• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Environmentalism speech by Michael Crichton and second hand smoking

varwoche said:
Yes. All ice in the world is shrinking -- in many cases precipitously -- except for a section of Antarctica (east Antarctic ice shelf) and even that is caused by GW.
Click to expand...

Fine then. The few people on this planet who like ice that much should have plenty of room there. How many can there be out there?
 
Cleon said:
Of course they do, because you're merely trying to reinforce your existing opinions and not particularly interested in objective fact.
Click to expand...
Wait a minute you mind reader!
I started to research the whole environmentalist topic form a strong ecological POV. I read "Silent Spring" (I don't know if that's the English title of "Primavera silenciosa") wich was the book who led to DDT banning, but the effects of that banning where millions of people dead. And everything for a substance wich was further proved not to be risky for animals. I was pretty sure that human activity conducted to GW but I learned that there are many causes for GW and I learned that in the middle ages there was higher tmeperatures than now. Wich human activity caused that? Now, can you tellme what are the objetive facts I'm not looking at?
 
Last edited:
Lucifuge Rofocale said:
" I can tell you that the Sahara desert is shrinking" Verified
Click to expand...

Well, I took a shot at this one, and found that finding relatively imparital information is not easy on this topic.

I did find this chart from a 1980-1990 study that shows a rapid growth from 1980-1984 and then a retreat from that growth, although the overall 1990 size is larger than 1980.

I couldn't find anything more up-to-date than that, I would like to see any other references that might be available.

Link: http://ciesin.columbia.edu/docs/005-319/tab1.gif
 
Lucifuge Rofocale said:
Wait a minute you mind reader!
I started to research the whole environmentalist topic form a strong ecological POV. I read "Silent Spring" (I don't know if that's the English title of "Primavera silenciosa") wich was the book who led to DDT banning, but the effects of that banning where millions of people dead. And everything for a substance wich was further proved not to be risky for animals. I was pretty sure that human activity conducted to GW but I learned that there are many causes for GW and I learned that in the middle ages there was higher tmeperatures than now. Wich human activity caused that? Now, can you tellme what are the objetive facts I'm not looking at?
Click to expand...

You are confusing cherry picking by your sources with evidence of global changes.
 
Here's a smoking study found in the BMJ.
Results For participants followed from 1960 until 1998 the age adjusted relative risk (95% confidence interval) for never smokers married to ever smokers compared with never smokers married to never smokers was 0.94 (0.85 to 1.05) for coronary heart disease, 0.75 (0.42 to 1.35) for lung cancer, and 1.27 (0.78 to 2.08) for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among 9619 men, and 1.01 (0.94 to 1.08), 0.99 (0.72 to 1.37), and 1.13 (0.80 to 1.58), respectively, among 25 942 women. No significant associations were found for current or former exposure to environmental tobacco smoke before or after adjusting for seven confounders and before or after excluding participants with pre-existing disease. No significant associations were found during the shorter follow up periods of 1960-5, 1966-72, 1973-85, and 1973-98.

Conclusions The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.
Click to expand...
 
Yes, let's put Mr. Crichton in a locked car with a couple of boxed lunches, a porta-potty, and pump in second-hand smoke for a day or two.
 
Lucifuge Rofocale said:
But, is that GW caused by human activity?
Click to expand...
EPA:
What's Known for Certain?
Scientists know for certain that human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide (CO2 ), in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times have been well documented. There is no doubt this atmospheric buildup of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities.
...
In short, scientists think rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are contributing to global warming
Click to expand...

NOAA:
Arctic sea ice has decreased between 1973 and 1996 at a rate of -2.8 +/- 0.3%/decade
...
the projected change of 3 to 7°F (1.5 - 4°C) over the next century would be unprecedented in comparison with the best available records from the last several thousand years
Click to expand...

DOE/Scripps:
Enhanced aerosol concentrations increase the amount of thermal energy emitted by many Arctic clouds, according to scientists supported by the Department of Energy's (DOE) Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) program. In research published in the January 26 issue of Nature magazine, lead author Dan Lubin of Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego, and Brookhaven National Laboratory scientist Andrew Vogelmann conclude that the increase significantly affects the Arctic energy balance.

The Arctic is showing the first unmistakable signs of climate warming caused by human activities, in the form of rapidly retreating and thinning sea ice ... It is also another example of human industrial activity's surprising impact on remote polar regions
Click to expand...
 
Lucifuge Rofocale said:
I read the speech "Enviromentalism as a religion" by Michael Crichton (http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote05.html) and I agree almos completely. The only fact that I haven't been able to verify is this :
"I can tell you that second hand smoke is not a health hazard to anyone and never was,"

Does anyone have a reliable link to studies that proves it?
Click to expand...

http://www.cancercouncil.com.au/editorial.asp?pageid=1020

Professor Repace has developed analytical models which quantify the relationship between exposure to second hand smoke and mortality. For this report he has used the exposure-response relationship of:
1 microgram/m 3 of nicotine <--> 164 deaths per 100,000 workers per working lifetime of 45 years.
Click to expand...
 
mumblethrax said:
Three guesses who funded that study. Go on, have a guess. It'll be fun.
Click to expand...
Funding: The American Cancer Society initiated CPS I in 1959, conducted follow up until 1972, and has maintained the original database. Extended follow up until 1997 was conducted at the University of California at Los Angeles with initial support from the Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program, a University of California research organisation funded by the Proposition 99 cigarette surtax (www.ucop.edu/srphome/trdrp). After continuing support from the Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program was denied, follow up through 1999 and data analysis were conducted at University of California at Los Angeles with support from the Center for Indoor Air Research, a 1988-99 research organisation that received funding primarily from US tobacco companies.24
Click to expand...
I assume you're alluding to tobacco interests. Well, it seems they only funded the last 11-12 years of the 40 year study.

