Promote your business or product on 700level.com. For
more information about advertising with us CLICK HERE!

That plus low-level exposure, Dino. I don't mind even smokning bans in restaurants, but when places (Yes, even hospitals) declare, like their entire f'ing campus Smoke-Free it becomes a bit ridiculous. They actually have tried to make some public golf courses smoke free. It's become clear they want to outlaw the act itself, and it's not out of some massive sense of altruism, it's just that they don't like it.



I don't like Harleys and the noise they make and there is probably a better case for hearing loss from them then there is for a health risk for very light and occasional exposure to 2nd hand smoke.

It is ridiculous. I am going to Camden Yards tomororow night, never been there before. I will say there is a 50-50 shot that you cannot smoke anywhere in the place. I remember smoking in the seats back in the day.

I agree - outdoor smoking bans are ludicrous.

The whitetrashiest place in the city is those smoking pens at the Phillies stadium

Well, if the "hazards" of second hand smoke are the issue not just cancer, I can definitely tell you that there is a noticeable increase in childhood asthma if the parents are smokers.

The problem with the "issue" being "settled" is that epidemiological data is difficult to sort through. What constitues a significant exposure? Going to a bar once a week for 2 hours? Being exposed 3 hours/week? 4? Etc. Then, are there habits of people of frequent places where smokers more likely to increase general risks for cancer? The average smoker (pack/day) takes 5-10 minutes per cig x 20 means that they get exposed 1 hour per day to smoke related injury. Now, that results in a substantially increased relative risk for the development of lung cancer. Relative risk is the risk that you have for getting a disease compared with the regular population. In the case of smokers its dozens of times higher than non-smokers. Now the incidence of lung cancer is very small. So, the argument that sustained tobacco companies for years is that its "hard to determine". The OVERALL risk for developing lung cancer in chronic smoker is about 3%. That means that 97% of smokers won't get it. That is a small number. THAT is what tobacco industry execs argued..the small number. They ignored the relative risk which is the more important of the two data. Does that make sense? The relative risk for developing liver cancer in patients with chronic liver disease (usually from alcohol or hepatitis B or C) is 55 times that of a patient who doesn't have chronic liver disease. The risk for anyone to develop liver cancer is a fraction of a percent. Is this beginning to explain why the "arguments aren't settled". In the scientific community there is clearly an increased risk. DESPITE that increased risk, the likelihood remains fairly small. However, those are the catastrophic events of those risk factors. Cancer. What about chronic lung disease, substantially increased risk of throat cancer, increased risk of heart disease, increased risk of chronic lung infections, blah blah blah. That is what was often ignored in the debate about tobacco use.

I'm all for an open debate, but when POLICY makers have a vested interest (like GWB's former environmental czar) to dismiss or hamper the discussion so that policy can be implemented, then I have a problem. You think for a second that socio-political factors could truly be put aside? What does the scientist who studies the ozone and greenhouse gas effects have to gain by saying we are harming our environment? Compare that with the former oil man who is in charge of environmental policy. Wolves lying with sheep. That is a distinction that is ignored by the "I am not convinced that climate change exists" camp.

I think another thing that's ignored is that a lot of these researchers need the next grant as much as they need the current grant.

Research follows funding, Jules. Unless you think there's an enormous amount of researchers who are ready to answer questions that no one is asking. And if you don't get the answers your funder wants, what's the likelihood they fund the next round or other studies by you?

Let's not paint the global warming crowd as altruistic do-gooders. They have a vested interest in making sure 1) everyone believes them and 2) they get more funding. In that sense, academic research follows the same rules as the private sector.

It was 98 effin degrees today

And the vested interest of the crowd that wants you to say, "it isn't true"? What about funding they receive?

Funding is fickle. The motivation for doing a study just so people "believe you" seems the flimsiest reason to me of all the motivations we discussed. Funding PRECEEDS the research for this. Meaning, you postulate your thought hypothesis, present it to the body or organization that provides the funding and get approved for it. The results do not dictate the funding, it is whether it is deemed sound research. Besides, those funding studies that argue that global warming is a real threat, do they have a real vested interest against commerce? Seriously. Most of that funding comes from public organizations.

I think you are being disingenous on this issue. You ask for open debate when those in the "against" or "still to be proven" category are the people with the single biggest motivation. Greed. What does the opposing side have? "Believe me, I'm right?" as its motivation? C'mon.

Fred_Barnett
RE: Global Warming Pt.II
Reply
7/18/2008 6:43 PM

It was 98 effin degrees today


That sounds about right for July 18th in the Delaware Valley.

When it hits 98 degrees in the North Pole in July than we certainly will have something to get us ready to build canoes and the next Noah's Ark.

Jules,
When I said research follows funding, I meant:

1) Funding exists for projects
2) Researchers fill the void to do the project

I don't think we're far off. You're talking about after the funding is already allocated. I'm saying the policy drives funding. Researchers chase the policy-created funding. Research will either satisfy the funding/policy expectations or they will not receive further funding or consideration for funding.

You argue the same point when you argue that the oil industry pays for funding. I'm simply saying that government policy acts in much the same manner as the oil industry. They have an agenda they want to further. They release RFPs and get proposals. They review them and decide which bidder will best satisfy the policy particulars.

Or is it just some major coincidence the majority of the funding that started the current global warming/climate change issue happened when Al Gore was a player in DC?

