Thread: second hand smoke. the real scoop.

Originally Posted by xman

Oh,

* every year since 1992 has been warmer than 1992
* the ten hottest years on record occurred in the last 15
* every year since 1976 has been warmer than 1976
* the 20 hottest years on record occurred in the last 25
* every year since 1956 has been warmer than 1956
* every year since 1917 has been warmer than 1917

And then there's all this. Don't take my word for it. Please read the information in the link provided in this post and use your own critical thinking skills. It is a complex issue and as such cannot be written off with simple answers. Second hand smoke is the same.

I apologise Mr. Opinion, but I'm afraid you'll have to ride in the back seat, sir. This chair is reserved for facts.

X

In the seventies the biggest fear was the coming of the next ice age, and guess what, they had proof then to back them up.
The easiest way to control a whole population is to keep them scared, confused ,and feeling helpless!!

" As far as Justin's comment "it has all become politics". That all depends where you are getting your info from. Sure there are some biased studies both for and against an argument like man-made global warming but most of the political spin comes into play after the study was published, mainly in the media or the parliament when people try to spin the findings to suit them."



That's true --but how do you think studies are started -- they are funded by individuals with an angle -- sometimes political.

I would like to believe in objective science but you can't ingore the human thing in all of this.

I want the facts too -- I just don't know if I can trust the gatherers or the ones who interpret them.

Justin

sorry about the quotation screwup

Originally Posted by jaegerhund

" As far as Justin's comment "it has all become politics". That all depends where you are getting your info from. Sure there are some biased studies both for and against an argument like man-made global warming but most of the political spin comes into play after the study was published, mainly in the media or the parliament when people try to spin the findings to suit them."



That's true --but how do you think studies are started -- they are funded by individuals with an angle -- sometimes political.

I would like to believe in objective science but you can't ingore the human thing in all of this.

I want the facts too -- I just don't know if I can trust the gatherers or the ones who interpret them.

Justin

Hey Justin, it turns out your my hero also!!

Mark ---

WE DON`T NEED ANOTHER HERO
WE DON`T NEED TO KNOW THE WAY HOME
ALL WE WANT IS LIFE BEYOND
THUNDERDOME

bah!!!!!!

All this stuff is complicated ---- and I don't want to start an unfriendly rivalry here (I know this can happen). I can sense passions starting to flare -- so I will quit (unless provoked )

Justin

Originally Posted by STR8 77

Well there isn't much anyone can say to counter your argument Jimbo: "In the end it's all just probabilities and how you choose to interpret them".
Of course it is but IMHO I'd rather not jump in front of a car or play Russian Roulette and hope that the odds play out in my favour...

Sure - some things don't need studies or experimentation - I thought I said that. But if you're going to use sample data to infer things about the general, unfortunately "them's the breaks".

You pick on one draft paper in late 90's/early 00's, was it published? or used to make some policy? and how many studies have been published since? are they all bad?? I agree there are bad studies/papers out there but there are also some good ones, don't you think?

Well, I used it as a "for example" - apologies if it sounded like I was picking on it. Some studies are excellent - in fact, the methodology of the one I mentioned was above reproach. They just didn't know what to do with the data they had - they'd collected subjects' age but in the draft didn't include it in the analysis.

Sure you can argue both for and against man made global warming (or any issue for that matter) using stats, and stats are just stats and never proof. But you can't honestly believe that man has played no part in it. What about deforestation, or dwindling fish stocks or global pollution? Are those all contrived too?
I completely agree that nature and earth will bounce back, but I just have an issue with people who write it off and refuse to try and change. I mean, why keep testing our luck if we can do something about it?

I don't believe I expressed any opinion on whether man is responsible for global warming. In fact, I agree with you on your last point - I thought I made that clear?

As far as Justin's comment "it has all become politics". That all depends where you are getting your info from. Sure there are some biased studies both for and against an argument like man-made global warming but most of the political spin comes into play after the study was published, mainly in the media or the parliament when people try to spin the findings to suit them.

Sure, but I've been an academic long enough to know there's micro and macro pressure/politics. The macro stuff is usually pretty plain to see (e.g. drug companies funding medical research - I've signed a few non-disclosure statements in my time...). The micro-pressure is less obvious, but let's just say there's some truth to the whole "publish or perish" thing, as you probably know.

I am not arguing that the world will end due to 'global warming' or that smoking/being exposed to second hand smoke will absolutely kill you (I too smoke a pipe several times a year), but to argue that since we don't have absolute proof we don't have to believe it or try to change it (of course, only when it is convenient for us) seems a little insincere.

Well, I certainly never meant to imply that unless you can prove it, it's useless to try! I was just hoping to point out some data-and statistical-related issues.

