|
Post by magellan on Feb 18, 2012 22:24:08 GMT
magellan, This is not really the proper place for the topic but I would be glad to debate the studies done on the effects of second hand smoke. More importantly the studies done on the effects of second hand smoke on infants and children. Moronic, is by very defintion calling the work done on the effects of second hand smoke "junk science" as Singer did. I did not start the "weasel scale" reference your boy icefisher did. No, you just made a completely idiotic comparison. Apparently you think Fred Singer is a snake but EPA is pure as the wind driven snow. SHS is no better than the mercury scare linked to coal fired power plants, another "health risk". Freedom is a biatch isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Feb 18, 2012 22:56:38 GMT
magellan, I never claimed that the EPA is a pure as the wind driven snow. Your saying I did. However, I do think that Fred Singer is a snake for a his absolutely idiotic postion on second hand smoke. I am also claiming that if the Heartland Institute's documents are correct (and since they apologized for the theft) I think they are he is a also a liar.
As far as freedom is concerned. Feel free to read some of the studies, this just a few from wiki
Cancer: General: overall increased risk;[9] reviewing the evidence accumulated on a worldwide basis, the International Agency for Research on Cancer concluded in 2004 that "Involuntary smoking (exposure to secondhand or 'environmental' tobacco smoke) is carcinogenic to humans."[4] Lung cancer: the effect of passive smoking on lung cancer has been extensively studied. A series of studies from the USA from 1986–2003,[10][11][12][13] the UK in 1998,[14][15] Australia in 1997[16] and internationally in 2004[17] have consistently shown a significant increase in relative risk among those exposed to passive smoke.[18] Breast cancer: The California Environmental Protection Agency concluded in 2005 that passive smoking increases the risk of breast cancer in younger, primarily premenopausal women by 70%[3] and the US Surgeon General has concluded that the evidence is "suggestive," but still insufficient to assert such a causal relationship.[2] In contrast, the International Agency for Research on Cancer concluded in 2004 that there was "no support for a causal relation between involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke and breast cancer in never-smokers."[4] Renal cell carcinoma (RCC): A recent study shows an increased RCC risk among never smokers with combined home/work exposure to passive smoking.[19] Passive smoking does not appear to be associated with pancreatic cancer.[20] Brain tumor: The risk in children increases significantly with higher amount of passive smoking, even if the mother doesn't smoke,[21] thus not restricting risk to prenatal exposure during pregnancy.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Feb 19, 2012 0:26:37 GMT
magellan, I never claimed that the EPA is a pure as the wind driven snow. Your saying I did. However, I do think that Fred Singer is a snake for a his absolutely idiotic postion on second hand smoke. I am also claiming that if the Heartland Institute's documents are correct (and since they apologized for the theft) I think they are he is a also a liar. As far as freedom is concerned. Feel free to read some of the studies, this just a few from wiki Cancer: General: overall increased risk;[9] reviewing the evidence accumulated on a worldwide basis, the International Agency for Research on Cancer concluded in 2004 that "Involuntary smoking (exposure to secondhand or 'environmental' tobacco smoke) is carcinogenic to humans."[4] Lung cancer: the effect of passive smoking on lung cancer has been extensively studied. A series of studies from the USA from 1986–2003,[10][11][12][13] the UK in 1998,[14][15] Australia in 1997[16] and internationally in 2004[17] have consistently shown a significant increase in relative risk among those exposed to passive smoke.[18] Breast cancer: The California Environmental Protection Agency concluded in 2005 that passive smoking increases the risk of breast cancer in younger, primarily premenopausal women by 70%[3] and the US Surgeon General has concluded that the evidence is "suggestive," but still insufficient to assert such a causal relationship.[2] In contrast, the International Agency for Research on Cancer concluded in 2004 that there was "no support for a causal relation between involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke and breast cancer in never-smokers."[4] Renal cell carcinoma (RCC): A recent study shows an increased RCC risk among never smokers with combined home/work exposure to passive smoking.[19] Passive smoking does not appear to be associated with pancreatic cancer.