tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1847816429050818607.post6451374943193957990..comments2024-02-06T09:51:14.027+01:00Comments on Jules' klimaatblog: Libertarism, climate change and the tobacco lobbyjuleshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08149218335071592373noreply@blogger.comBlogger24125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1847816429050818607.post-60365949673304031452010-03-23T18:37:56.503+01:002010-03-23T18:37:56.503+01:00indeed the link seemed to be broken. Fixed it. Tha...indeed the link seemed to be broken. Fixed it. Thanks for noticing.juleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08149218335071592373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1847816429050818607.post-68088372399858309982010-03-14T22:06:15.246+01:002010-03-14T22:06:15.246+01:00Jules,
I think this is very interesting and relev...Jules,<br /><br />I think this is very interesting and relevant post - no only for the climate-debate but also on a wider context.<br /><br />One small editorial remark though: I think you mean link "The American denial of Global Warming" to this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_RmlioMichelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06440401810511062352noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1847816429050818607.post-41163092876191863252009-01-24T01:38:00.000+01:002009-01-24T01:38:00.000+01:00just askingi'm not sure what you mean with your fi...just asking<BR/><BR/>i'm not sure what you mean with your first question.<BR/><BR/>CO2 is not a thermostat in the sense it's only one of the many factors wih an influence on earth's temperature<BR/><BR/>considering the bias i meant it ain't likely thousands of scientists have exactly the same bias (which on it's turn is confirmed by the results of scientists in other disciplines)...<BR/>A possibility does not equal a reality.juleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08149218335071592373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1847816429050818607.post-75834465494734040022009-01-24T01:27:00.000+01:002009-01-24T01:27:00.000+01:00anonymus, nobody's claiming science is settled, so...anonymus, nobody's claiming science is settled, so that's a ... strawman :-)<BR/><BR/>Read what i wrote what the meaning of the scientific consensus on the subject is, in my post <A HREF="http://jules-klimaat.blogspot.com/2009/01/loose-thoughts-on-some-frequent.html" REL="nofollow">loose thoughts on some frequent fallacies</A>juleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08149218335071592373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1847816429050818607.post-62686185763769276442009-01-24T01:22:00.000+01:002009-01-24T01:22:00.000+01:00Dave A.i have the feeling you've quote-mined littl...Dave A.<BR/><BR/>i have the feeling you've quote-mined little bit Richard Smith's opinion as it is a little bit more nuanced than what you try to show by the quote you gave : Smith also <A HREF="http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=188406" REL="nofollow">writes</A> :<BR/>Of course the study we published has flaws—all papers do—but it also has considerable strengths<BR/><BR/>it's pity you did cut that phrasing away. Now i have the feeling you want to create the impression there's NO flaws to be found in the work.juleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08149218335071592373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1847816429050818607.post-65944638457186709892009-01-23T02:23:00.000+01:002009-01-23T02:23:00.000+01:00Rozetta my comments are all about free speech. Yes...Rozetta my comments are all about free speech. Yes the other stuff you mention deserves that too!!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1847816429050818607.post-50107954385919635152009-01-23T00:00:00.000+01:002009-01-23T00:00:00.000+01:00Anonymous,I was wondering which statement you actu...Anonymous,<BR/><BR/>I was wondering which statement you actually are trying to make? ...<BR/>Looks like you are denying the negative consequences of smoking, but I'm sure that is not what you intend to say (and what you think), is it?Rosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01058969716104723507noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1847816429050818607.post-26347482234772723522009-01-22T16:39:00.000+01:002009-01-22T16:39:00.000+01:00If you want to know do a quick google search.If you want to know do a quick google search.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1847816429050818607.post-20251503504703442542009-01-22T15:33:00.000+01:002009-01-22T15:33:00.000+01:00Well looks like Tobacco Control dont believe in De...Well looks like Tobacco Control dont believe in Democracy- I hope you realise now what sort of people they really are!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1847816429050818607.post-19326055653735038622009-01-22T00:18:00.000+01:002009-01-22T00:18:00.000+01:00Jules wrote:"Natural variability doesn't exclude a...Jules wrote:<BR/>"Natural variability doesn't exclude an anthotrogenic influence"<BR/><BR/>True. Is this local or global?<BR/><BR/>Is this AGW or changes in land use, uhi, or perhaps deforestation?<BR/><BR/>Is CO2 a thermostat? <BR/><BR/>Jules wrote:<BR/>"the question btw isn't if there's bias, but if it's likely everyone is biased in the same direction..."