Bad Science and Bad Law

I wrote about this recently: The scandal of manipulated meteorological temperatures. The Manhattan Contrarian has 4 essays on The Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time, Parts 1, 2, 3, 4. The questions are mounting:

Are government climate agencies tampering with climate data to show warming? Some Republicans think so. California Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher says to expect congressional hearings on climate data tampering.

@caerbannog666 expect there to be congressional hearings into NASA altering weather station data to falsely indicate warming & sea rise – Dana Rohrabacher (@DanaRohrabacher) February 20, 2015

Rohrabacher serves as the vice chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, which has jurisdiction over NASA and other agencies that monitor the Earth’s climate…

Rohrabacher isn’t the only one to call for hearings on the science behind global warming. Oklahoma Republican Sen. Jim Inhofe has also promised to hold hearings on global warming data.

“We’re going to have a committee hearing on the science,” said Inhofe, who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. “People are going to hear the other side of the story.”

For years, those skeptical of man-made global warming have argued that government agencies are altering raw temperature data to create a warming trend. Allegations of tampering have increased as satellite temperature readings show much less warming than land and ocean-based weather stations show.

Still on bad science, H/T Dick Puddlecote:

Many of us doubted that the evidence [behind smoking bans] really mattered. As I wrote in The Oregonian/OregonLive at the time, “Protecting workers is simply the polite fiction by which nonsmokers have imposed their will on an increasingly unpopular minority.”

We suspected this, but how could we prove it? What if there were a device that looked like a cigarette and mimicked the effects of smoking, yet emitted a mostly harmless vapor instead of tobacco smoke? If authorities tried to ban that too, without bothering to establish that it endangered anyone, then our suspicions would be vindicated.

That device exists. It’s called an e-cigarette. And sure enough, the Multnomah Board of County Commissioners is voting on whether to ban its use indoors. The Legislature, too, may expand the state’s smoking ban to cover vaping.

The evidence that e-cigarettes cause significant harm to users, much less to bystanders, is weak to non-existent. The county’s case against them is that they sort of look like smoking. Vaping indoors, says the Board of Health for Multnomah County, “threatens to undermine compliance with smoking regulations and reverse the progress that has been made in establishing a social norm that smoking is not permitted in public places and places of employment.”

So laws are for establishing social norms? Clearly a lot of people think so. But I think it’s an abuse of the law.

Still on e-cigs, this is really sickening (H/T Harley):

Loving couple banned from adopting… because husband had ‘e-cigarette’
Couple barred from adopting after would-be dad was seen using an e-cig
Decision came after they’d passed a series of tests to qualify as parents
They had earlier paid for expensive fertility treatment which had failed
Told they couldn’t adopt if they’d used an e-cigarette in the past 12 months
Experts say that ‘vaping’ poses little or no threat to children in the home

What’s to stop people being barred from adopting for having drunk alcohol in the past year, or eaten chocolate? Nothing. If this is a legal requirement, it’s another abuse of law.

The way it used to be:

A takeaway was a mathematical problem.* A pizza was something to do with a leaning tower.* Bananas and oranges only appeared at Christmas time.* The only vegetables known to us were spuds, peas, carrots and cabbage, anything else was regarded as being a bit suspicious.
* All crisps were plain; the only choice we had was whether to put the salt on or not.
* Condiments consisted of salt, pepper, vinegar and brown sauce if we were lucky.* Soft drinks were called lemonade.* Coke was something that we mixed with coal to make it last longer.* Rice was a milk pudding, and never, ever part of our main course at dinner.* A big mac was what we wore when it was raining… <more>

Via Facebook, still on food, a new way of getting honey from a beehive:

 

Advertisements

About Frank Davis

smoker
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Bad Science and Bad Law

  1. Manufacturing the science to meet the agenda, in black on white. Does anyone still have doubts?

    ”Bal laughs when asked about the role of scientific evidence in guiding policy decisions. “There was no science on how to do a community intervention on something of this global dimension,” he says. “Where there is no science, you have to go and be venturesome—you can’t use the paucity of science as an excuse to do nothing. We created the science, we did the interventions and then all the scientists came in behind us and analyzed what we did.”

