Climate Change Deniers: The New Big Tobacco

[westwall]

" Right-Wing Media Desperately Smear Scientists To Defend Climate Deniers' Virtue"
Right-Wing Media Desperately Smear Scientists To Defend Climate Deniers Virtue Blog Media Matters for America

"Who is more likely to be influenced by money: The vast majority of climate scientists who agree with the scientific consensus that human activities are driving global warming, or the small pool of climate change deniers funded by the fossil fuel industry? The answer probably seems obvious, but some deniers are doing their best to play the "conflict of interest" card against respected climate scientists.

Right-wing media are promoting the myth that scientists who agree with the consensus of human-caused climate change have been "corrupt[ed]" by "massive amounts of money." Most recently, National Review published an op-ed from the Cato Institute's science director, Patrick Michaels, who wrote that the U.S. government disburses "tens of billions of dollars" to climate scientists "who would not have received those funds had their research shown climate change to be beneficial or even modest in its effects."

Here's the bizarre thing: After arguing that money "corrupts" science that supports the consensus on man-made climate change, Michaels then tried to defend the industry funding behind the research that's used to deny climate change. Michaels wrote: "Are the very, very few climate scientists whose research is supported by [the fossil fuel] industry somehow less virtuous?"

It should come as no surprise that Michaels himself works for an organization funded by the fossil fuel industry. The Cato Institute was co-founded by the oil billionaire Koch brothers and has received millions from the Koch family, while also receiving funding from ExxonMobil and the American Petroleum Institute."

rest at link


I'm struck remembering how Big Tobacco said all the health warnings about their product lines were fradulant and biased etc. based on money from the government too. Seems to me Big Oil is doing the exact same thing now vs the climate change debate.

Well, if you're going to bring money into it the climatologists are looking at divvying up 76 trillion dollars. So, which is bigger? Billions or trillions?

 

[westwall]

Really? And your proof is? Peer reviewed from a medical journal, thank you.

The same peer review that claimed vaccines will give your children autism? You're going to have to do better than that olfraud. Peer review is not the end all an be all of science. In fact it has been shown to be corrupted on a scale undreamt of when the procedures were laid down.

 

[Old Rocks]

" Right-Wing Media Desperately Smear Scientists To Defend Climate Deniers' Virtue"
Right-Wing Media Desperately Smear Scientists To Defend Climate Deniers Virtue Blog Media Matters for America

"Who is more likely to be influenced by money: The vast majority of climate scientists who agree with the scientific consensus that human activities are driving global warming, or the small pool of climate change deniers funded by the fossil fuel industry? The answer probably seems obvious, but some deniers are doing their best to play the "conflict of interest" card against respected climate scientists.

Right-wing media are promoting the myth that scientists who agree with the consensus of human-caused climate change have been "corrupt[ed]" by "massive amounts of money." Most recently, National Review published an op-ed from the Cato Institute's science director, Patrick Michaels, who wrote that the U.S. government disburses "tens of billions of dollars" to climate scientists "who would not have received those funds had their research shown climate change to be beneficial or even modest in its effects."

Here's the bizarre thing: After arguing that money "corrupts" science that supports the consensus on man-made climate change, Michaels then tried to defend the industry funding behind the research that's used to deny climate change. Michaels wrote: "Are the very, very few climate scientists whose research is supported by [the fossil fuel] industry somehow less virtuous?"

It should come as no surprise that Michaels himself works for an organization funded by the fossil fuel industry. The Cato Institute was co-founded by the oil billionaire Koch brothers and has received millions from the Koch family, while also receiving funding from ExxonMobil and the American Petroleum Institute."

rest at link


I'm struck remembering how Big Tobacco said all the health warnings about their product lines were fradulant and biased etc. based on money from the government too. Seems to me Big Oil is doing the exact same thing now vs the climate change debate.

Well, if you're going to bring money into it the climatologists are looking at divvying up 76 trillion dollars. So, which is bigger? Billions or trillions?

OK, you lying old asshole, how about a link to a credible source that shows that number.

 

[Old Rocks]

Really? And your proof is? Peer reviewed from a medical journal, thank you.

The same peer review that claimed vaccines will give your children autism? You're going to have to do better than that olfraud. Peer review is not the end all an be all of science. In fact it has been shown to be corrupted on a scale undreamt of when the procedures were laid down.

Stupid ass. It was not people like you that demonstrated that was not true, but other scientists in peer reviewed literature.