<BR/><BR/>Mann's HS was said to be independantly verified. Was this 'bias' in the same direction?<BR/>(note Jones et al 2009)<BR/><BR/>So it is possible isn't it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1847816429050818607.post-50846695045940133602009-01-21T21:51:00.000+01:002009-01-21T21:51:00.000+01:00I have no problems at all with this policy Mr Klim...I have no problems at all with this policy Mr Klimaat rather like I have no problems at all with a bar or restaurant being made nonsmoking by the owner's free choice. The staff if they are that bothered by SHS can seek work elsewhere.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1847816429050818607.post-19630374190857464782009-01-21T20:24:00.000+01:002009-01-21T20:24:00.000+01:00i'm the owner of this blog; the "landlord" if you ...i'm the owner of this blog; the "landlord" if you will. <BR/><BR/>I'm the one to decide whether to allow scum in my house or not. <BR/><BR/>I prefer to keep it clean : comments containing nothing but insults will be moderated. <BR/><BR/>If you don't like this policy, feel free to choose another place to post.juleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08149218335071592373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1847816429050818607.post-48157035535857303762009-01-21T20:03:00.000+01:002009-01-21T20:03:00.000+01:00WOW Jules you really like free speech dont you??WOW Jules you really like free speech dont you??Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1847816429050818607.post-709290942830670922009-01-21T19:23:00.000+01:002009-01-21T19:23:00.000+01:00*Comment by anonymus deleted*The admin.<B>*Comment by anonymus deleted*<BR/>The admin.</B>juleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08149218335071592373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1847816429050818607.post-58409831810721565872009-01-21T18:40:00.000+01:002009-01-21T18:40:00.000+01:00"nope, and uncomfortably close to a strawman's arg..."nope, and uncomfortably close to a strawman's argument"<BR/><BR/>You should be able to identify strawmen - this whole topic is one big strawman.<BR/><BR/>"which scientists are getting rich ?"<BR/><BR/>You imagine scientists are spearheading these campaigns? How odd.<BR/><BR/>"the question btw isn't if there's bias, but if it's likely everyone is biased in the same direction..."<BR/><BR/>Fair enough. Let me ask you a question; in each debate which side has publically claimed "the science is settled"?<BR/><BR/>An interesting claim given that science is NEVER settled and even more interesting given the nature of the evidence.<BR/>With climate change its down to computer modelling - a powerful tool but not one can prove anything (no matter how far you stretch the definition of proof).<BR/>With SHS it's epidemiological studies, a form of statisical analysis that has long been known to be weak, wide open to interpetation (especially when it comes to confounders) and can only show correlation, NOT causation. In other words, a tool that can never ever be used to prove anything.<BR/>And yet the science is supposedly settled - to someone who is scientifically trained this looks like a lie on a fundamental level, and if they're lying about the fundamentals how can you possibly trust another word out their mouths?<BR/>And there, in a nutshell is why I think they're lying. I don't need to be an expert in climate change or toxicology I just need to recognise a very obvious lie.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1847816429050818607.post-47552385935582982892009-01-21T18:39:00.000+01:002009-01-21T18:39:00.000+01:00Jules, we have opened Pandora's Box. Firstly the E...Jules, we have opened Pandora's Box. Firstly the Enstrom/Kabat report was peer reviewed by two equally eminent, independent Epidemiologists who viewed the methodolgy, data and conclusions and gave them a clean bill of health. 95% of the reseach costs were born by the rabidly anti smoking American Cancer Society, and when Enstrom/Kabat were coming up with the "wrong results" cynically withdrew funding. 5% was paid for by tobacco companies. I will leave you in the capable hands of Richard Smith the Editor of the British Medical Journal on the Rapid Responses. You will note for authenticity I have put in an URL from ASH.<BR/><BR/>"Fourthly, I found it disturbing that so many people and organisations referred to the flaws in the study without specifying what they were. Indeed, this debate was much more remarkable for its passion than its precision."<BR/><BR/>http://www.ash.org.uk/ash_j9ml4esx_archive.htm?search=enstromDaveAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07249090980650806030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1847816429050818607.post-65245235914559166072009-01-21T14:57:00.000+01:002009-01-21T14:57:00.000+01:00Of course all studies funded in part by tobacco co...<I>Of course all studies funded in part by tobacco companies are all nonesense whilst studies funded by pharmaceutical companies are beyond reproach. Right?</I><BR/><BR/>nope, and uncomfortably close to a strawman's argument<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>But here's the link between between climate change and SHS harm doubters. The main proponents of SHS harm are getting rich selling NRT products, whilst the proponents of climate change are getting rich trading carbon credits.