I'm not even getting into the industry bias that hampers research. That is, you're either a "get along" researcher or they will aboslutely trash your research in peer review, using sound and unsound criticism. In many ways, the academic research field acts like a pyramid scheme/organized crime syndicate. You pay upwards in reviews and citations - you move up. You collect your proteges that likewise cite your work.

And if you step out of line - they whack you.

Let me put it another way, Jules.

If I found research performed at the behest of the federal government from, say 2001-2008, and that research said, "Global warming/climate change is a natural occurrance driven by solar activity and natural warming cycles of the earth,"

Would you say, "Yep, that's legit."

Or would you say, "Nope, that's policy driven by the ideology in the White House."

This isn't exactly what they were saying. And, yes, read the article and it talks about attacks on Clinton's last term report in 2000 by groups opposing restricting greenhouse emissions.

OF COURSE, the White House needs peeps to make thier positions seem legit. So, you gerrymander the scientists that emphasize the "ambiguity" and "more research needs to be done" group to do the studies.
click here

NCSF, the chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, Mr. Cooney, was a former lobyist for the American Petroleum Institute. So, policy statements by THIS Administration have to be viewed with extreme skepticism. The guy took the liberty of editing scientific research before it was made part of public record.

So, I guess I have to reign in my criticism of the scientists per se and focus it more on the Administration.

Now, with regards to University research, I can't agree with you on that. Most of the work that I've seen is largely independent of pressure to conform to a predetermined ideaology. The times where there are pressures are when there is collaboration between academia and industry. And those relationships are generally frowned upon. Unfortunately, with government funding tough to access, those relationships are becoming more common. It IS difficult to be really objective if you have a vested financial stake or equity in the product that you'll ultimately retail (whether its a commodity or information).
linc

So, policy statements by THIS Administration have to be viewed with extreme skepticism.

Jules,
I think you need to step back for a bit and ask if you've truly drunk the KoolAid.

Republicans are partisan when it comes to funding policy/research that suits their agenda!

Democrats are not partisan when it comes to funding policy/research that suits their agenda!

Who is really being intellectually dishonest here, Jules?

The guy who says, "Administrations set priorities and policy, allocate funding to advance that policy, and use the research to solidify credbility."

Or the guy that says:

"This administration is tainted, but the previous one (which had a fiercely partisan eco-warrior) in no way skewed research priorities toward advancing their goals."

In addition, in terms of the academic fields, you've clearly not spent time dealing with the chief researchers in academia. They are as fiercely partisan as they come and use their position to promote those that support their views and stifle those that dissent.

Seriously, anyone who spent time in college, grad school, or a doctoral program is rolling their eyes at the idea that professors shield their views during research.

I'm not even saying there are good guys or bad guys. I'm just saying you can't ignore how business is done in federal or state governments. It's not nearly as altruistic as you seem to think it is.

Further proof that global warming is real, and the end of days is near
linc

I think whether you believe in secondhand smoke causing cancer ultimately comes down to whether you smoke or not.

NCSF,

I understand that people are pushing certain partisan agendas. I'm saying this:

1) There is a vested interest for political parties.

The current party edited what ITS OWN SCIENTISTS found to mitigate the negative effect it'd have on the desire to promote its industry of oil.

2) Your argument is now that inherent biases drive or color conclusions drawn by researchers. Sure, but to state that it is true in every case or in the overwhelming majority of work is way over the top. The majority of research points to the deleterious effects of greenhouse gases have on the environment and its influence on climate change.

The scientists whose research supports this are motivated by: pre-test bias, promotion of democratic political party or saying "they are right". This research has been born out in every other 1st world nation of europe and in Japan. Fine, every european nation is a bunch of socialist goons who hate industry and don't want anyone to make money. But Japan? Why are we the ONLY first world nation to refuse to ratify the Kyoto protocol. Japan is not a bleeding heart liberal nation. Well, except they DO know the meaning of happy hour since it means a trip to the fun house at the end of the week. I guess that is liberal. You think Japan would do anything to decelerate its industry?

The scientists who cast ambiguity are generally funded by industry and have serious personal monetary gain directly from industry and promote the republican political agenda.

So, we have one party that has the benefit of "being right" as its motivator and the other that has serious money as its motivator? I think the scales get tipped by avarice.

I have no illusions about the democratic party. They basically tax the country too much and spend it on too many social welfare programs that have yielded little headway.

The Republican party doesn't tax you, they just spend on credit which doesn't affect pocket books directly and spend it on industry.

Neither of them is really looking out for the country. But that doesn't change that the overwhelming scientific observations point to a great case for association of greenhouse gas effects on the environment/climate. I can't believe that the Democrats would generate enough funding to throw dust into the eyes of the majority for no particular gain other than seeming like tree huggers. Compared with the vast resources of industry and a direct stake in realizing more wealth amassing...of course, there should have been more research supporting a lack of association.

Here is your fair and balanced daily weather report
link

I saw a program on this about a month or two ago. Talks about a "mimi ice age", that was part of the cause of the black death.

During 14th and 15th century, there was a warming trend that led to a population boom, due to new areas became warm enough to farm, where before it was too cold to grow sustainable crops. The King of France was furious that parts of England were growing better grapes for wine than anything in France. It got to be to warm for the grapes growing in France.

So, over a couple hundred of years, it changed back to a mini ice age. No more mass farming, people moved into closer to cities for food and shelter. People starved, huddled together and transmitted the black death along with the mice and rats.

Anyway, here is cool little info about it...
Just a little nippy

1 2 3 4 5 6