 

[westwall]

" Right-Wing Media Desperately Smear Scientists To Defend Climate Deniers' Virtue"
Right-Wing Media Desperately Smear Scientists To Defend Climate Deniers Virtue Blog Media Matters for America

"Who is more likely to be influenced by money: The vast majority of climate scientists who agree with the scientific consensus that human activities are driving global warming, or the small pool of climate change deniers funded by the fossil fuel industry? The answer probably seems obvious, but some deniers are doing their best to play the "conflict of interest" card against respected climate scientists.

Right-wing media are promoting the myth that scientists who agree with the consensus of human-caused climate change have been "corrupt[ed]" by "massive amounts of money." Most recently, National Review published an op-ed from the Cato Institute's science director, Patrick Michaels, who wrote that the U.S. government disburses "tens of billions of dollars" to climate scientists "who would not have received those funds had their research shown climate change to be beneficial or even modest in its effects."

Here's the bizarre thing: After arguing that money "corrupts" science that supports the consensus on man-made climate change, Michaels then tried to defend the industry funding behind the research that's used to deny climate change. Michaels wrote: "Are the very, very few climate scientists whose research is supported by [the fossil fuel] industry somehow less virtuous?"

It should come as no surprise that Michaels himself works for an organization funded by the fossil fuel industry. The Cato Institute was co-founded by the oil billionaire Koch brothers and has received millions from the Koch family, while also receiving funding from ExxonMobil and the American Petroleum Institute."

rest at link


I'm struck remembering how Big Tobacco said all the health warnings about their product lines were fradulant and biased etc. based on money from the government too. Seems to me Big Oil is doing the exact same thing now vs the climate change debate.

Well, if you're going to bring money into it the climatologists are looking at divvying up 76 trillion dollars. So, which is bigger? Billions or trillions?

OK, you lying old asshole, how about a link to a credible source that shows that number.

How many times do I have to post the link to the IPCC report silly boy? Below is the Telegraph story so even a simpleton such as yourself can understand what your elders are saying, and the full UN report is linked below that. Enjoy!



£50 trillion needs to be spent on going green if world is to avert 'major planetary catastrophe’

50 trillion needs to be spent on going green if world is to avert major planetary catastrophe - Telegraph
http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/wess_current/2011wess.pdf

 

[westwall]

Really? And your proof is? Peer reviewed from a medical journal, thank you.

The same peer review that claimed vaccines will give your children autism? You're going to have to do better than that olfraud. Peer review is not the end all an be all of science. In fact it has been shown to be corrupted on a scale undreamt of when the procedures were laid down.

Stupid ass. It was not people like you that demonstrated that was not true, but other scientists in peer reviewed literature.

Oh poor olfraud, it was peer reviewed to get out first you asshat.

 

[jc456]

Really? And your proof is? Peer reviewed from a medical journal, thank you.

Who would want anything from a peer group who lie? You're weird

 

[Kosh]

" Right-Wing Media Desperately Smear Scientists To Defend Climate Deniers' Virtue"
Right-Wing Media Desperately Smear Scientists To Defend Climate Deniers Virtue Blog Media Matters for America

"Who is more likely to be influenced by money: The vast majority of climate scientists who agree with the scientific consensus that human activities are driving global warming, or the small pool of climate change deniers funded by the fossil fuel industry? The answer probably seems obvious, but some deniers are doing their best to play the "conflict of interest" card against respected climate scientists.

Right-wing media are promoting the myth that scientists who agree with the consensus of human-caused climate change have been "corrupt[ed]" by "massive amounts of money." Most recently, National Review published an op-ed from the Cato Institute's science director, Patrick Michaels, who wrote that the U.S. government disburses "tens of billions of dollars" to climate scientists "who would not have received those funds had their research shown climate change to be beneficial or even modest in its effects."

Here's the bizarre thing: After arguing that money "corrupts" science that supports the consensus on man-made climate change, Michaels then tried to defend the industry funding behind the research that's used to deny climate change. Michaels wrote: "Are the very, very few climate scientists whose research is supported by [the fossil fuel] industry somehow less virtuous?"

It should come as no surprise that Michaels himself works for an organization funded by the fossil fuel industry. The Cato Institute was co-founded by the oil billionaire Koch brothers and has received millions from the Koch family, while also receiving funding from ExxonMobil and the American Petroleum Institute."

rest at link


I'm struck remembering how Big Tobacco said all the health warnings about their product lines were fradulant and biased etc. based on money from the government too. Seems to me Big Oil is doing the exact same thing now vs the climate change debate.

