TCS Daily


Vanity Scare

By Nick Schulz - April 14, 2006 12:00 AM

The headline was certainly eye-grabbing. "Scientist Who Spearheaded Attacks on Global Warming Also Directed $45M Tobacco Industry Effort to Hide Health Impacts of Smoking."

So read an email to reporters and journalists from an environmental group trumpeting a report in the May issue of Vanity Fair by the writer Mark Hertsgaard. What made the accusation even juicier is that the scientist is Frederick Seitz, the former president of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences and the former President of Rockefeller University, the highly regarded New York-based research institute. Seitz is emeritus professor at Rockefeller and still lives in a Rockefeller University apartment. He is 94 years old.

The article in Vanity Fair is part of a so-called "Green issue" that includes a call to arms from Al Gore and friendly profiles on climate change alarmists such as NASA's Jim Hansen, Ed Begley Jr., Bette Midler, Ed Norton and many others. Since global warming is a "threat graver than terrorism," the magazine tells readers on its cover, it's cool to want to fight global warming. "Green is the new black," Vanity Fair tells us.

In keeping with that spirit, the magazine is trying to blacken permanently the reputation of Seitz, one of America's highly regarded scientists, for not toeing the fashionable line on global warming.

To find out if the startling claim was true -- that Seitz "directed a 45M tobacco industry effort to hide health impacts of smoking" -- I called him at his apartment in Manhattan. Unless there is more to the story, the accusation appears to be a willful distortion, if not an outright lie.

"That's ridiculous, completely wrong," Seitz told me. "The money was all spent on basic science, medical science," he said.

According to Seitz, the CEO of RJ Reynolds -- the tobacco company -- was on the board of Rockefeller University while Seitz was a full-time employee there. "He was not a scientist," Seitz said of the executive, but he believed in supporting the University's dedication to basic research -- in a little over a century, Rockefeller University has had 23 Nobel Prize winners affiliated with it, in fields of medicine and chemistry. RJ Reynolds allocated $5 million a year to Seitz to direct basic research.

To figure out how to distribute the money, Seitz says he assembled some top folks in different fields of scientific research -- such as James Shannon, the director of the National Institutes of Health for 13 years, and Maclyn McCarty, the legendary geneticist -- to help direct the funds.

What kind of research did they support? Seitz mentioned the work of Stanley Prusiner, who won the Nobel prize for his research into prions (Prusiner even thanks Seitz and RJ Reynolds in his Nobel Prize acceptance speech which you can read here).

When I asked Seitz if he ever spent money to try to debunk a link between smoking and ill-health, he said no. When I asked him if he himself had ever denied a link between smoking and cancer, Seitz (who, remember, is almost 100 years old) again said no and told me "my father was a 19th century man, and even he told me from when I was young that there was a connection between smoking and cancer" and that "we often talked about the hazards of smoking." In other words, Seitz was aware of the ill-effects of smoking for a very long time, and has never tried to deny that.

And it sounds like Vanity Fair isn't the only media arm that is trying to go after Seitz. Seitz told me a public television crew had come by to interview him and one of the crew members said to him "you use dirty money." When I asked Seitz what he thought of that, he said "no money is dirty; it's what you use it for" that matters. And for Seitz, he was directing funds to breakthrough research on mad cow disease, tuberculosis and other diseases.

The writer of the attack on Seitz, Mark Hertsgaard, has been writing alarmist articles about climate change for some time now, so it's not altogether surprising he would attack someone whose views he does not share -- although the brazenness of the distortions in his accusations is extraordinary, even by alarmist standards.

What's strange is that the NASA scientist Jim Hansen -- most famous of late for claiming he has been muzzled by the Bush administration for raising his concerns about climate change -- would participate in the attack on Seitz. Hansen participated in a press conference this week with Hertsgaard and activists from a green group during which they announced the startling "revelation" about Seitz. When a noted government scientist participates in the sort of character assassination attempted on Dr. Seitz, something is truly rotten in the state of American science.

The truth is that Americans are a lot smarter than Vanity Fair thinks they are. For a decade now, the alarmists have been jumping up and down and saying, "Look at me! The Earth is burning up!" Research has continued into climate change, but precipitous steps at mitigation have wisely been avoided, and increasing attention is being paid to technology and adaptation measures. The alarmists are unhappy. The tactic of personal intimidation has been a popular, though ineffective weapon in their arsenal. Now, they are trying to make global warming fashionable by employing personal smear tactics in what is supposed to be the most fashionable of American magazines. How gauche.

