientists have a reliable measurement -- global mean surface temperature -- which shows a steady rise and which is not contradicted by local cooling. I like that scene in the Crichton book when a guy points to a cooling trend at a single weatherstation and says "there's your global warming".

Re:

[lottameez (816335)]

How exactly do they compute "global mean surface temperature"? I ask because I tried to find this metrics a few weeks ago with no luck. Are the temperature readings on a grid? Distributed evenly in population centers? And how long have all of these "global" measurements been taking place? Certainly all the necessary instrumentation hasn't been in place for any reasonable length of time, right?

Of course, IANAGC. (I am not a global climatologist).

Re:Fanatics, yes, proponents, no.

[jandrese (485)]

Global temperatures have been monitored by satellite since 1979 with the Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) flying on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) TIROS-N series of polar-orbiting weather satellites. Beforehand it was less accurate and relied on regularly recording the weather at various points around the globe. For times before we did that (1800s and earlier) they have to use indirect methods including tree ring counting, ice core sampling, and other such techniques.

Re:

[crmartin (98227)]

Well, except it doesn't necessarily show a steady rise --- unless you pick your epoch. it's risen pretty steadily in the last 100 years ... except it hasn't actually risen much, if at all, in the last ten years ... and it's clearly risen a lot since about 1600 ... which was the bottom point of the Little Ice Age.

But then, the reason it was called the Little Ice Age is that it was the coldest period since the Little Climactic Optimum, which reached its peak in about 1100 (when Vikings were growing grapes in

Plug for plug

[Mateo_LeFou (859634)]

Response [realclimate.org] to MC by professional climatologist. Summary: He's not right.

I can't believe people buy this.

[Grendel Drago (41496)]

So, pop quiz. Which seems more likely to you? (a) A cabal of college professors, not standing to lose much of anything, jeopardize their careers and their scientific credibility by conducting a widespread campaign of disinformation to subvert the scientific process and whip the public into a panic. (b) A cabal of titanic multinational corporations, standing to lose untold billions if carbon controls are implemented, conducts a widespread campaign of disinformation to subvert the scientific process and confuse the public.

I understand that it makes for good airplane reading, but come on. In the real world, Occam's Razor rips the whole mess to shreds. (Plus, isn't it telling that the best bit of media global warming deniers have on their side is an unabashed work of fiction?)

(Also, if you're going to claim the existence of the aforementioned scientist conspiracy, please provide at least as much evidence as there already is for option (b) [motherjones.com]. Thanks.)

This, by you, is more plausible?

[Grendel Drago (41496)]

You think that a vague desire to destroy the world muwahaha, which scientists have because they're, y'know, mad scientists, somehow secretly pervading the entire scientific establishment, is a more plausible source of bias than, y'know, simple short-sighted greed?

Also, I see that you've failed to come up with anything other than vigorous hand-waving to back up your claims. Did you bother to read the last paragraph of the post that you replied to?

It's a false equivalence.

[Grendel Drago (41496)]

Oh, please. Al Gore is hardly fearmongering. If you take a quick glance, you'll see that the ExxonMobil noise machine makes a set of claims, and Al Gore makes a set of claims. You could be forgiven for thinking that, naturally, the truth lies just about in the middle. Most people don't have the time or the inclination to do their own research, and this is a common strategy---one tha the aforementioned noise machine takes advantage of.

ExxonMobil's claims are lies, half-truths, distortions and deceptive readi

Re:Global Warming Fanatics Do the Same

[gowen (141411)]

They'll find reports / studies to their advantage and promote them like crazy

The difference is, they find them in reputable, peer reviewed journals, and written by people who actually understand climate science.

Re:Global Warming Fanatics Do the Same

[plopez (54068)]

Average global warming does not mean that everyone everywhere is going to experience a warming trend. Local conditions *will* vary, some places getting hotter, some cooler, some dryer, some wetter etc.

