Friday, September 16, 2011

Nicotine is Not Addictive

Brought to you by Fred Seitz and his playmates at the George Marshall Institute

DOUBT from The Climate Reality Project on Vimeo.

24 comments:

Dan Olner said...

Just watched Climate 101, which was also jolly good.

And! A skeptic friend of mine recently watched an old Naomi Oreskes presentation and it really made him think. So, actually, worth making these things and showing it to people.

John Mashey said...

I strongly recommend Allan M. Brandt's "The Cigarette Century".

Surgeon General Luther Terry is an unsung hero.
Especially read the section describing how he managed to get a science panel to work, even though the tobacco companies had *vetoes*.
Half the panelists were smokers (well, at the beginning of the panel's investigation ... not at the end.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd.

Wow, a whole 2 comments. Seems like global warming alarmism is in the dumps right now. From this video, it sounds like the doctors formed a "consensus" that cigarettes weren't bad! Furthermore, the statement "cigarettes cause cancer" is a lie. Cigarettes can cause cancer but you can also smoke for 100 years and not die. Cancer claims among the indian population are almost non existent. That's alright, I know Eli is pandering to his fanboys anyway that can't think for themselves. Since your in the business though of trashing some of the best scientists the world has ever known, why don't you extend the trashing to Dr. Singer? Wait, whoops. Dr. Singer found doctored evidence that falsely showed a stronger link to tobacco and cancer than actually existed.

Ted Kirkpatrick said...

You read my mind, John. I've been looking for a good book on the cigarette companies' tactics. Brandt has a way with words, too: "The cigarette permeates twentieth-century America as smoke fills an enclosed room". (p. 3)

Adam said...

"Since your in the business though of trashing some of the best scientists the world has ever known..."

Uh, Dr. Jay? About that PhD of yours: is it too late to ask for your money back? I think "your" due a refund.
--
Adam

Holly Stick said...

First Nations (Indians) in Canada: cancer rates in 2001 show lung cancer at 43.2 per 100,000 for First Nations and 47.3 for Canadians. Other types of cancer also shown:

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fniah-spnia/diseases-maladies/2005-01_health-sante_indicat-eng.php#mortality

Jay Cadbury is a liar.

David B. Benson said...

Of course not.

Excuse me while I go out to have a smoke.

cbp said...

>> Furthermore, the statement "cigarettes cause cancer"
>> is a lie. Cigarettes can cause cancer but...

Classic!

J Bowers said...

Jeff Masters gives a handy 'to do' list for budding shills.

* Launch a public relations campaign disputing the evidence.
* Predict dire economic consequences, and ignore the cost benefits.
* Find and pay a respected scientist to argue persuasively against the threat.
* Use non-peer reviewed scientific publications or industry-funded scientists who don't publish original peer-reviewed scientific work to support your point of view.
* Trumpet discredited scientific studies and myths supporting your point of view as scientific fact.
* Point to the substantial scientific uncertainty, and the certainty of economic loss if immediate action is taken.
* Use data from a local area to support your views, and ignore the global evidence.
* Disparage scientists, saying they are playing up uncertain predictions of doom in order to get research funding.
* Disparage environmentalists, claiming they are hyping environmental problems in order to further their ideological goals.
* Complain that it is unfair to require regulatory action in the U.S., as it would put the nation at an economic disadvantage.
* Claim that more research is needed before action should be taken.
* Argue that it is less expensive to live with the effects.

He has some comments on Fred Singer there, too. How many citations for his "key research publication"? Zero?

Russell said...

Why shouldn't Eli blame black and white television commercials on an Institute founded in 1984? It's a free country .

Ethon , who's planted carrots, hoed carrots, and cured carrots, has invited me to smoke one behind the barn to brace ourselves for a telethon crawl - to make the world safe for carbon prohibition , we must first rid it of Second Hand Aids, Third-Hand Sickle Cells, and mercury maddened typhoid vaccine Marys. Once we have established that risks are universally dose independent , we can apply this new precautionary principle to radiative forcing, and achieve the grand unification of homeopathy and climate policy.

http://reason.com/blog/2010/12/14/its-official-dose-doesnt-matte

But where to start? So many Two Minute Hates, so little time.

Jeffrey Davis said...

I've got to get rid of this joke. Consider the existence of a guy who purposefully discounts the factors leading to glaucoma. In fact, he's something of a scandal within the opthamalogical community. So much so that's he called "a Seitz for sore eyes."

Jeffrey "Meyer Culpa" Davis

jamesc said...

wow 2 agents,I can just imagine them in their cubicles waiting to get promoted further up the road of Koch.

dhogaza said...

"Uh, Dr. Jay? About that PhD of yours..."

Dr. Jay got his PhD at the same time I was dominating Dr. J in the NBA ...

Just sayin' ...

Anonymous said...

Snow Bunny says:

I'm entitled to trash Singer on smoking because I read his whole paper criticizing an EPA reporta few years ago (at the risk of smoking out my illogic detection circuits). Singer wrote a paper funded by the (now defunct) Alexander de Tocqueville institute dissing the 1993 EPA report on the dangers of passive smoking "Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking:Lung Cancer and other disorders". Because I was very familiar with the research on the dangers of passive smoking during the preceding 20 years, I took a long hard look at Singer's paper. I found nothing but hooey. He sets down conclusions that are nowhere demonstrated in his lengthy paper.
The tobacco industry funded the ADTI for work to answer the EPA document. http://tobaccodocuments.org/nysa_ti_s3/TI10841120.html

The EPA document was a review of earlier refereed publications and was itself reviewed by an external committee whose members came from major universities.