    Read under the title :
    Tobacco Control: The Long War—When the Evidence Has to Be Created

    milbankDOTorg/uploads/documents/0712populationhealth/0712populationhealthDOThtml

  2. jltrader says:

    Re bad science
    A NEW FOUR-VOLUME A History of Cancer Control in the U.S., 1946-1971,” prepared under Natl. Cancer Institute contract by UCLA, sheds new light on the objectivity of the 1964 Surgeon General’s report. It quotes Dr. Lester Breslow, former Calif. chief of preventive medicine:
    “By the early 60’s we felt that the time had come to act against cigarettes”. So we looked upon the
    Surgeon General’s report…not so much as a scientific venture, but as a public policy venture.” Breslow was a consultant to the advisory committee that wrote the ’64 report. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/yfj73b00/pdf

  3. Rose says:

    Well, well,well.

    In their defence of e-cigarettes all manner of little truths that were denied to smokers over the Smoking Ban are coming out and from the most unlikely of people.

    Look who it is – Linda Bauld.

    “Nicotine is a substance naturally found in particular plants, not just tobacco leaves but aubergines, tomatoes, potatoes and some flowers.”

    http://www.theguardian.com/science/sifting-the-evidence/2015/feb/23/theres-no-evidence-e-cigarettes-are-as-harmful-as-smoking

    So what was I supposed to be exposing non-smokers to that they didn’t consume themselves?
    Nicotine, wasn’t it?

    • beobrigitte says:

      Bauld backpeddles, she states that it is NOT the nicotine that “kills”.

      Perhaps it is the vapers that force out the truth. However, they (that includes the part-time vapers like me) might be in for a nasty financial surprise:

      E-cigarettes are currently unlicensed, but both the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence and the Medicines Healthcare Regulatory Association acknowledge that their use is safer than continued smoking. This is not simply an opinion, it is an evidence-based statement, and one that is supported by tobacco control organisations in the UK. To imply otherwise is incorrect. This does not mean e-cigarettes are risk free, but few things are.

      In short, the fake saint of Bauld and friends are going for licensing – and TAXING e-liquid more by destroying the countless vape shops that have appeared on Britain’s streets.
      The anti-smoking zealots are forcing e-cigs (cig-alikes) to be available only in PHARMACIES where the lecture about the ‘danger’ is for free.
      Reminds me of what they have done in Austria.

      The vapers applauding Bauld have not understood that they are in for a rough ride.

  4. margo says:

    Love ‘The Way it Used to be’ list – that was my childhood. No supermarkets (but loads of shops-down-the-road), no carrier bags (just the string shopping bag), no ‘recycling’ boxes (the small amount of rubbish we had went easily into a single little dustbin), no ‘global warming’, and nobody we knew had a car or a telly or a shower. None of those things has really made life better, IMHO.

  5. garyk30 says:

    Small scale can be scary, the large scale is not so dramatic

    Global Temps

    100
    degrees F
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    58
    degrees F……………………………………………………………………
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    0
    degrees F

    1880……………………………………………………………………….2012

    • garyk30 says:

      Changes of hundredths of a degree are not noticable and last years was claimed to be the hottest by 4/100th of 1 degree.

  6. Smoking for 75 minutes in a car could leave you unconscious

    Research from University of Leicester Physics students has found that smoking in a car for 75 minutes could leave you unconscious.

    They estimated the consequences of smoking tobacco cigarettes in a car and how much opening a window would reduce the risk of carbon monoxide (CO) poisoning

    They calculated that you would need to smoke 15 cigarettes in 75 minutes for the level of carbon monoxide to reach levels of 1000 parts per minute – enough to make you fall unconscious.

    If it takes five minutes to smoke one cigarette, then it would take at least 75 minutes to fill the car with this amount of harmful carbon monoxide, causing loss of consciousness.