A better term would be 'accelerated global climate change'. And it is the accellerated part that is important. Where in the past ecologies may had had time to adapt to change, if it is too rapid humans and the species they depend upon may not be able to adapt.

However, 'accelerated global climate change' makes for an awkward sound bite.

Re:Global Warming Fanatics Do the Same

[laxcat (600727)]

I'll admit that I'm a little suspicious of a report like this that meshes so perfectly with all my liberal suspicions of Big Oil and Big Tobacco.

But the "Both sides do it" argument is pretty rediculous. Would some truly argue that the relatively meager lobbies and scientific groups that promote awareness about global warming have the same type of power and persuassion as these mutiti billion dollar profit corporations? Sure both sides point to studies that benefit them. But one side doesn't have to fabricate its science, and isn't backed by monetary interests in the same way the corporations are.

Saying "both sides do it" is like throwing a penny on one side of a scale and a couple of lead bars on the other.

Re:

[fragmentate (908035)]

Isn't it amazing how the side you're on is always right?

The other side is always lying, deceiving, manipulating... aka propagandizing. But, certainly not YOUR side.

(pardon my completely unbiased interjection)

Re:Global Warming Fanatics Do the Same

[gewalker (57809)]

Of course, its the basis for which I pick my side.

Re:Global Warming Fanatics Do the Same

[FellowConspirator (882908)]

The key part of the term "Global Warming" is "Global". That is to say that the average temperature of the entire surface of the Earth is increasing. This is, in fact, objectively observable and undisputed (at least in the literature on the subject). As ocean currents and wind patterns are now changing, some places are warming more rapidly, and others cooling -- as predicted. For example, another degree or two will push the Gulf Stream far enough south that the temperature in Northern Europe would be expected to drop to an average of just under 0C. At the same time, however, the 1 degree change in average global temperature would locally increase temperatures in parts of the mideast another 10C.

A popular tactic used by the paid "Global Warming" denial lobby is to concede that global warming is real, but that one of the following is true: the climate is simply following a regular cycle and there's no need for concern (the amount of CO2 and the speed is unprecedented and the effect appears to actually be mitigated by particulate pollutants and accelerating as the pollutants settle out of the atmosphere), or that the effect is not anthropogenic in nature and thus there's nothing we can do about it (it may be too late, but all evidence in the literature points towards anthropogenic causation).

Climatologists are not referring to places with warming trends and ignoring those with cooling trends. They are looking at the whole enchilada and reporting what they see. Lobbyists and gullible press are the only reason anyone thinks otherwise. The literature is very unanimous and exhaustively complete on the subject. From a political perspective there may be two sides or two schools of thought, but not on the scientific side. That argument was settled long ago.

Re:

[Pluvius (734915)]

The article is about paid lobbyists representing the richest corporations in the world while pretending to be something else entirely. So where so-called "global warming fanatics" are concerned, I don't see the similarity, whether some of them are overly-selective or not.

If you're saying that environmentalists never have ulterior motives for their cause, then you're sadly mistaken. Many of them are anti-technology, including the author of this article, having bought into the myth of the noble savage. They

Mod Parent -1 Troll

[Burz (138833)]

"Historically mild?"

Where did you get that little "data point" from? The drastic swings indicated by ice core samples are so far back they're from PRE-history.

It must be tough being a conspiracy theorist when most of your targets of blame never get any more specific than "the left" (i.e. scientists) and have almost no assets or power worth speaking of compared to the ultra-wealthy interests trying to discredit them.

Re:CEI?

[by Anonymous Coward]

More than you ever wanted to know about CEI:

Exxon's Cash Pipeline to CEI [sourcewatch.org]

Re:CEI?

[Copid (137416)]

"Oil" companies are really "energy fuel" companies. They will sell you whatever fuel you want to buy. The debate on global warming is irrelevant to them. In fact, if you switch to more expensive fuels, like hydrogen induction for your car and nuclear for your electricity, their profit margins might actually go up.