Nick Schulz is Editor of TCS Daily.

Categories:

64 Comments

How many comments, Fortunato?
TCS resident Global Warming expert, Fortunato, will soon jump in to this one. No comment from me about the article; I just wanted to be first here to make a prediction of maybe, say, ten or twelve entries from Fortunato telling us how great and honest science is and scientists are and how real GW is.

GW experts list
" Al Gore and friendly profiles on climate change alarmists such as NASA's Jim Hansen, Ed Begley Jr., Bette Midler, Ed Norton "

The only person on that list I could respect is Ed Begley because he does more than just talk about it. I might disagree with him on GW, but he practices what he preaches.

Science must be in deep trouble if they always must turn to the inventor of the internet.

No need...
Fortunato has already been thoroughly debunked on his debunking of Steitz by me. I found it extremely hilarious that Steitz was a member of his beloved NAS and that Fortunato had no problem calling him a "loon" and "crank" while at the same time preaching to us of the high standards of morality, ethics, and scientific knowledge of the NAS. Truly unhinged that boy is.

Although the timing of this article is kind of spooky considering the forum yesterday.

Linus Pauling
It's a shame that people would attack Seitz. It would be better just to sigh and ignore him. That's what happened to Linus Pauling, who really was one of America's top scientists (Nobel prize in chemistry for being the first person to apply the principles of quantum mechanics to chemistry. Seitz has no Nobel prize and the Wigner Seitz cell was invented by Wigner.). Late in life Pauling because convinced massive doses of vitimin C would improve health. There was no evidence for this and the scientific community ignored him. Right wing politicians ignored him too because (1) he was a leftie (Nobel peace prize) and (2) there are no Exxons selling vitimin C.

Einstein was wrong about unified field theory.
Heisenberg was wrong on saturation of elementary particles.
Newton was wrong on the corpuscular theory of light.
Pauling was wrong on vitimin C.
Seitz is wrong about global warming.

Is smoking is really harmful to health?
Iam from India, Iam 71 years old, Iam smoking from last 51 years, today also Iam smoking atleast tweny cigarets, Iam quite healthy even today Iam traking in Himalaya, walking 25 killomitter everyday without fatigue, I have no bloodpressuse no heart trouble, no diabites, Why western people cry so loudly against smoking that I donot understand. My observation is that western people follow expert`s advice blinf=dly, they did use their brain.ALL EXPERT OF WESTERN COUNTRIES ARE FOLLOW BLINDLY ON STATISTICS, THEY DRAW ALL CANCLUSION STATISTICALLY. THEY MUST UNDERSTAND THAT EVERY MAN IS UNQUE IN HIS GENE, HIS ENVEROMENT, HIS UPBRINGING,THEY MUST OPEN THEIR EYES AND START NEW WAY THINKING.

Big difference...
No one supported Linus Pauling and he had no data to support his theories. Not to mention that I don't ever recall a UN resolution devoted to increase the world's intake of vitamin C by crippling the world's leading economies.

Steitz, on the other hand, has the support of thousands of other scientists who concur with his interpretation of the data.

Pauling's case had nothing to do with right/left politics or Exxon. Although your statement does highlight your inability to divorce scientific thought from conspiracy theories.

One would think...
that in a country (USA) that is supposed to value the individual, people like yourself are ignored.
One would think science would be very interesed in finding out why smoking doesn't affect you.

But unique individuals is in oppostion to socialism, to which many in the USA and around the world subscribe.

Thats funny
marjon uses the same technique of association as tlaloc criticizes liberalgoodman for using.

"But unique individuals is in opposition to socialism". What a great line. And an apparent contradiction of liberalism. Liberals endow value on being unique individuals, yet liberals are also apparent socialists. You guys don't care about truth, you just want to win and have power. So shallow an ideology has never been.

Ramesh should be put in a lab and studied for reasons why he can smoke and remain healthy, etc. Thats where cig companies should be focusing their research.

130 Studies = No Good Scientific Evidence?
It's my understanding that Frederick Seitz committed the cardinal sin of scientists -- refuting the existence of contrary evidence. By taking such an indefensible stand, his motivations are open to scrutiny. Was Seitz was ignorant of these epidemiliological studies? Or worse, did Seitz purposely deny their existence?