Personally, I had severe sinus attacks. Eventually I realized some of them were precipitated by tobacco smoke. Since I've been in clean indoor air environments, I've have no attacks. I believe the background tobacco smoke left my sinuses chronically irritated. I have never found any research on passive smoking and sinus problems.

seamus said...

Tobacco Control Yields Clear Dividends for Health and Wealth
"Over the past half century, one of the most familiar and effective arguments put forth by the tobacco industry to defend its business and minimise its regulation is that it generates net economic benefits to society. Put simply, industry advocates claim that taxation, profits, and employment associated with tobacco far outweigh any costs imposed on societies and in particular on health care systems. For decades, this argument has been trotted out in mantra-like fashion around the world whenever stronger tobacco control measures, such as higher taxation or market restrictions, are mooted. And by and large, governments have bought into the belief that tobacco control is simply unaffordable."

John Mashey said...

As another weird connection between tobacco and climate:
See WHO on deforestration. (Download PDF if it doesn't display in browser).

Tobacco either uses farmland or cuts trees.
Then, cut down more trees to burn for curing.

Anonymous said...

I appreciate the fine and insightful comments of Dr. Jay Cadbury, Ph.D. However, I find myself slightly puzzled. I'm interested in knowing your home field, so I can understand what special insights you bring, as well as what you understand, as I do, from authorities outside your focus. Unfortunately, I can't find a trace - Google Scholar isn't helpful (unless you are the bible scholar from the 1960's), and you are shy about giving your specialization.
This is not a knock against your qualifications, or even an implication that you're an especially talented border collie (http://www.unc.edu/depts/jomc/academics/dri/idog.html), just a recognition that none of us know everything, and much of our information comes from sources that digest it for us. I prefer my information from the National Academy, the Royal Society, etc., you apparently not so much. From where do you derive your insights? As with scholarly citations, this also allows the opportunity to identify where an error might creep in - otherwise, the less charitable will assign all errors to you.

Also, it's worth noting that the Dr. + Ph.D. appellation is unnecessary - one implies the other, and in less formal discourse (as in a blog post), this may be seen as an appeal to irrelevant authority. I see few others using their titles on this list, even our esteemed lagomorphic host (who must be one of the few of his species with such a degree).

Sincerely,
stewart
(or Dr. stewart, Ph.D., if it gives my comment greater weight in your eyes)

Wiley Coyote said...

Dear Mr. Dr. Professor Rabbit,

Thank you once again for your many interesting recent postings, which, if truth be told, I've had considerable difficulty keeping up with, given the various recent--and completely unwarranted IMO--legal issues the pack has had to deal with stemming from our previously described escapade to the drive in. The lack of humor embedded in the legal system is frankly, quite astonishing.

Anyway, I just wanted to write a short note here thanking you for the excellent comments of Mr. Dr. Professor Jay Cadbury, PhD, who reminds us of the considerable nuance and insight of Mr. Dr. Professor Fred Singer, PhD, cancer specialist turned atmospheric scientist turned climate scientist extraordinaire, who reminds in a particularly eloquent way that, for example, roughly 5 in 6 players of "Russian Roulette" with a six shooter and single bullet, ends up quite fine thank you, and the sixth, well the sixth may very well be an outlier for all we know. The potential hazards of self inflicted gunshot wounds are thus far over-rated, and the whole issue--like tobacco--is quite a blight on science.

We therefore wish to thank Mr. Dr. Cadbury for branching out from his chocolate concerns to these more societally pressing issues. We are of the considered opinion that chocolate and tobacco form a suitable dietary regimen in many, if not most, cases.

Sincerely,
Wiley

Anonymous said...

Mr. Dr. Prof. Stewart, Ph.D.,

it is clear that Dr. Jay really is Ray Ladbury in <del>drag</del> his Poe mode. Didn't know he had it in himself, but there you are. With application, everybody can excel.

Le Chat Noir, Ph.D., FCD

Anonymous said...

Mr. Dr. L.C. Noir, Ph.D., FCD, thank you. That would explain much. Unfortunately, counterfeit skepticism is the main variety we see, and it can be hard to tell true counterfeits from the fake variety.

Sincerely,
Mr. Dr. Stewart, Ph.D., but, honesty forces, adjunct assistant professor (the second lowest form of North American academic life, after lecturer)

Anonymous said...

@All Attackers

I'm guessing most of you don't know much about the people you idolize or disparage. I think you basically just defend whatever Eli says. Please continue to promote Naomi Oreskes, a certified quack and fool.

@Holly Stick

Nice joke of a study.

EliRabett said...

"I think you basically just defend whatever Eli says"

Anyone have a problem with that???

Holly Stick said...

Anon, are you calling my country's government a joke? (Well the current one is in fact a very bad joke, but still...)

As for defending Eli, no need. He has a brand new combine harvester.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous the last wrote: I'm guessing most of you don't know much about the people you idolize or disparage. I think you basically just defend whatever Eli says. Please continue to promote Naomi Oreskes, a certified quack and fool."

Your bravery and perspicacity are outstanding — in a field somewhere, probably throwing clods at bystanders.

– Ed Hominum