Yes, but the one type of energy they'd hate to be selling you is less energy. It's worth noting that the average oil purchaser isn't replacing oil with alternatives. He's buying more fuel efficient vehicles and using less energy overall. When fuel cell cars fueled by water cracked with energy sold by the big energy companies, then they'll be more than willing to decry the evils of oil. As long as consumers are taking the Prius route instead, Exxon and company are hardly neutral on the topic.

Re:Common agenda

[Catbeller (118204)]

Neh. No. It's not that the aims of big oil and big tobacco are the same; it's that the tobacco industry developed the methodology of creating bullshit "science" foundations and fake citizens' groups, combined with professional and surgical insertion of false memes into the popular culture through shills in the media.

I assume that big oil just wanted big tobacco's expertise in suppressing science and creating false "controversy" in the garbage news industry. I think we've witnessed our first corporate memetic mitosis.

The aim isn't to fund science, it's to create a false air of debate when the facts just don't warrant it. "Reasonable people can disagree on this matter" is the meme they want floating through the blow-dried heads of the media gods. But of course, reasonable people don't disagree. Unreasonable liars disagree. But no one is allowed to call a corporate shill a liar anymore, I guess. That wouldn't be "balanced".

Journalists are now inculated with the idea that their job is to present both "sides" of an "issue", where "reasonable" people can disagree. They don't take sides. The result of this is that PR masters can create BS "sides" and create fake debate that dethrone reason and install "balance". (I'd like to see this done with religious talking heads. Fat chance.)

A reasonable news industry would winnow out and dismiss the robots dancing to their masters tune. There would be no "debate". Hell, you can't find any opinion to the "left" of Ronald Reagan in the news shows anymore, so they apparently *can* filter out what they consider nuts; they unfortunately can't seem to apply their debate filters to fake science corporate fronts and economic looting institutes.

Re:Common agenda

[soft_guy (534437)]

Burning cigarettes results (in part) in carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide being released into the air. So does burning fossil fuels. Both have been linked to global warming trend

Isn't there a huge difference in magnitude, though? Do cigarettes contribute a significant amount to the incrase of carbon in the air? People have been smoking, lighting candles, etc. for thousands of years with no problem. It is the massive use of automobiles and fossil fuel to create electricity that has caused the problems with global climate change.

That's not to say that cigarettes aren't bad for you and for society.

Re:

[cayenne8 (626475)]

"Smoke em if you got em?"

So now, not only are smoker responsible for 1000's of deaths from 2nd hand smoke, they are now responsible for global freaking warming?

Hehehe...geez. I mean, so far, not even the WHO's study on SHS [davehitt.com] shows a meaningful connections between SHS and lung cancer in non-smokers....

Lordy...if it is that bad, why not just make it against the law...or is this global warming connection thing the last nail in the coffin of tobacco smokers?

(Note: Former smoker here...trying to quit, but,

Re:ummm

[WiFiBro (784621)]

It's not only a sign of immaturity to return the accusations, but it does not make any sense at all to state that governments want to hear that global warming is within their responsibilities.

Finally, original research!

[Grendel Drago (41496)]

Sirrah, you have convinced me! I'm going to get on a plane right now so I can find George Monbiot and kick him right in the balls.

dammit, mod parent down

[Scrameustache (459504)]

I guess this is technically off-topic, but I hate, HATE those Truth.com commercials

You got that right: Your feelings about commercials on TV are offtopic.

To see a bunch of snotty college kids in commercials going around telling everyone how evil cigarettes are, when you know these same kids get drunk and smoke weed on the weekends

Wow, typecasting much! Wanna add something about their mama, while you're at it?

they even dupe local governments into complying and forming a nice little pseudo-fascist state where you can be arrested for daring let a smoker into your club or restaurant (but remember, drunks and stoners are a-okay!).

1- Stoners are routinely put in prison.
2- If you drink next to me, I don't get second-hand drinks in my stomach.

When your smoke stays out of my lungs and eyes, and when its stink stays out of my clothes and hair you'll have a point. In the meantime, you couldn't be further from the truth.

