Walter Williams, a nationally syndicated columnist, has written a piece, entitled “Phony Science and Public Policy”, which supports the arguments I have been making this legislative session on both the global warming and smoking ban issue. Here is a link to the article.
Minnesota State Senator Tom Neuville
Serving District 25 Counties of Rice, Le Sueur, Sibley and Scott
-
State Senator Tom Neuville
-
Subscribe to Feeds
Weblog RSS Feed
Bloglines -
Ray Cox
And for those more interested in a serious discussion of the topic, may I suggest the National Institute of Health website:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/secondhandsmoke.html
WARNING: Cites most recent, peer reviewed scientific research, comprehension of which requires some mental effort. Maybe unsuitable for viewers who get their “facts” from talk radio and right wing blogs.
uh Bob… You link to an anti-smoking website in response to the global warming topic.
uh Bob… You linked to an anti-smoking website in response to the global warming topic.
Roger,
Yes, the NIH link does address second hand smoke.
What does this have to do with Global Warming?
Beats me. You’d have to ask Senator Neuville. He seems to think that the Walter Williams column on second hand smoke “supports the arguments been making this legislation on both global warming and second hand smoke”
Senator, care to straighten us out?
After review, I would say that the link has more to do with the flawed methodology seen in politicized debates on scientific issues than it does with the specifics of either smoking or global warming. In science there is a saying that “extraordinary results require extraordinary proof”, which means that one reason you will not see a balanced coverage of politicized issues is that a scientist coming out in support of the popular opinion might be comfortable with an alpha of 0.05 while a scientist coming out against a popular opinion might require alpha of 0.01. This means that you will see lots more scientific article for the popular position than you will against. Does not mean that the “fors” are right or that the “againsts” are right, just that scientists tend to be conservative (unless they are making money off being brash and rash, in which case they are not really scientists anymore). Interestingly, I am confronted with precisely this problem in an analysis at work, where my results are going against the “conventional wisdom” and one of my fellow researchers is a bit shy about going forward.
Even some of the most conservative members of the Bush cabinet are starting to realize that global warming is real, and that humans have had a significant part in causing it.
http://thoughtsonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2007/09/bush-science-advisor-global-warming.html
And Senator Neuville certainly needs to get educated when it comes to the issue of second hand smoke. Even the largest tobacco company doesn’t agree with his views. They too now agree with the Surgeon General and Centres for Disease Control.
http://www.philipmorrisusa.com/en/health_issues/secondhand_smoke.asp