Global Warming and Ozone Hole Controversies -- A Challenge to Scientific Judgment
by Dr. Frederick Seitz
George C. Marshall Institute, 1994
Document ID: 2501355990/6010

8. Passive Somking. It is widely claimed that passive inhalation of even small amounts of tobacco smoke under ordinary conditions my be at least as dangerous as direct inhalation. While there is no doubt that such passive exposure can be irritating at times, and that smoking should properly be excluded from the sick room and other special places, such as the nursery and the children's playroom, there is NO GOOD SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT PASSIVE INHALATION IS TRULY DANGEROUS UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES.

http://www.pmdocs.com/PDF/2501355990_6010_0.PDF

----------------------------

Statement of Alfred Munzer, MD (Past President, American Lung Association) to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee

"Environmental Tobacco Smoke"
April 1, 1998

IN DECEMBER 1992, the EPA released its report assessing current scientific evidence on the risks of exposure to ETS (environmental tobacco smoke) "Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Assessment of Lung Cancer in Adults and Respiratory Disorders in Children." The risk assessment focused on the potential correlation between ETS and lung cancer in nonsmoking adults and respiratory disease and pulmonary effects in children. Based on the total weight of EVIDENCE IN THE SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE, the EPA designated ETS as a Group A carcinogen, a rating used only for extremely hazardous substances known to cause cancer in humans. It ranked ETS in a class of carcinogens which includes asbestos, benzene, and radon.

After evaluating 30 EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES ON LUNG CANCER IN NONSMOKING ADULTS, the EPA determined that ETS is responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths each year. The agency also added that ETS accounts for the development of 20% of all lung cancers caused by factors other than smoking. For the average adult, ETS increases their risk of cancer to approximately 2 per 1,000. From these conclusions, it is clear that ETS is a serious hazard to the health of nonsmoking adults.

After evaluating more than 100 STUDIES ON RESPIRATORY HEALTH IN CHILDREN, the EPA concluded that ETS exposure increases their risk of lower respiratory infections, like bronchitis and pneumonia. ETS is known to cause an estimated 150,000 to 300,000 cases of respiratory illnesses in children up to 18 months each year. Of these cases, 7,500 to 15,000 result in hospitalization.

http://epw.senate.gov/105th/munzer.htm

See also: Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Coronary Heart Disease in the American Cancer Society CPS-II Cohort
Circulation, May 6, 1996
http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/94/4/622

No Subject
No, it's YOUR motivations that are open to scrutiny. You attempt to smear Seitz by making a connection between the junk science lies about second-hand smoke and real science.

But that's all the religious fanatics of Global Warming have to offer - smears. You can't argue from facts or genuine science, so you engage in McCarthyism.

All you really do is reveal a lot about yourself.


"It's my understanding that Frederick Seitz committed the cardinal sin of scientists -- refuting the existence of contrary evidence. By taking such an indefensible stand, his motivations are open to scrutiny. Was Seitz was ignorant of these epidemiliological studies? Or worse, did Seitz purposely deny their existence?"

What does this mean?
>marjon uses the same technique of association as tlaloc criticizes liberalgoodman for using.

So Marjon is using a technique that I have criticized LG for using as well? Is this a bad thing? Just because I slap down LG does not mean I have to police everyone. I only have a limited amount of time.

"You guys" is quite misleading since I do not support marjon's opinions nor do I really much care what he says about you, LG, and Fortunato. Just because people oppose you does not make them a vast right-wing conspiracy. I don't need backup to handle the weakness in your thinking.

I am all about truth although I am quite curious as to how one wins and has power on an internet forum. I have, in the past, admitted to a mistake caused by spouting off at the mouth before thinking. That is something I have yet to see from you, LG, or Fortunato and it is, no doubt, something you are incapable of. I actually prefer to be "shallow" rather than going off the deep end with you.

Althought marjon does not articulate it as well as I, I am in agreement that the "Greens" are socialists and Marxist in philosophy and that they place no real value on real science. I am ten times the environmentalist than most "Greens", I just rely on facts and real science to guide my choices.

BS and junk
First, there has been no 130 studies, unless you include the junk science you posted.