Manipulating bitches, all of em

[jmorris42 (1458)]

> These whiny irritants love imposing their feelings about smoking on business owners and everyone else.

And the same asshats are gearing up to make McD's change their menu to reflect their 'enlightened notions' of what you should be eating. Of course these same dipshits are also trying to decide what sort of unsafe at any speed piece of plastic crap car you 'want' to drive in the name of 'global warming' while THEY fly their fucking private jets to (press) conferences to announce what they want to impos

Re:ummm

[Overly Critical Guy (663429)]

Treating smoking as a civil rights issue ignores the fact that tabacco is one of the most addictive chemicals humans consume.

That's not true, but it would have no relevance anyway. Who are you to tell someone they can't slip out the back door and relax with a cigarette?

Essentially all tabacco companies have to do is to entice new smokers to try their product and then biology takes over.

This is true of alcohol as well, and many other products. Also, there are surgeon's general warnings on every pack of cigarettes informing people of the consequences.

Considering that besides being very addictive, it's also very deadly; it's obvious to me that there is sufficient reason for society to regulate both it's use and it's marketing. No reasonable person would demand that any other highly addictive substance should not only be sold, but should also be advertised, allowed to be used in public places, and marketed to children.

From alcohol to chocolate to fast food, what you describe covers a wide range of products that you apparently feel should also be regulated. Aside from the fact that the government proves time and time again that it's inefficient at regulating anything, you're actually arguing for the government to "regulate" your life and your free will, putting the judgements of what is good and what is bad in the hands of politicans and legislators rather than the individual. If you don't like smoking, fantastic! Don't smoke, and avoid places that allow it. It's a very simple solution that doesn't involve imposing your decision on everyone else.

If the government gets a hold of a study proving a link between angry music and violent behavior, can the government start telling you not to get tattoos or listen to heavy metal for the good of society? Can they start banning other influences they deem negative to your health, such as controversial books and movies?

"I'll smoke, I'll get the cancer, I'll die. Deal? Thanks, AMERICA." - Bill Hicks

Re:

[wwiiol_toofless (991717)]

Mmmmm... Tomacco....

Fact vs Theory (again)

[Pfhorrest (545131)]

I KNOW people want to believe this. That's fine. It's a belief, great. So is Catholicism. And, like Catholicism, that doesn't mean it's fact. Global warming, right now is a theory with lots of supporting evidence, but no proof. If it had proof, it wouldn't be a theory.

"Gravity" is just a theory. That things denser than air fall toward the surface of the Earth is a fact, as are other facts that relate to gravity. The theory of gravity (pick one... Newton's, Einstein's...) attempts to explain those facts and predict further facts from such an explanation. No amount of watching things fall will EVER "prove" the theory of gravity correct, at least in such a way to change it from a "theory" to a "fact".

Likewise, that the average surface temperature of the Earth is increasing is a fact ("global warming"). There are theories that attempt to explain this. Some of these theories are well-supported by the facts. Others may not be. But none of them will even be "proven" and elevated to anything beyond a theory.

Theories aren't proven. They don't become facts, no matter how much support they receive or how well they hold up. Theories are always theories and being "just a theory" doesn't make an idea any less sound.

Only in America

[smilindog2000 (907665)]

It's scary how many /.-ers seem to hold opinions like the grand-parent of this post.

Then again, many (probably most) of us are American, and we are the guys who:

- Believe that evolution is "junk science"
- Don't believe in global warming
- Are proud to be "Ditto Heads"
- Fell prey fear during the Salem Witch Trials, the McCarthy Era, and now Neoconservatism

If you need public support for a scientifically proven wrong point of view, simply back the majority of us who think science is bunk. Join the Religious Right, Big Tobacco, Exxonmobil, and the Neoconservatives in taking advantage of (and promoting) our ignorance.

Re:Let's say...