</I><BR/><BR/>which scientists are getting rich ?<BR/>i provided you copies of payments. I'm sure you're not chasing a vague complot theory but have proof for what you've said ?<BR/><BR/><I>Given the money involved can you tell me why you WOULDN'T assume bias?</I><BR/><BR/>again circling around a strawman.<BR/><BR/>the question btw isn't if there's bias, but if it's likely everyone is biased in the same direction...juleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08149218335071592373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1847816429050818607.post-47995807945389913192009-01-21T10:18:00.000+01:002009-01-21T10:18:00.000+01:00The "right" result would be a tiny correlation bet...The "right" result would be a tiny correlation between ETS and illness.<BR/>80% of studies get the "wrong" result btw.<BR/><BR/>Of course all studies funded in part by tobacco companies are all nonesense whilst studies funded by pharmaceutical companies are beyond reproach. Right?<BR/><BR/>But here's the link between between climate change and SHS harm doubters.<BR/>The main proponents of SHS harm are getting rich selling NRT products, whilst the proponents of climate change are getting rich trading carbon credits.<BR/>Given the money involved can you tell me why you WOULDN'T assume bias?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1847816429050818607.post-55436242205962524422009-01-21T01:16:00.000+01:002009-01-21T01:16:00.000+01:00define "right" result ?define "right" result ?juleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08149218335071592373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1847816429050818607.post-44495130595034023142009-01-20T19:46:00.000+01:002009-01-20T19:46:00.000+01:00Jules- and how much did those which came out with ...Jules- and how much did those which came out with the "right" results get from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation(an arm of Johnson and Johnson Pharmaceuticals??Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1847816429050818607.post-6522017006143159642009-01-20T11:55:00.000+01:002009-01-20T11:55:00.000+01:00DaveANatural variability doesn't exclude an anthot...DaveA<BR/><BR/>Natural variability doesn't exclude an anthotrogenic influence, so what you say is both true and irelevant.<BR/><BR/><BR/>On the Enstrom/Kabat study, apparantly fundamentally <A HREF="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=James_E._Enstrom" REL="nofollow">flawed </A><BR/><BR/>Enstrom was offered a nice <A HREF="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/action/document/page?tid=gjl67e00" REL="nofollow">grant by Philip Morris</A> for his research.<BR/>The check for the first part can be seen <A HREF="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/action/document/page?tid=hjl67e00" REL="nofollow">here</A>. Other payments <A HREF="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/action/document/page?tid=oix89c00" REL="nofollow">here</A> and <A HREF="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/action/document/page?tid=dlx89c00" REL="nofollow">here</A> and <A HREF="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/action/document/page?tid=xhx89c00" REL="nofollow">here</A>. (there's more, but i guess the pattern is clear ?).<BR/><BR/>i'd say there seems to be a certain lack in reliability in your source...<BR/><BR/>J.juleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08149218335071592373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1847816429050818607.post-40695933086495467032009-01-19T19:31:00.000+01:002009-01-19T19:31:00.000+01:00As a climate sceptic and arch SHS sceptic it seems...As a climate sceptic and arch SHS sceptic it seems I exhibit all your worst prejudices. In the UK 6 miles north of the centre of London at Finchley tube (subway) station they found the extent of the ice age 20,000 years ago. The 6miles south in the centre of London under Trafalgar Square they have dug up the bones of African animals more used to roaming the savannah, Lions, hippos and hyenas. That was from 250,000 years ago, so naturally the earth warms and cools.<BR/><BR/>For SHS/ETS Google Enstrom/Kabat and they conclude evidence of early motality from ETS/SHS is "sparse."<BR/><BR/>And yes I do not like crypto Marxists interferring with my life, I am quite capable of making my own decisions without the intervention of big brother.DaveAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07249090980650806030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1847816429050818607.post-65764206883891749172009-01-19T18:31:00.000+01:002009-01-19T18:31:00.000+01:00And perhaps the Common spinning of them to suit po...And perhaps the Common spinning of them to suit political agenda.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1847816429050818607.post-64505820693692243482009-01-19T18:26:00.000+01:002009-01-19T18:26:00.000+01:00"Strange, because the two topics are totally unrel..."Strange, because the two topics are totally unrelated, and strange because it is unlikely that a single person is an expert in both a medical topic and one dealing with earth sciences."<BR/><BR/>Totally unrelated? Is a common theme the use of statistics?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com