[20] Brain tumor: The risk in children increases significantly with higher amount of passive smoking, even if the mother doesn't smoke,[21] thus not restricting risk to prenatal exposure during pregnancy. And here is Singer's account (I frequent this website): www.americanthinker.com/2010/12/second_hand_smoke_lung_cancer.htmlI would assume you believe and you may have stated Singer is a shill for Big Tobacco. Here Singer says he has never been in the pay of 'Big Tobacco'. The ultimate aim of these attacks, at least in my case, has been to discredit my work and publications on global warming. I am a nonsmoker, find SHS to be an irritant and unpleasant, have certainly not been paid by Philip Morris and the tobacco lobby, and have never joined any of their front organizations. And I serve on the advisory board of an anti-smoking organization. My father, who was a heavy smoker, died of emphysema while relatively young. I personally believe that SHS, in addition to being objectionable, cannot possibly be healthy. Obviously then he must be lying about that too. So where is the proof Singer lied about Heartland Institute funding? DeSmog? Oh yes, there's a reliable source; always truthful. Yeah right. Personally I like their "Desmog Manifesto" Socialist clenched fist icon. Also, what is your problem with WUWT? Voted #1 Science Blog 2011. Not bad for a holocaust denier. What did Anthony Watts "lie" about. If you like Pielke, Christy, somewhat Spencer and Currie, the first three very much respect Anthony Watts; Pielke even published a paper with AW, maybe two now. I believe Currie likes AW as well, but could be wrong. Guilt by association....guess you'll have to cross them off your list.
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Feb 19, 2012 5:39:08 GMT
magellan, if you want to defend Singer so be it. He has called the studies indicating second hand smoke "junk science'. He has said that he does not take money for his skeptical views on climate science when he clearly does so his credibility in my book is zero.
Believe what you want and light one up in front of your kids or grandkids its good for them.
Freedom is a biatch ain't it
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Feb 19, 2012 14:49:10 GMT
NGO speaking for ? Maybe Aaron Huertas is the teams secretary. Of course many on the team are supported by tax monies! This seems to be OK with many but for me killing the economy with CO2 taxes and green agendas based on YAD06 and its ilk is criminal. "Josh’s Open letter to Heartland -vs- the original, now with extra karma" "An Open Letter to the Heartland Institute As scientists who have had their emails stolen, posted online and grossly misrepresented, we can appreciate the difficulties the Heartland Institute is currently experiencing following the online posting of the organization’s internal documents earlier this week....." "This is a personal Web page for Aaron Huertas. I’m a resident of Washington, DC and am employed as a press secretary at the Union of Concerned Scientists. My interests include communicating science and the ongoing interaction between our genetic ancestry and our modern technological society. I also watch a ton of TV series. Looks like UCS might have cooked this up and got the team to sign off on it. Or maybe just sent it as PR with no formal approval. Why else would UCS be involved if this was a letter from these scientists?" wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/18/joshs-open-letter/#more-56895
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 19, 2012 15:34:45 GMT
The Heartland thing is really a non-issue. It is no secret that they are presenting climate science that supports their view, just as Mann, Hansen, Trembeth etc do.
Why anyone would be surprised at funding levels, etc is beyond me.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Feb 21, 2012 2:37:54 GMT
Of course some here think it was all OK and even if fake it was "truthful". "BREAKING: Gleick Confesses" ".... I offer my personal apologies to all those affected. Peter Gleick" "See also Andy Revkin’s DotEarth here. Revkin writes: Now, Gleick has admitted to an act that leaves his reputation in ruins and threatens to undercut the cause he spent so much time pursuing. His summary, just published on his blog at Huffington Post," wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/20/breaking-gleick-confesses/#more-57113
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Feb 21, 2012 2:57:56 GMT
Waiting for support from Randy Sheckman editor of PNAS on his fellow.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 21, 2012 3:27:53 GMT
Wow! Another huge black eye for the Can't Shoot Straight Gang!
The most damaging admission was the alleged fake memo was not part of the board package that he used deception to obtain.
Gleick had already been suspected from liberal use of Gleick idioms, punctuation, and writing style as being the author of the fake memo. Seems he is now trying to limit damages by claiming it was anonymously mailed to him under separate cover. Next I suppose we will hear all the evidence of that has been misplaced.