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746)]

The Myth of Second Hand Smoke claims that inhaling smoke from somebody else's tobacco is at least as dangerous as being a smoker, if not more so.

Ahhh, but this is not what was stated and this is, by itself, an assumption. There is a lot of research that has gone into secondhand smoke by a lot of different groups, some of which was scientific and some of which was not. While there may have been claims by some that secondhand smoke is more dangerous to nonsmokers, that was by no means claimed by all. The important question is, what are the dangers of secondhand smoke and are they significant?

The study you site involves two people both exposed to secondhand smoke. One is a smoker and one is not. It then monitors the rate of lung/throat cancer, presumably with other controls and normalization on the test group. How then can you claim, "claims that Second Hand Smoke is dangerous are bad pseudo-science at best, intentional lies at worst." when this study only addresses the relative danger of smoke exposure to smokers and non-smokers?

By almost all reputable accounts second hand smoke is dangerous to both smokers and non-smokers, although different studies have shown this to differing degrees. To claim that a study that provides support for the idea that secondhand smoke is not more dangerous to non-smokers somehow supports the idea that secondhand smoke is not dangerous, is what I would refer to as "dangerous pseudo-science." From the CDC, "Secondhand smoke exposure causes heart disease and lung cancer in nonsmoking adults. Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or work increase their heart disease risk by 25-30 percent and their lung cancer risk by 20-30 percent."

You seem to have fallen for a bait and switch marketing ploy.

Re:I still do not believe in Global Warming !

[wanerious (712877)]

The most common omission I find is the error level on charts. Take the ice core samples, what is the error level? Most I have seen have stated that the current PPM of CO2 is at an all time high! It has been stated that the current CO2 levels are 330+ ppm and from ice cores we know it has never been higher, or do we? What is the error level of the ice cores? +/- ??? If it is +/- 500ppm than the charts are junk, if it is +/- 2ppm then they may mean something. To date I have not been able to find anything that states the accuracy of the reading or the error level of the ice cores.

This is part of basic, peer-reviewed science. I'd give them the benefit of the doubt and figure they've thought of that already. If they report the number as 330, it's reasonable to guess that it's around 330 +- 10. If you really can't find the uncertainties in the professional articles, email the authors. No offense, but I'd be shocked if you've thought of something they haven't.

The general consensus is that the global temp is up 0.5c +/- .2c. So the warming trend may be as high as .7c and as low as .3c. I can see this, but add to this that the temperature measurements have a posted error correction of +/- .7c we now have a problem. The global warming that may be happening is within the error rate of the temperature measurement. If Microsoft tried to use numbers like this we would tare them apart but the global warming crowd uses them and they are ok?

This is fine, as long as there are lots of measurements. Uncertainties add in quadrature, so we pin down a more narrow confidence level with a great number of measurements.

To those how would point to the chart that shows us warming, they all seem to start around 1880. This is odd as this marks the end of the little ice age, to say that we are warmer now than we were during the little ice age is, well, duh!

The point isn't just that we're warmer now than we've been since the 1880's, but the CO2 levels are the highest they've been in the last 800,000 years, at least. And we've broken through the 200-300 ppm envelope the levels have been in only the last 100 years, so it's the *rate* of increase that is particularly worrisome.

I am sorry, the science seems off and with out solid science to back it up I just can not believe the hype.

Again, and I don't mean any offense, but these seem like simplistic arguments. We might want to be humble enough to assume that these people, most of whom are really smart, and spend their whole professional lives studying just this phenomena, have already considered these things. I'm not advocating a blind appeal to authority, but it's only curteous to assume that the experts in the field carry *some* authoritative weight.

Re:Smoking related causes...

[2short (466733)]

Um, dude, learn some statistics. Smokers have insanely higher rates of lung and heart disease than non smokers. The sample size establishing this has reached the "enormous" level. Smoking is extremely bad for you. Yes, inhaling anything but air is probably bad for you, but nothing anyone inhales with any frequency is close to as bad as tobbaco smoke.