So the far left drones reaches out and grabs a far left site (media matters) run and controlled by George Soros.

The irony impaired far left are at it again..

 

[Kosh]

NASA Marshall Solar Physics

^ the Ultimate DENIER!!!

Maybe the sun ahs not got the far left/AGW memo yet..

 

[IanC]

Really? And your proof is? Peer reviewed from a medical journal, thank you.

Multicenter case-control study of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer in Europe. - PubMed - NCBI

A World Health Organization Study (WHO)

Abstract
BACKGROUND:
An association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) and lung cancer risk has been suggested. To evaluate this possible association better, researchers need more precise estimates of risk, the relative contribution of different sources of ETS, and the effect of ETS exposure on different histologic types of lung cancer. To address these issues, we have conducted a case-control study of lung cancer and exposure to ETS in 12 centers from seven European countries.

METHODS:
A total of 650 patients with lung cancer and 1542 control subjects up to 74 years of age were interviewed about exposure to ETS. Neither case subjects nor control subjects had smoked more than 400 cigarettes in their lifetime.

RESULTS:
ETS exposure during childhood was not associated with an increased risk of lung cancer (odds ratio [OR] for ever exposure = 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.64-0.96). The OR for ever exposure to spousal ETS was 1.16 (95% CI = 0.93-1.44). No clear dose-response relationship could be demonstrated for cumulative spousal ETS exposure. The OR for ever exposure to workplace ETS was 1.17 (95% CI = 0.94-1.45), with possible evidence of increasing risk for increasing duration of exposure. No increase in risk was detected in subjects whose exposure to spousal or workplace ETS ended more than 15 years earlier. Ever exposure to ETS from other sources was not associated with lung cancer risk. Risks from combined exposure to spousal and workplace ETS were higher for squamous cell carcinoma and small-cell carcinoma than for adenocarcinoma, but the differences were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS:
Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk. We did find weak evidence of a dose-response relationship between risk of lung cancer and exposure to spousal and workplace ETS. There was no detectable risk after cessation of exposure.

the only statistically significant finding in that report was that children of smokers got less lung cancer! I personally dont believe that, which makes the even weaker results even less compelling. and whats up with the weasely wording? no association for the children's results but weak evidence adults? good grief! what an abuse of statistics.


so yes, Old Rocks, the link between second hand smoke and lung cancer is overblown, and spun in such a way as to misdirect casual readers into thinking there is a correlation.

 

[IanC]

or what about the EPA's labelling of second hand smoke as a class A carcinogen?

"
Osteen’s decision in 1998 was devastating to the anti tobacco crusaders inside and outside of government, but apparently the government and the crusaders just ignored it and kept up the chant. In his opinion delivered after full briefings and submissions of expert evidence, Judge Osteen pointed out that the conduct of the Environmental Protection Agency and their manipulation of science for their argument wasin violation of basic scientific rules.

To offer a few choice bits from the Osteen memorandum Opinion from 1998:

• When congress requires specific procedures, agencies may not ignore them or fashion substitutes.
• It is circular for the EPA to now argue the epidemiology studies support the agency’s a priori theory.
• The court is faced with the ugly possibility that EPA adopted a methodology for each chapter (a book on second hand smoke by EPA), without explanation, based on the outcome sought in that chapter.
• EPA should live within its own categorization framework for carcinogens and risk, or clearly explain why they chose not to do so.
• If the EPA’s a priori hypothesis fails, EPA has no justification for manipulating the Agency’s standard scientific methodology to get the result it desires.
• (Quoting the 4 Th Circuit) If agency action is to withstand judicial review, the agency’s actual reasoning must prove reasonable, not the post hoc rationalization devised during litigations (sic).
• EPA’s study selection is disturbing. . . . EPA “cherry picked” its data.
• The EPA excluded nearly half of the available studies . . . and conflicts with EPA’s Risk Assessment guidelines.
• EPA adopted statistical testing methods rejected by epidemiologists,
• Using its normal methodology and its selected studies, EPA did not show a statistically significant association between ETS (second hand smoke) and lung Cancer. (more on what that means herein under)

"

yup, the war against SHS has a lot of similarities to the Alarm on AGW.