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Feb 21, 2012 12:13:47 GMT
Of course some here think it was all OK and even if fake it was "truthful". "BREAKING: Gleick Confesses" ".... I offer my personal apologies to all those affected. Peter Gleick" "See also Andy Revkin’s DotEarth here. Revkin writes: Now, Gleick has admitted to an act that leaves his reputation in ruins and threatens to undercut the cause he spent so much time pursuing. His summary, just published on his blog at Huffington Post," wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/20/breaking-gleick-confesses/#more-57113Revkin throws Gleick under the bus, at least in part to avoid attention being paid to Revkin's own role in promulgating HeartlandGate. Revkin tends to be slippery.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 21, 2012 13:21:51 GMT
magellan, This is not really the proper place for the topic but I would be glad to debate the studies done on the effects of second hand smoke. More importantly the studies done on the effects of second hand smoke on infants and children. Moronic, is by very defintion calling the work done on the effects of second hand smoke "junk science" as Singer did. I did not start the "weasel scale" reference your boy icefisher did. Yeah better ban YMCA camp too, those campfires are a real smoking beich. First hand smoke I would say must be absolutely damaging to kids going out in the outdoors, fishing, singing songs around a smokey campfire, getting dirt under their fingernails, God knows what other filthy stuff! The great lesson of Climate Science will be that one can do a study and come up with any damn result they set out to come up with. There are no standards, no punishment, no nothing to compensate the real victims. No due process, nothing. Yet this crapola impinges on people's freedoms. These scientists are nothing but tools of a pry your way into other people lives establishment. . . .the exact same thing the kids in the 60's objected to. It hurts me to no end because I am a believer in real science stuff you can demonstrate, not stuff you conjure up with a bunch of abusive statistical analysis that has zero real peer review or court relief for the victims as the jackals and weasels scream for academic freedom to do this with impunity.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Feb 21, 2012 14:12:47 GMT
"Gleick’s ‘integrity’" "Loss of trust When ‘Heartlandgate’ first broke, I saw no parallels with Climategate. Now, with the involvement of Gleick, there most certainly are parallels. There is the common theme of climate scientists compromising personal and professional ethics, integrity, and responsibility, all in the interests of a ’cause’." But then the "cause" responds with "Unfortunately, already we are seeing signs of exactly the opposite strategy. Over at DeSmog Blog: Whistleblowers – and that’s the role Gleick has played in this instance – deserve respect for having the courage to make important truths known to the public at large. Without condoning or promoting an act of dishonesty, it’s fair to say that Gleick took a significant personal risk – and by standing and taking responsibility for his actions, he has shown himself willing to pay the price. For his courage, his honor, and for performing a selfless act of public service, he deserves our gratitude and applause. Scott Mandia, a leader of the Climate Rapid Response Team, is quoted: …”Heartland has been subverting well-understood science for years,” wrote Scott Mandia, co-founder of the climate science rapid response team. “They also subvert the education of our school children by trying to ;’teach the controversy’ where none exists.”He went on: “Peter Gleick, a scientist who is also a journalist just used the same tricks that any investigative reporter uses to uncover the truth. He is the hero and Heartland remains the villain. He will have many people lining up to support him.”" Leaving the epilog The climate insanity factor has just jumped upwards a big notch. judithcurry.com/2012/02/21/gleicks-integrity/
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Feb 21, 2012 17:37:32 GMT
|
|
|
Post by richdo on Feb 22, 2012 1:48:29 GMT
RE the Gleick resignation from NCSE board...
JMO but I wouldn't be surprised if this whole fiasco ends up being a planned (but failed) attempt by Gleick/NCSE/DeSmogBlog to generate some "favorable" press to accompany NCSE's launch of their "Climate Education" program. There sure are a lot of coincidences re timing/content of the forged HI document and NCSE.
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Feb 22, 2012 2:07:38 GMT
"I am a believer in real science stuff you can demonstrate, not stuff you conjure up with a bunch of abusive statistical analysis that has zero real peer review or court relief for the victims as the jackals and weasels scream for academic freedom to do this with impunity."
They have some pretty good science done on the effects of second hand smoke. But it seems some people will deny any amount of science for a buck.
|
|