    It was announced earlier this month that drivers in England will be banned from smoking in their cars from October if they are carrying children as passengers.
    http://www.itv.com/news/central/2015-02-23/smoking-for-75-minutes-in-a-car-could-leave-you-unconcious/

    • garyk30 says:

      “you would need to smoke 15 cigarettes in 75 minutes”

      Very unlikely; plus, the article never mentions the effects of leaving a window open.

      Mis-leading headline, just like this one.

      “Dutch honeymooner survives fall off 4,000-foot cliff in Sri Lanka”

      You might think he fell 4,000 feet.

      Actually, this is what happened.
      “Fortunately a tree broke Lendas’ fall about 130 feet down the cliff.”

  7. 3rd World Conference on Smoking and Health, June 2-5, 1975 (New York, USA)
    “The Worldwide Campaign Against Smoking”

    Sir George E. Godber
    Chairman, Expert Committee on Smoking and Health
    World Health Organization

    (Excerpts from Godber’s opening address)

    “In 1969, the World Health Organization Regional Committee for Europe and the Americas had passed resolutions calling attention to the dangers of smoking and deciding that smoking would not be allowed during their meetings.”

    “None of us can be really satisfied with what we find anywhere. Yet there has been progress sufficient to make one feel that THIS world conference will have an even clearer message for the world and will be able to endorse and amplify the views expressed at the World Health Assembly in Geneva last month.”

    “I imagine that most of us here know full well that our target must be, in the long-term, the elimination of cigarette smoking…… We may not have eliminated cigarette smoking completely by the end of this century, but we ought to have reached a position where a relatively few addicts still use cigarettes, but only in private at most in the company of consenting adults.”

    “First, I think we must ask ourselves whether our society is one in which the major influences exercised on public opinion are such as would convey the impression that smoking is a dirty, anti-social practice, spoiling the enjoyment of youth and accelerating the onset of the deterioration of age.”

    “Need there really be any difficulty about prohibiting smoking in more public places? The nicotine addicts would be petulant for a while, but why should we accord them any right to make the innocent suffer?”

    “…..described the way in which education against smoking was to be incorporated into the general programme of health education which is so well presented in the USSR.”

    “Every smoker is a promoter of other smokers. The practice ought to be an enclosed one, not to be endured by the non-smoker in ordinary social intercourse; and no one should be allowed to use advertisement or any indirect means to suggest otherwise.”

    “If we start with the view that we can begin to get rid of cigarette smoking from many communal occasions and that we can and should make it more and more difficult for the individual to smoke cigarettes in public, and if we can eliminate the false message of the advertisers, I believe we could have a rapidly cumulative effect…..There are plenty of weapons of persuasion, of restriction, of financial penalty by price and tax increases with which we could seriously hope to reduce the consumption of cigarettes by a substantial portion within 5 years.”

    “A longer-term target would make cigarette smoking an undesirable and private activity within ten years after that.”

    http://www.rampant-antismoking.com/

  8. John_R says:

    The Australian Government is apparently doing a post implementation review of “plain” packs. Survey here: http://sigginsmiller.com/plainpackaging/

  9. beobrigitte says:

    The evidence that e-cigarettes cause significant harm to users, much less to bystanders, is weak to non-existent. The county’s case against them is that they sort of look like smoking. Vaping indoors, says the Board of Health for Multnomah County, “threatens to undermine compliance with smoking regulations and reverse the progress that has been made in establishing a social norm that smoking is not permitted in public places and places of employment.”

    An artificially created “social norm” is a social FAILURE and therefore it won’t last. And it is criminal ABUSE.
    Apart from that, at least they finally admit that they hate vapers as much as smokers, no science needed.
    I begin to understand HOW the anti-smoking zealots made their way into politics after watching the news today. Jack Straw did ask for £5000/day – I guess that was acceptable for the likes of Bloombergs and Gates’.
    Who needs science when you can buy a few politicians?