"Statement of Alfred Munzer, MD (Past President, American Lung Association) to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
"Environmental Tobacco Smoke"
April 1, 1998
IN DECEMBER 1992, the EPA released its report assessing current scientific evidence on the risks of exposure to ETS (environmental tobacco smoke) "Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Assessment of Lung Cancer in Adults and Respiratory Disorders in Children." The risk assessment focused on the potential correlation between ETS and lung cancer in nonsmoking adults and respiratory disease and pulmonary effects in children. Based on the total weight of EVIDENCE IN THE SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE, the EPA designated ETS as a Group A carcinogen, a rating used only for extremely hazardous substances known to cause cancer in humans. It ranked ETS in a class of carcinogens which includes asbestos, benzene, and radon.
After evaluating 30 EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES ON LUNG CANCER IN NONSMOKING ADULTS, the EPA determined that ETS is responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths each year. The agency also added that ETS accounts for the development of 20% of all lung cancers caused by factors other than smoking. For the average adult, ETS increases their risk of cancer to approximately 2 per 1,000. From these conclusions, it is clear that ETS is a serious hazard to the health of nonsmoking adults.
After evaluating more than 100 STUDIES ON RESPIRATORY HEALTH IN CHILDREN, the EPA concluded that ETS exposure increases their risk of lower respiratory infections, like bronchitis and pneumonia. ETS is known to cause an estimated 150,000 to 300,000 cases of respiratory illnesses in children up to 18 months each year. Of these cases, 7,500 to 15,000 result in hospitalization."

This is crap. They re-set the parameters of clinical studies done and then use the studies' numbers to extrapolate out some exaggerated claims of death and disease in a questionable paper.

Also, last I checked, there were 38 completed clinical studies. Not one has shown a direct relationship between ETS and any commonly associated smoking dieseases.

One of my favorite conclusions comes from one of the clinical studies used in almost all of the rediculous papers. The clinicians concluded "This study shows no casual relationship between ETS and disease". I find it very bad form indeed when this study is referenced in a paper denouncing ETS as a killer.

Bad news travels like wildfire.....lies, even faster
These two men, perhaps, say it best:
"A lie can travel around the world
while the truth is just putting on its shoes."
Mark Twain
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and thus clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series
of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." -- H.L. Mencken

no matter how many times this lie is debunked
It will now become a permanent feature in the arsenal of those who are trying to panic the populace into supporting their myths.

Just one example…
of the way the liberals smear even the greatest scientists, but only when they dare to disagree with the lefty agenda.

Good article, hopefully it will help a lot of moderates begin to understand the liberal tactics being used all over the country.

here's where you make your mistake bob
You have equated what liberals say, with what liberals do.

Liberals say that they support individuals.

What liberals do is clump people into groups from which they are not permitted to leave. Then liberals proceed to trumpet the worth of the group of that of individuals.

It is liberals who declare that any black who doesn't vote for the Democrats, is not a real black.

It is liberals who declare that individuals who never hurt someone else, must be punished so that another person, who was never hurt by anyone else, can be benefitted.
(Afirmative action)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
Andrew,

It is you who make the extraordinary claim that the entire body of the 130 studies cited by the EPA in 1992 is "junk science." On what grounds do you make such a charge? Do you even know who was involved in these studies or what they found?

And it was Frederick Seitz who made the extraordinary claim that "no good scientific evidence" existed in 1994 when it's easily documented that his statement was false. Now that doesn't mean that the evidence in 1994 was conclusive, but that it existed in sufficient quantity for Seitz recognize.

Finally, it should be noted that I provided evidence to support for my position whereas you did not.

and he's absolutely right
The studies that you cite have such incredibly low correlation rates, that only the rabidly anal pay attention to them.

the extraordinary claim
Is that any study done by the EPA is not junk science.

or how they promote
even the least credulous of scientist as a world class expert, so long as he agrees with them.

Who's the guy who wrote "The Population Bomb"? Was it Erhlic?

Despite the fact that every single prediction he has ever made was not just wrong, but spectacularly wrong, this guy is still trotted out as an expert. (kind of like the models used by the IPCC.)

Actually...
passive smoke related lung cancer is still a hotly debated topic. Many of these studies are disputed because they rely on the recall of the people in the studies. This makes the study subject to recall bias. Once again Steitz is not the only one who criticizes these studies. This is another area of science that has been poisoned by media hype and the alarmist mentality.

I actually hate smoking and never have partaken in it but I am of the mind that if a business owner wants to permit smoking it should be allowed. If people don't like it they don't have enter the establishment.

Ignored?
Rhampton, the EPA study was so bad that in court a judge threw it out, saying that the data had not only been cherry-picked but distorted. The EPA later got it "re-instated" by saying, not that the judge was wrong, but that they had the right to issue it anyway.

