I love reading Michael Crichton’s speeches about science and global warming. He blows me away. recently I’ve been reading “Aliens Cause Global Warming“, which has a lot to say about scientific “consensus” and junk science. Included is this statement about secondhand smoke:
In 1993, the EPA announced that second-hand smoke was “responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths each year in nonsmoking adults,” and that it ” impairs the respiratory health of hundreds of thousands of people.” In a 1994 pamphlet the EPA said that the eleven studies it based its decision on were not by themselves conclusive, and that they collectively assigned second-hand smoke a risk factor of 1.19. (For reference, a risk factor below 3.0 is too small for action by the EPA. or for publication in the New England Journal of Medicine, for example.) Furthermore, since there was no statistical association at the 95% confidence limits, the EPA lowered the limit to 90%. They then classified second hand smoke as a Group A Carcinogen.
This was openly fraudulent science, but it formed the basis for bans on smoking in restaurants, offices, and airports. California banned public smoking in 1995. Soon, no claim was too extreme. By 1998, the Christian Science Monitor was saying that “Second-hand smoke is the nation’s third-leading preventable cause of death.” The American Cancer Society announced that 53,000 people died each year of second-hand smoke. The evidence for this claim is nonexistent.
In 1998, a Federal judge held that the EPA had acted improperly, had “committed to a conclusion before research had begun”, and had “disregarded information and made findings on selective information.” The reaction of Carol Browner, head of the EPA was: “We stand by our science….there’s wide agreement. The American people certainly recognize that exposure to second hand smoke brings…a whole host of health problems.” Again, note how the claim of consensus trumps science. In this case, it isn’t even a consensus of scientists that Browner evokes! It’s the consensus of the American people.
Before I go on, I’ll mention that the court ruling was vacated in 2002, not because the ‘98 ruling was wrong, but because the report had no regulatory weight.
Anyway, my quote of the minute is this:
Meanwhile, ever-larger studies failed to confirm any association. A large, seven-country WHO study in 1998 found no association. Nor have well-controlled subsequent studies, to my knowledge. Yet we now read, for example, that second hand smoke is a cause of breast cancer. At this point you can say pretty much anything you want about second-hand smoke.
…or global warming.
Sure, the arguments for why heavy snowfall is consistent with warmer average temperature (warmer air holds more moisture, as opposed to times when it’s “too cold to snow”) are reasonable and plausible. I’m not really trained to disagree with them, because they’re logically sound. But maybe they deserve some extra scrutiny by people who are trained in climatology in light of all the recent revelations involving East Anglia and the IPCC.
I also find it ironic that while anthropogenic global warming advocates were allowed to use Hurricanes Katrina and Rita to “motivate” us to believe them-by screaming about how hurricanes will be more frequent and more intense (which turned out to be more than a little wrong), unless we do something-skeptics can’t use the massive blizzards and cold weather all over the country in their favor. It’s not necessarily good logic, but we’re talking about rhetoric, right?