    Still on e-cigs, this is really sickening (H/T Harley):

    Loving couple banned from adopting… because husband had ‘e-cigarette’
    Couple barred from adopting after would-be dad was seen using an e-cig
    Decision came after they’d passed a series of tests to qualify as parents
    They had earlier paid for expensive fertility treatment which had failed
    Told they couldn’t adopt if they’d used an e-cigarette in the past 12 months
    Experts say that ‘vaping’ poses little or no threat to children in the home

    What a mentally disturbed society we have become……. This is sickening.

    This is a prime example of the progress that has been made in establishing a social norm.
    I thought it was all about the happy chiiiiildren? How many cases of child sexual abuse in care homes have made it into the news? What about the ones that didn’t and don’t?
    I guess the progress that has been made in establishing a social norm is inviting to abuse the chiiiildren for the anti-smoking and of lately the anti-vaping zealots cause. Everything is permitted but smokers and vapers are too ‘dangerous’ to the chiiiildren, OUR future’!!!

    This the progress that has been made in establishing a social norm is creating a heartless society only the anti-smoking/anti-vaping zealots want to live in. What is really grim for smokers/vapers HAVING to live is in LIVING. It’s just NO LIFE – and we all are still here…….
    (Apropos still being here, Cameron is now canvassing the pensioners……)

    • beobrigitte says:

      About the bees….
      Via Facebook, still on food, a new way of getting honey from a beehive:

      Surely this is a joke! First of all, the bees require some of the honey for themselves and their brood – especially in winter. Secondly, you leave a jar out to collect the honey the bees will be straight back there. And the hornets will have found an open invitation to kill off that bee hive…..

      My uncle is a bee keeper whom I, as a child, have accompanied many times when he collected SOME of the honey. He did explain quite a bit about bee keeping.

    • Funniest part about it is the Nazis don’t even care if theres public outcry against such a move………….

  10. The dangers of secondhand smoke
    http://www.lutontoday.co.uk/news/health/health-news/the-dangers-of-secondhand-smoke-1-6595348#comments-area

    These folks don’t like facts that make them look like fools

    7 comments

    Sort by:

    Oldest to Newest Newest to Oldest Highest Score Most Active

    Name withheld

    8:07 PM on 23/02/2015

    This comment has been removed for violations of our Terms and Conditio
    Rate:

    peakoilsgoneitsalltoolate

    7:33 PM on 23/02/2015

    So how much are you being paid to spread this garbage on the internet?
    Are you paid by the number of words or by the post?

    1 reply

    Rate:

    Name withheld

    6:57 PM on 23/02/2015

    This comment was left by a user who has been blocked by our staff.

    Rate:

    Name withheld

    6:31 PM on 23/02/2015

    This comment was left by a user who has been blocked by our staff.

    Rate:

    peakoilsgoneitsalltoolate

    4:59 PM on 23/02/2015

    No need to ask who works for a Tobacco company?
    “There is no danger from second-hand smoke, period.”

    Tell that to Roy Castle’s widow and their four children…

    4 replies
    Rate:

    Name withheld

    4:11 PM on 23/02/2015

    This comment was left by a user who has been blocked by our staff.
    Rate:

    Name withheld

    3:38 PM on 23/02/2015

    This comment was left by a user who has been blocked by our staff.

  11. When the UK government suddenly announced
    that it would be pushing ahead with plain packaging last month, some people
    wondered why it had not waited for the results of the public consultation to be
    published.

    The consultation has now been
    published…

    99% say no to plain packs

    Westminster is facing increasing pressure to
    backtrack on proposals to introduce plain tobacco packaging after an
    overwhelming 99% of respondents to a public consultation were opposed to the
    legislation.

    The results of the plain pack consultation,
    released last Wednesday, showed the government had received 137,000 responses on
    the issue.

    This included 136,000 campaign responses from
    retailers, lobby groups and unions calling for MPs not to press ahead with
    standardised packs.
    That’s that mystery solved, then.

    http://velvetgloveironfist.blo

  12. Shit whats wrong today I only got banned from 2 small town newspapers……………..

  13. Pingback: A Terrible Atrocity | Frank Davis

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s