In over forty years since a direct link was shown between active smoking many attempts have been made to also show a link with passive smoke. None have managed to get past the threshold of statistical probability.

For example, one study in California ending two years ago was designed to show a link between passive smoke [ETS] and asthma. Alas for the alarmists, the researcher was honest enough to admit he found nothing that stood up. But good news - he thinks he may have found a genetic link to asthma, which could lead to better treatment.

Pet Hypothesis
"It is a good morning exercise for a research scientist to discard a pet hypothesis every day before brekfast. It keeps him young."

Konrad Lorenz (1903-1989), Austrian ethologist. On Agression, ch. 2


Response to all
teqjack,

You rightly find fault with those who characterize the EPA study as being conclusive, but that is not my position. It was wrong for Frederick Seitz to claim that there was "NO good scientific evidence," and I'm stressing the absolute dismissal of ALL evidence. Afterall, the EPA study was a compilation of many seperate studies, and I don't believe you claim that each and every one is without merit.

Also, I must disagree with your contention that current evidence of the health-hazards of second-hand smoke is inconclusive. Here's just one example:

Tobacco smoking increases dramatically air concentrations of endotoxin
Indoor Air, December 2004

We used a mass spectrometry-based assay for identifying the endotoxin (lipopolysaccharide, LPS) marker (R)-3-hydroxytetradecanoic acid in cigarette smoke particles and found that smoking involved inhalation of 17.4 pmol of endotoxin per each smoked cigarette. Indoor exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) entailed inhalation of 12.1 pmol of LPS/m3 air, an amount that was 120 TIMES HIGHER than the levels found in smoke-free indoor air. Endotoxin is one of the most potent inflammatory agents known, hence our results may help to explain the high prevalence of respiratory disorders among smokers, and they may also draw attention to a hitherto unknown or neglected risk factor of ETS.

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1111/j.1600-0668.2004.00290.x/abs/

Understand that I'm NOT arguing that second-hand smoke is lethally toxic and therefore smoking ought to be illegal. But I do find arguments that second-hand smoke is benign to be completely disingenuous.

Opinion is not evidence
Your evidence "that any study done by the EPA" is junk science, is ... your opinion?

not benign
Sorry, I am not saying ETS is "benign" - some of my relatives are allergic to it, in varying degrees, and most object to the smell.

But the studies cited by the EPA (and then the cancer groups citing the EPA and a similar WHO report) said at most that it seemed that ETS had some effect on cancer incidence but [not usually stated] not to a degree considered significant. "The dose makes the poison."

Maybe there is a link, but no, it has not been proven. I am reminded of studies in the late Fifties that stated that skin mags should be completely eliminated (we're talking Playboy here, in the days of air-brushing certain portions of the anatomy) because thet could show that over 70% of death-row inmates viewed such things. Sure, but I can point out a 100% correlation from the same population: they all, at some point, drank water.

The comedy don't quit, Mark
Come on now tlaloc, I admit quite often that I made a mistake. Its a reason my thinking is not weak, or when it is I hope I know it and I admit it, so I can correct it. Unlike the status quo for right-wingers.

I will say, I'm happy to see you say you're 10 times the environmentalist than most greens. Think globally, act locally (I love that slogan). I'm disillusioned myself with the broader environmentalist movement these days. In what ways do you define yourself as an environmentalist? I'm just curious, I'm really surprised to read that from you. Maybe you're less ideological than I thought.

BTW, the vast right-wing conspiracy is quite real. But so what, its not a term I ever use. Its quite obvious the influence that the tactics and talking points of the Bush Admin. has had on right-wingers. Thank God most Americans recognize their incompetence, finally. We can only hope voters find it so distasteful we never have to go through something like this again. I'm not anti-Republican, but I am against Bush-style-Republicanism. Too many right-wingers clamored to bask in the power, so it does bleed over. Enough of that, its so off-topic.


Mark, thanks for clearing up some definitions of liberals. Now I know. And knowing is half the battle.

Mark, I swear you have moments as golden as Ann Coulter.
"It is liberals who declare that any black who doesn't vote for the Democrats, is not a real black."
What a great line. I don't know how anyone can ever take you seriously when you say things like that.

I'm not a big fan of affirmative action either. It had its place and time, I think we've moved beyond its necessity. Thats not very liberal of me. Ssshhh, don't tell liberals I said that, I don't want Mark disappointed because I get my membership revoked.

