Thread: second hand smoke. the real scoop.

Thought the following article was very interesting:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/W...&comments=true

Not surprised in the least!!
Thank you sir!!

I'm not sure the author understands confidence intervals. Lowering confidence intervals would allow you to increase your accuracy of your value, but at a possible cost to your precision. Besides, determining confidence intervals is really just arbitrary. 95% CI and 88% CI are common usage.
On top of that, there are hundreds of epidemiological studies that show the risk of secondhand smoke exists.
I remain convinced of the threat.

I lost interest when I read this bit of BS "The public has become increasingly aware that the science behind manmade global warming is a fraud."

I'm well aware of the panic-mongering use of science. Smoking is a perfect example. One of the obvious ways they skew the statistics is that every time a smoker dies, the death is deemed smoke-related.
They do the same when setting artificially low speed limits.. Unless the car is struck by a bolt of lightning or something like that, almost every car fatality is considered "speed-related."

Originally Posted by heliguy

I lost interest when I read this bit of BS "The public has become increasingly aware that the science behind manmade global warming is a fraud."

A friendly recommendation: If you think that phrase is BS re-read it, then read up on BOTH sides of the global warming issue.

Thanks Dennis. It is interesting to find out about stuff like this. I had read the European study back in the nineties but didn't know exactly how the EPA fudged their results.


Anyone who likes debunking the science scare of the day should visit:

http://junkscience.com

I think some of you are mixing up real science and "scientific fact" (which is never really absolute but just a hypothesis which has been tested and not yet failed) with what you think is junk science.

Is global warming real? YES.
Is it as bad as the politicians and media is making it out to be? Maybe not.
Are they profiting from it? yes.
Are the scientist who devoted their lives to the issue full of crap? of course not.
The same goes for smoking.

Is smoking harmful? Yes
Can second hand smoke kill? Yes
Will smoking kill you if you do it? Potentially, but maybe not.

Heliguy is completely correct in his statement and calling the article bullshit.
The phrase: "The public has become increasingly aware that the science behind manmade global warming is a fraud." is absolute crap and anyone claiming that is a moron.

I am a scientist, and have devoted my life to cancer research, and seeing blanket statements like the one above is offensive and extremely annoying. If you think a particular study/finding is wrong then you can try and disprove it, but do it in a systematic and scientific manner.

To make claim that "global warming is fraud" or that "secondhand smoke is not a carcinogen" is a blatant lie and at best an opinion. I'm sure the author worked hard for his PhD, but it is in ECONOMICS, NOT in climatology, or any medical related feild, so how can he make any statment/conclusion without knowing the research put into it?

What would people in this forum say if I (a person who has not proven to anyone here that he can sharpen a razor properly) claimed that all of the so called "Honemeisters" in this forum are frauds, they know nothing of sharpening a razor and only claim to so that they can profit off of their sales of DVDs and sharpening services?

The same goes for science. Scientists devote their lives to studying certain aspects of nature for the sake of knowledge and humanity, not just personal gain.
No matter what they conclude someone will try to profit from it, but that doesn't make the original research/conclusions wrong.

Ivan

That's why I am not calling myself a honemeister. I know that my skills were good enough to give me and 2 more gentlemen close comfortable shaves, but until I have about 200 blades under my belt, I won't be calling myself one.
The bottom line is that scientific studies can be used to prove anything your heart desires -- to those uneducated and/or dumb enough to accept the "proof" at face. Unfortunately most of the public falls under those categories and social inertia takes care of the rest.
If there was a flaw in methodology, new studies need to be made by qualified scientists of integrity.

Originally Posted by FiReSTaRT

If there was a flaw in methodology, new studies need to be made by qualified scientists of integrity.

I believe that does actually happen. The Peer Review process is integral to any study being published, and the integrity of the Peers chosen to do the review effectively lends weight to the paper. If unkown peers or peers with questionable provenance are chosen, then the paper has less credibility. If well-respected peers or leaders in their fields are chosen to review, then the paper achieves much higher credibility.

It is actually a very effective mechanism for differentiating between good and worthless studies. It's why academic publishing houses still make shedloads of cash in the age where Wikipedias, Blogs and other similar unqualified publications are free resources.

If you need to know as close as possible to the truth about something, would you turn to a well-established reference work by, say, Oxford University Press or Harvard Press or would you just Google a blog or search a Wikipedia entry? Or, God forbid, read a newspaper reporter's attempt to reproduce the message accurately?