Like I said, I try to be a considerate smoker - I never smoke close to others, I never smoke around children or in the car. I even put my filters in the garbage bin as I know they don't biodegrade. I don't even smoke in my own house, as I find the accumulated stench a bit unnattractive - but I do smoke on my deck, and visitors are free to come out with me or stay inside until I've done. That's not an opinion on whether I think second hand smoke is real or not. It's just courtesy to those who don't choose to smoke.

I think I'm probably doing more harm than good in this topic, so I'm out too.

James.

Here ya go James:


Justin (ass kisser for a day)

A wise man once said: There are only three kinds of lies; lies, damned lies, and statistics. You can prove or disprove anything using statistics, so I'm always sceptical when someone quotes statistics to "prove" their point.

Tobacco smoke contains a lot of chemicals, as you can see in this factsheet, and I don't think a lot of people would be willing to enter a room where the air contained those chemicals, if they were told about it in advance.

Personally, I question mr. Williams' motivation for writing his article. My first reaction was that he must be working for the tobacco industry, right or wrong. On the other hand this article by the same mr. Williams seems to suggest that he is a smoker who dislikes being told not to smoke. So maybe the article about second-hand smoke is just his way to argue that it's not dangerous to inhale his exhaust fumes?

Just my 2 cents.

Oh, and I'm a non smoker, for the record.

Originally Posted by xman

Oh,

* every year since 1992 has been warmer than 1992
* the ten hottest years on record occurred in the last 15
* every year since 1976 has been warmer than 1976
* the 20 hottest years on record occurred in the last 25
* every year since 1956 has been warmer than 1956
* every year since 1917 has been warmer than 1917

And then there's all this. Don't take my word for it. Please read the information in the link provided in this post and use your own critical thinking skills. It is a complex issue and as such cannot be written off with simple answers. Second hand smoke is the same.

I apologise Mr. Opinion, but I'm afraid you'll have to ride in the back seat, sir. This chair is reserved for facts.

X

X

It has also been on average warmer every year ever since we started keeping accurate records. I won't argue that the earth is warming. I will argue about mans role and ability to either have caused or to fix this. We also have no idea what this means. As is mentioned above we are due for the next ice age, so maybe this is how the earth preps, saving up the cold for a big wammie of a ice age. This is a thousand year issue, we have barely even scratched the surface of and it deals with the systems that regulate climate on the entire earth. There is to much to study for anyone to be concluding anything at this point. I think all the panic-mongering is as irresponsible as shouting fire in a theater.

Originally Posted by STR8 77

You pick on one draft paper in late 90's/early 00's, was it published? or used to make some policy? and how many studies have been published since? are they all bad?? I agree there are bad studies/papers out there but there are also some good ones, don't you think?

STR8

An interesting observation about many studies of politically charged issues is that you often find the same scientists or groups of scientists doing multiple studies of the same issue. Then they do one with the results they wanted and all of a sudden the issue is resolved, there is consensus in the scientific community and a new "fact" is born.

Today nobody is studying the effects of second hand smoke because "everyone" knows that it will kill you more surely than a bullet. Yet this article is very correct in pointing out that there has never been a study that was able to conclude, at the scientific communities accepted level of confidence, that second hand smoke plays a role in any disease.

So really NO there are no good studies or papers out there to support this issue.

Hey guys,
No worries on my account about getting too charged up. I'm just having a conversation. (James, my last response was not directed at you specifically, it was more of a general rant, didn't mean to imply anything personal about your lifestyle)

In the end this argument (or any other) will never be resolved, and in theory that is what science should be... nothing should ever be accepted at face value.
(Scientists are still testing Einsteins theories to validate/disprove it.)

To be clear the research I deal with is very basic (by which I mean, not clinical just cells and model organisms) and although funded by the government it is not politically charged at all, nor pharmaceutically charged. So you argue what you know.
I know scientists aren't all angels and lots have their agendas, but still and Economics Prof claiming second hand smoke doesn't kill? Anyways....

Cheers!

Second hand smoke.

Do we really need a study to know that smoking has a negative effect on health?
Any smoker should be able to admit to himself that smoking is unhealthy, I am a heavy smoker and even if I never get cancer will admit that if affects my breathing sense of smell and taste. (without the need for medical evidence)
Do I have a legal right to impose these effects on others, well in some cases YES!!! should I have that right? I don't think so!! do I choose to impose these known (to me) effects on other people? NO!!!.

The environment.

Is the uncontrolled use of this planets resources without regard for future generations or its effects on the other residents of this planet correct? No it's not.
Do we need a study to prove that? No we don't.
Do some people not care? No they don't.
Do we need laws to control the use of the planets resources? yes we do!!

lets do a study on that and spend all our time arguing about the finner points of the study.

Meanwhile lets do what we intrinsically know is right!!! even if it means that our comfortable lives are momentarily inconvenienced.


Stepping down from the soap box now.