Agreement, it seems
Well then you agree that there is SOME evidence, but it's far from being conclusive. And that's my point -- it was wrong for Frederick Seitz to state "NO good scientific evidence" existed.

Rabidly anal?
Remind me not us use the term "bite my bu tt". But that is very accurate.

Also funny…
are the global cooling left wing-nuts of the 70s. Where are they? I bet they are now GW "scientists."

Good string, but no…
The statement "NO good scientific evidence" means just that; no good evience. No beyond a doubt study, no clinical study/trial, nothing that strongly suggests a link.

Your problem is, in my opinion, your intrepretation of Seitz statement. He didn't say no science; he said no GOOD science.

So the agreement is...
that Seitz was wrong to use the word "good" instead of "conclusive"? The difference between the two words is insignificant to say the least. Should this choice of words be used to throw out the man's entire scientific background?

Seitz is being smeared for his AGW views and this is the type of tactics that we expect. It would seem that Fortunato's tactics are the best we can expect from Hollywood and the AGW alarmists.

Don't want to know
The National Academy of Science votes (approximately) 2000 to one in favor of global warming and who goes on your front page, the one who voted against. And your guy is not an atmospheric scientist but a condensed matter physicist.

If you want to tell me I'm wrong, go look up the votes at the NAS, then look them up for the geophysical society, then for the AAAS (American Academy for Advancement of Science).

This is more like Alfred E. Newman -- "What, me worry?" than seeking the best information.

Perspective
In this example, "NO good scientific evidence" means there is an ABSENSE of any credible scientific evidence that points to second-hand smoke as a health hazard -- but there was SOME credible evidence, even in 1994.

To put this in perspective:

As much as I'm convince that CO2 emissions are a major component to the current rise in global temperatures, I am fully aware that there is SOME evidence that implicates solar activity. While I do not believe said acitivty negates anthropogenic CO2, that does not mean I ignore such science. In fact, it would DECEITFUL of me to claim that there is no good scientific evidence for the sun's role in climate change.

Do you understand?

some resources
The vast majority of scientists believe GW is happening.
Just google "global warming" and take only links to main stream scientific professional societies. No think tanks or liberal organizations (sierra club, union of concerned scientists, etc.):

Professional society of atmospheric and climate scientists

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/positions/climate_change.shtml

Umbrella scientists' group.

http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2005/0714letter.shtml

American Institute of Physics -- umbrella group including the American Physical Society

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/

wikipedia, with lots of references

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

Woods Hole, a small private science institute.

http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/index.htm

National Academy of Science

http://www4.nationalacademies.org/onpi/webextra.nsf/web/climate?OpenDocument

Pulling a Fortunato...
Why can't you just post the URL of the vote count by member's names. I am sure your statement that they are all atmospheric scientists, except for Seitz of course, will be found there right?

What passes for research these days...
>http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/positions/climate_change.shtml

This is a blatant call for more funding. Not surprising. It was also adopted by a vote and doesn't state a dissenting opinion. Also note that there is not one area where it says that these guys can make any accurate prediction about any atmospheric condition. Only that: "Our models are getting better, please send more money." Not a direct quote BTW.

>http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2005/0714letter.shtml

This link is to a article where this organization is angry over the request by Congress for further information on funding, grants, and additional work done by scientists in the last ten years. How dare they! How dare they search for bias and accuracy! And yet I don't see this organization standing up for Seitz. Do as I say as it were.

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

Wikipedia? Grow up and do your own research. Lazy.

>http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/index.htm

On the opening page you see that they link to WWF, Greenpeace, EDF, Sierra Club, and the Union of Concerned Scientists. I thought you said this wasn't a liberal think tank. Did you even visit these sites? Like Fortunato did you just see the big globe photoshopped to look like a bomb and quickly pasted it in your response?

Next time read first.

I have already addressed the NAS. Seitz was a member of this prestigious academy. Yet he disagrees with this position. There you go.

Yes…
Because your belief does not come in line with the science. Even the worst AGW alarmist notes that some of the warming is natural.

Not the same thing at all.

There is not a single clinical study linking ETS to anything.

Big difference.

bob
"Mark, I swear you have moments as golden as Ann Coulter.
"It is liberals who declare that any black who doesn't vote for the Democrats, is not a real black."
What a great line. I don't know how anyone can ever take you seriously when you say things like that."

So you are denying that liberals do things like throw Oreo cookies at Steele, or call Sec. Rice Aunt Jemima?