Do you think it's possible the American Cancer Society and the Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program might have stopped their funding because the study data wasn't showing what they expected? It's something you might want to consider.

I don't really care one way or the other. I only posted it because that's what Lucifuge Rofocale was looking for.
 
Mark said:
Neither are popcorn flavored jelly beans. But if someone tries to force them into my mouth without my consent, surely I can object?
Click to expand...

First of all, if second hand smoke is not dangerous, the entire logical impetus behind banning smoking in public places evaporates. This will not satisfy you though because the emotional impetus is ewwww, smoking yukky!.

Secondly, if, say, a bar puts up a sign, "Warning! People inside may try to force popcorn flavored jelly beans into your mouth!", you have been warned, so don't go in. In a free country, what's wrong with that? Note the emotional sudden urge the anti-smoking reader of that statement ("What's wrong with that?") just had to launch into the dangers of smoking.
 
BobK said:
I assume you're alluding to tobacco interests. Well, it seems they only funded the last 11-12 years of the 40 year study.
Click to expand...
No, they funded only an analysis and follow-up of the CPS-I data collected by the ACS.

Do you think it's possible the American Cancer Society and the Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program might have stopped their funding because the study data wasn't showing what they expected? It's something you might want to consider.
Click to expand...
I think the ACS never funded the study at all, and was critical of using data which was not tracking environmental exposure to examine the risk of environmental exposure. My guess is the TRDRP realized the study was flawed.

I don't really care one way or the other. I only posted it because that's what Lucifuge Rofocale was looking for.
Click to expand...
I can appreciate that. But I think there's a serious problem here, in that the tobacco industry has pursued a strategy of generating science-like noise and presenting that to the public in order to sway opinion. Since most of us can't tell the difference between good science and bad science, it works. When the EPA excludes studies with clear methodological flaws, they are accused of cherry-picking, because the public also doesn't understand how a meta-analysis is done.

Anyway, here's the ACS's response to Enstrom.
 
Lucifuge Rofocale said:
Well, I'm strictly following that article. So far, the hard claims are:" I can tell you the percentage the US land area that is taken by urbanization, including cities and roads, is 5%." Verified
Click to expand...

This is an example of innumeracy on the part of the population as a whole. Politicians, power-seekers that they are, use this as a scare tactic. Ok, that's nothing new -- almost everything a politician uses to get elected is a scare tactic -- "It's the economy, stupid!" But in the 1970's, the big scare along these lines was garbage -- garbage everywhere, so much garbage! We'll run out of places to store it! Which, as per land usage above, was so much innumerate hogwash. Note that that's separate from the problem of leaking landfills (but politicians have no problem blurring the issue when it suits them) or of toxic waste sites (but politicians have no problem blurring the issue when it suits them.)
 
Beerina said:
First of all, if second hand smoke is not dangerous, the entire logical impetus behind banning smoking in public places evaporates. This will not satisfy you though because the emotional impetus is ewwww, smoking yukky!.

Secondly, if, say, a bar puts up a sign, "Warning! People inside may try to force popcorn flavored jelly beans into your mouth!", you have been warned, so don't go in. In a free country, what's wrong with that? Note the emotional sudden urge the anti-smoking reader of that statement ("What's wrong with that?") just had to launch into the dangers of smoking.
Click to expand...
There is a difference between frequent occupational exposure to ETS and occasional "private" exposure, both in risk profile, and in the degree to which a government response is needed or desirable.
 
Teh Guy Who Wrote Andromeda Strain said:
"I can tell you that the evidence for global warming is far weaker than its proponents would ever admit."
Click to expand...

The issue enlightens the rhetorical student in many ways:

  • In science, you don't question the source. You question the facts, the analysis, the study protocols. In politics, almost always, the real reason behind the issue is not the bare-faced arguments lain on the table.
  • The physical consequences of the issue are even more in dispute -- will the seas actually rise very much? Isn't increased carbon dioxide leading to an explosion of plant growth? More land area becomes plantable, not that that's a problem. Etc. But big and scary oven in shall we live...
  • What to do about it is even murkier still. Per the Julian Simon link above, perhaps the quality of life will decrease with massive government intervention so much that it more than offsets any penalties from the physical consequences of global warming. This is not a trivial point, and is the key difference between economists and environmental scientists. Last century was replete with hundreds of "experiments" that all showed the more government intervention in the economy, the lower the quality of life for the people. (One of my sayings, what good is free AIDS treatment in the year 2070 if a more capitalist society had had it cured for 20 years already?)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom