Climate Change

n the side of the tobacco lobby because they though that the tobacco compan y's free-market right to poison their customers for profit was more importa nt to the customers political health than the the damage caused by tobacco was to their physical health. You do seem to suffer from a similar failure of judgement. \\

Merchants_of_Doubt is written by two HISTORIANS and is critical of the jud gment of 3 PHYSICISTS.

The question the physicists raised relating to tobacco was about the level of HEALTH DANGER of SECOND HAND smoke, not about the danger of smoking to t he smoker, as you imply.

Yes smoking is a health hazard to the smoker. Yes smoking is rude and annoying and a fire hazard and should be banned in confined public areas on that basis alone. They questioned if it is truthful to use health hazard to ___others___ as a basis for second hand smoke rules. That is a very reasonable question act ually.

Of course the historians see them as evil and "spreading confusion" for ask ing this question.

Mark

Mark

Asking questions is good - it is the basis of science.

Implying that there is room for doubt on a case with clear evidence and strong consensus amongst scientists is a different matter - because politicians, media, businessfolk and the "man in the street" do not understand about science.

Within the scientific community, it is healthy to have sceptics and people with different opinions. But once these differences "escape" from rational scientists, they will be abused by people with particular agendas that want reinforcement of their favourite ideas and theories.

Second-hand smoking is an example of this - the evidence is strongly on the side of passive smoking being a health hazard. There is plenty of grey areas when trying to quantify how much risk you get from different levels of passive smoking - but the general rule is clear. Yet it is possible for individuals such as these scientists (note - I have not read the book) can make it sound like there is plenty of doubt.

The scientists are not "evil" for asking the question. But when they knowingly spread confusion, knowingly endanger people's health, for their own private commercial gain - that could well be considered "evil". (I hesitate to say that it /is/ evil, because I don't know the facts of this case well enough.) Historians and investigative journalists are well qualified to figure out what happened here, and who knew what and was paid by whom - that is part of their job.

In the case of anthropomorphic global warming, things are much more complicated.

There is very little doubt that mankind has contributed to global warming as well as other massive changes to our global ecosystem. People denying that are either ignorant, or are pursuing personal agendas gaining from such denial. (Again, it is fine for scientists to quietly question everything - but they should not make extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence.)

There is far more doubt as to what proportion of current climate changes are due to mankind, and what effects come from other sources (such as variations in the sun). There is lots of scope for discussion there.

Then there is the question of whether the climate change is actually a problem (and for whom), and the question of what can be done about it (regardless of whether the major causes are anthropomorphic or natural). Again, vast scope for discussion (and vast scope for procrastination).

So trying to divide people into "AGW deniers" and "AGW accepters" is pretty pointless, IMHO. The real issue is whether we need to do something about climate change, and if so, what we should do.

Synopsizing... "Fact" is only "Fact", if approved by David Brown (aka a socialist nutcase). Sheeesh! ...Jim Thompson

in the side of the tobacco lobby because they though that the tobacco comp any's free-market right to poison their customers for profit was more impor tant to the customers political health than the the damage caused by tobacc o was to their physical health. You do seem to suffer from a similar failur e of judgement.

udgment of 3 PHYSICISTS.

l of HEALTH DANGER of SECOND HAND smoke, not about the danger of smoking to the smoker, as you imply.

Read the book. The real problem was that three physicists named didn't have any expertise on the dangers of smoking, and used their considerable political clout in f avour of the tobacco lobby because they saw the political aspects of constr aining the tobacco lobby as more important than any health issue (which the y didn't know much about, and clearly didn't regard as important).

n confined public areas on that basis alone.

a basis for second hand smoke rules. That is a very reasonable question a ctually.

sking this question.

They weren't "asking any questions". They'd made up their minds.

The historians see them as evil for encouraging a set-up where the tobacco companies paid out money to people who spread doubt about the scientific ev idence. Their influence wasn't devoted to letting people become better info rmed on the issue, but rather to encouraging people who were being paid to make the general public more confused, and less well-informed.

It's exactly the same tactic being used by the anthropogenic global warming denial propagandists, and it's thoroughly evil.

So non-facts propagated by deluded right-wingers, like James Arthur and John Larkin, are perfectly all right in Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson's eyes.

in the side of the tobacco lobby because they though that the tobacco comp any's free-market right to poison their customers for profit was more impor tant to the customers political health than the the damage caused by tobacc o was to their physical health. You do seem to suffer from a similar failur e of judgement.

udgment of 3 PHYSICISTS.

l of HEALTH DANGER of SECOND HAND smoke, not about the danger of smoking to the smoker, as you imply.

n confined public areas on that basis alone.

a basis for second hand smoke rules. That is a very reasonable question a ctually.

sking this question.

Bill's over-awed by Al Gore. Ever read "Earth in the Balance"?

Nuff' said.

Meanwhile, here's a handy list of all the things global warming has caused, even though it hasn't kicked in yet:

It's pretty funny.

Cheers, James Arthur

gh in the side of the tobacco lobby because they though that the tobacco co mpany's free-market right to poison their customers for profit was more imp ortant to the customers political health than the the damage caused by toba cco was to their physical health. You do seem to suffer from a similar fail ure of judgement.

judgment of 3 PHYSICISTS.

vel of HEALTH DANGER of SECOND HAND smoke, not about the danger of smoking to the smoker, as you imply.

in confined public areas on that basis alone.

as a basis for second hand smoke rules. That is a very reasonable question actually.

As it turned out, it wasn't, and in any event misrepresents what they were actually doing.

asking this question.

I certainly have - long after it was first published, back in 1992. Nobody is going to be over-awed by Al Gore - he's just politician, but one with th e relatively rare skill of finding experts and listening to what they have to say. "Earth in the Balance" stood up remarkably when I finally did get around to reading it. Climate science had advanced quite a bit by then, but it hadn' t invalidated anything that Gore at said, though it had provided more back- up detail.

d, even though it hasn't kicked in yet:

Anthropogenic global warming has attracted a lot of attention over the past few decades. Many of the journalists who have written about it have been a trifle irresponsible about claiming stuff that it might have caused.

James Arthur knows about a much about the subject as John Larkin - which is n't much. The main thing that he knows is that people who take anthropogeni c global warming seriously don't share his right-wing-nitwit political idea s, and - because he is a thoroughly irrational right-wing nitwit - he doesn 't feel the need to know anything more about it.

He does go to the trouble of dressing up his irrational aversion with osten sibly rational arguments, but since he knows very little, his arguments are n't to be taken seriously.

More to the point, he doesn't want the subject to be taken seriously. There are all sorts of political questions that start getting asked when books l ike Merchants of Doubt reveal the way that people with loads of money can g et away with spending it on bamboozling the bulk of the population.

Lincoln talked about not being able to fool all of the people all of the ti me, but the fossil-carbon extraction industry has spent enough money to be able fool enough of the people, for long enough to make a lot more money fo r their industry.

And another book, _Doubt is Their Product_, details the influence industry showing that Tobacco, Evolution, Global Warming and any number of other issues are all getting these contrarian narratives created by the same few PR firms.

The fact that no one (here in the newsgroup) on the anti-global warming side will acknowledge that this industry even exists is indication of some strangeness. "Don't look behind the curtain..."

Mark Zenier snipped-for-privacy@eskimo.com Googleproofaddress(account:mzenier provider:eskimo domain:com)

Trying to emulate Slowman ?>:-} ...Jim Thompson

at >cigarette-smoking wasn't necessarily bad for your health are now tellin g you >that the evidence for anthropogenic global warming isn't as strong a s 97% of >the world's leading climatologists happen to think.

t people who question AGW are akin to Holocaust deniers.

Holocaust denier?

n would

ry who

ng.

Is there an ignition facility there too? Talk about living long and doing n othing...

If he waves his PhD in 17th century English lit around, he's got it.

If you look back over the last few weeks, Bill has been being pretty pleasant, actually. He even complimented you.

Cheers

Phil

Even more alarming, he sort of complimented me >:-} ...Jim Thompson

Now that took imagination. ;)

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

Based on the fraction of his posts that I read, I see a dreary stream of lame third-person insults and the occasional backhanded, grudging admission that I sometimes design stuff that works. I can't imagine why an apparently intelligent person would elect to have such a repulsive personality, or how he could ignore the obvious consequences.

Even presumably intelligent people are too often lead around by the emotional ring in their nose.

Well, we can't pick our families or our fellow SED posters, so it's generally a good idea to make the most of it. As my my mum used to say, "Don't poke the alligators."

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

e:

e >fossil-fuel extraction industry - and the same people who reassured you that >cigarette-smoking wasn't necessarily bad for your health are now tell ing you >that the evidence for anthropogenic global warming isn't as strong as 97% of >the world's leading climatologists happen to think.

hat people who question AGW are akin to Holocaust deniers.

nd Holocaust denier?

t I

ion would be to tell them how stupid they are. He's a droning, pompous insu lt factory who seems to enjoy being obnoxious and useless. May he live long and do nothing.

nothing...

The April 2014 copy of Physics Today reports - on page 27 - that Livermore has given up on trying to use the laser ignition facility to create more en ergy that the lasers dump in the ignition samples being compressed. They'll devote the one or two shots per day that they can manage to trying to get a better understanding of what's going on while the samples are being compr essed.

It's certainly a fabulously expensive experimental tool, but John Larkin's timing gear seems to have worked, and can't have contribute all that much t o the total price (otherwise John would be getting around in an much more e xpensive car than his Audi).

I've not heard of anything like that being set up in Sydney, but I'll ask a round at the next IEEE meeting.

asant, actually. He even complimented you.

lame third-person insults and the occasional backhanded, grudging admission that I sometimes design stuff that works. I can't imagine why an apparently int elligent person would elect to have such a repulsive personality, or how he could ig nore the obvious consequences.

John Larkin's vanity and insecurity mean that he finds an attractive person ality to be one that flatters him incessantly, and that he finds that anyon e who doesn't bother is repulsive.

Perfectly rational, but it scarcely justifies wasting a lot of time finding nice things to say about him and his products.

onal ring in their nose.

John Larkin may well be moderately intelligent - he's a little too suscepti ble to denialist propaganda about anthropogenic global warming to qualify f or any higher praise. His taste for flattery probably qualifies as an emoti onal ring through his nose - tell him he's brilliant and he'll follow you a nywhere.

Coming from you I can understand.

Jamie