As to the VRWC, that's as real as everything else your imagination dreams up.

junk is junk
It seems to be the Carol Browner's opinion, since she refused release many of the studies on which she based her rulings.

nit picking
These documents show that scientists overwhelmingly believe in global warming.

I find it amusing that on a supposedly science oriented web site there are people who don't believe that.

LG out.

"Not a single study" -- that's funny
"There is not a single clinical study linking ETS to anything"

And what of study I already mentioned, "Tobacco smoking increases dramatically air concentrations of endotoxin", (Indoor Air, December 2004)? Want more?

http://lib.bioinfo.pl/search?field=PubMed&query=ets+tobacco

Please, do not insult my intelligence -- or yours for that matter.

No Subject
LiberalGoodman."The vast majority of scientists believe GW is happening."

Nice try at deceit by misdirection. The question is, how many scientists support the claims that we are headed for global catastophe from human use of fossil fuels?

Name them. We have literally thousands of scientists who have signed petitions against the claims of global catastrophe - not denial that there is global warming, denial of the claims of looming global disaster. All we get from you is deceit about the issue.

So out with it. Name those scientists who support the assertions of global disaster. Name those who support the claims that Kyoto will protect us from those disasters.

You won't. Because you can't - beyond a tiny handful of leftist nitwits who have surrendered their scientific honesty to leftist politics.

Whatever you say
I read the first five and none of them were related to any evidence of disease. You can measure things, like the level of endotoxin, but you have to be able to conntect that directly to increases of disease.

There is certainly going to be some evidence of tobacco smoke related elements in non-smokers. The question is concentrations. This is not a 0-tolerance issue. concentrations are needed at some level above trace to cause health problems.

I'm not going to get into a tit-for-tat your post against mine on this. I have already done that and that was when I found out the information I have.. There are 38 (and growing) actual clinical studies with the purpose of linking disease to ETS. Not one has come up with a conclusive link. All conclusions have been basically null; "within the limits of the study". Several have even noted a drop in breast cancer among those exposed to ETS.

The list of surprising findings shocked me. These are not my conclusions. In fact, just a few months ago, I believe as you do. But then I started digging. I've yet to sctratch the surface, but I've read the full text of 13 clinical studies, 45 papers and numerous articles. Through it all, I have found that most of the papers and articles, on both sides of the debate, reference some, or all, of the 13 studies I read. I found the conclusions of the paper writers to be often laughable in light of the conclusions of the clinicians who did the studies the papers source. Especially when those articles or papers are so obviously politically motivated in light of the clinical studies'; actual conclusions.

I no longer trust anything put out by the CDC, Sturgeon General (something really fishy there) or the EPA. I'm slowly losing trust in the AMA, and other medical organizations as well.

I spent 100s of hours reading on this issue and looking at all the data I can find. As with GW, I find the science is inconclusive at best, and goes completely against the political wind at worst.

Thanks for the post, this is a site I have not been to before. (Too much time in the New England journal of Medicine and BMJ I suppose.) Still, I would ask you to study this further, and with an open mind, before commenting.

If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit.
Sorry, this comment goes on Kling's article. But I'll use it to point out that LiberalGoodman thinks he just discovered the inductive hypothesis.

Stand Aside as Al Gore Hurls Toward Irrelevancy
Al Gore and his Hollywood friends who were supposed to move to Canada when GWB became president apparently lost their passport. Europe over the past year shows why Kyoto-type caps don't work... their economy suffered, power prices soared, and Tony Blair still says they won't make Kyoto targets (which are decried by "true" global warming theologists as only a token start toward real sacrifice). Technology and adaptation are the only approaches if the world seems deadset on being concerned about climate change.

Title please
Please put something in the titel bar so you can be linked directly.

Thanks

Naa, took a different line
Hey Joanie,
We won't go there!! :)

what does this say about their message of global warming
The vanity fair article does a lot to discredit the arguments of global warming alarmists. If they engage in blatant misstatements about something that is verifiable, what can we conclude about their message about global warming? We can only conclude that we cannot trust their statements on any subject including global warming.

Exactly!
They show a BELIEF in AGW. Not the facts nor any conclusive evidence whatsoever. Is this what you consider science? No wonder you are amused. This site IS science-oriented and actually investigates the claims made by climate alarmists and the evidence they put forth.

Your BELIEF that all climatologists and scientists agree on AGW is absolutely wrong.

TCS Daily Archives