Why is it that so many skeptical global warming scientists also don't think that smoking causes lung cancer?

Question

Three that come to mind are Seitz, Lindzen, and Singer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Seitz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen#Views_on_health_risks_of_passive_smoking
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer#Publication_on_health_effects_of_tobacco

Seitz and Singer also don't think that increased UV radiation due to the hole in the ozone layer can be linked to increased skin cancer.

Why do you think these 'skeptics' share these beliefs?

For those commenting on the hole in the ozone layer, see my question here:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071126100343AAQyDLD&pa=FYd1D2bwHTHwLbxnFOo5Q2b_3MXLsbvuJtll_8eoH6Oe_wUCVgzt2UuUe.N4d.7GHiUl3wWZcjeGhw--&paid=asked&msgr_status=

Answer 1

Just for reference, Michael Chricton also believes there isn't a causal link between environmental tobacco smoke (aka second hand smoke) and lung cancer. His views are the same as the one respondent above who puffily claims "there has never been one demonstrated case of lung cancer caused directly by second hand smoke." That statement, while true, turns a blind eye to the mountains of statistical data indicating a wide range of adverse health effects associated with exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. Anyone who claims there is not evidence for a direct causal link between smoking and lung cancer doesn't understand data inference or the difference between a situation where a correlation between variables in the absence of a physical mechanism does not indicate a causal link (e.g., the correlation between piracy and global warming) and where correlation in the presence of a known physical mechanism is solid evidence of a causal link (e.g., the increase in atmospheric CO2, with its known effect on radiative transfer, and the rise in global mean temperature).

It is this failure to distinguish that a correlation in the presence of an underlying physical mechanism suggests a causal relation that is the hallmark of climate skepticism, and is the common feature between Seitz, Singer, Lindzen, and Chricton. Nearly all skeptics refuse to believe some key part of the theory that man is affecting climate, and at some point or another nearly all will claim "correlation does not imply causation."

Finally, in a cynical analysis, if you could find the balance sheet for these guys, you would likely find they make a lot of money for these "maverick" positions through speaking fees.

Answer 2

It is a completely irrelevant comparison.

You're missing some things.
It's not skepticism of increased UV causing skin cancer, it's skepticism of increased UV through a hole in ozone. (which isn't getting bigger)

It's not skepticism of smoking causing cancer, it's skepticism of second-hand smoke causing lung cancer (which it does not, you cannot find a single case in the medical literature directly attributed) Furthermore, while it is well known that smoking is a significant health risk, a smoker may contract cancer without the smoke being the cause, the same as non-smokers do, so the numbers are skewed.

In science it is not a matter of beliefs. A scientist that tells you they "believe" the global waring hysteria is not following actual science. Science is about facts, or lack thereof, what is SO, not belief. People often ask me why I don't believe in psychics, god, or global warming. What I believe doesn't matter, only reality matters.

A NOAA research report released in August of 2006 indicates that the ozone hole size over Antarctica is not increasing. Yet NASA reported from September 21st to 30th of that year the hole was the largest it's ever been. I wonder which it is.

Perhaps one should look at the things so-called skeptics are skeptical of and ask questions. We hear all the time various stats and gloomy stories about how bad things are, and then often years later find out they were wrong. Remember the global cooling scare? Swine flu? the Sugar shortage? Weapons of Mass Distraction? etc.

Answer 3

Ugh, that's a rather strange comparison you're making there Dana. I don't know much about cancer and smoking apart from there being a general scientific consensus that they are intrinsically linked i.e. almost all scientists and doctors advise you not to smoke if you want to avoid contracting cancer and stay healthy in general.
Perhaps you're referring to the cigarette ads of the 50s and 60s advocating the health benefits of smoking. Some companies actually paid doctors to endorse a particular brand. The issue of smoking and cancer was still out there to be debated and as the battle raged on the tricks got dirtier and dirtier. Anyway I'm guessing that lots of scientists are in the pockets of various interest groups. Pay a guy with a PhD to manipulate statistics and you can basically prove anything.
The same is true for global warming deniers although I concede that the opposite could be true for global warming 'alarmists' as fair and balanced Fox news likes to label us.

Answer 4

The verdict is still out as to the cause of global warming. The evidence which supports the various camps of global warming, IE. natural occurring cycle, CO2 emissions, solar activity, are not yet sufficient to provide us conclusive proof. It is foolish to deal with the problem thru the very expensive reduction of carbon emissions that in the end will only provide a very marginal difference in temperature. The cost being a reduction in growth rates through out the world hurting the world's poor the most. World governments are wiser to pursue a course of more research and technology development rather than putting limits on carbon emissions now,

Answer 5

So your references are all the wikipedia, a source that allows every passionate environmentalist in the world to edit in real time. Nice use of references. It gives the appearance of research without the bother.

Relevant topic: misquoting
"There is insufficient scientific evidence to prove it" is usually misquoted as "it is false" by one's detractors. That's what you did here.

Still, your question has a more scientific "appearance" than most global warmers can manage.

As for the 'argument' you presented:

The study being criticized finds a statistically insignificant increase in cancer in the families of smokers but DOES NOT SAY IF THE VICTIMS THEMSELVES SMOKED! Is this the quality of study that you accept? An ‘undeservedly gracious’ (you won’t get many of those from me) description of your question is that it is ‘deceptive.’

Seitz clearly refers to second hand smoke in the referenced article.

A quote from your own reference, which also clearly refers to second hand smoke:
"Lindzen is not being directly quoted in the article, and the pro-tobacco views in that case are those of the article's authors, not necessarily Lindzen"

The wikipedia article on Singer also refers to second-hand smoke. (It is difficult to get past the anti-Singer rhetoric of the article to gain any meaningful information about Singer)

The positions taken by the global warming scientists that you target is very different than your question would have us believe. Given that a quick reading of your own references devastates your insinuations, I didn't bother to google (Seitz OR Singer) AND ultraviolet.

Finally, what does the criticism of tobacco studies published by those with a clear anti-tobacco agenda have to do with global warming? Answer: the propaganda technique of discrediting your opponent. These three men may be the world's foremost authorities on global warming, but discredit them on ANYTHING and you will say, "therefore they are wrong about global warming!" That is what you are trying to do, isn’t it?

So, as a skeptic I must wade through every detail of each alarmist claim to find where it is merely a deception and where it is worse, then the alarmist just says he won’t listen because all skeptics are fools.

Gee, ever wonder why skeptics don't take global warmers seriously???

Answer 6

A few things to say about this.. Everything you state has never been proven as a fact!!! I seen the facts about cancer and cigarettes and like some people have stated that: some get cancer do smoke, and some that don't smoke get cancer as well. How about the increase in skin cancer is due to population increase and where does it increase the most.. COASTAL AREAS!!!! Not saying that skin cancer hasn't increased due to more UV rays making its way to earth your just missing other important information. Find me official proof that smoking causes cancer!!! There maybe correlations in the data but no exact proof. Just like official proof that man is causing all this warming!!! Use data all you want but you still don't know for certain!!! That's all the skeptics are trying to say, is to be cautious before jumping the gun, b/c usually when we jump the gun it is never good!!!

Answer 7

Not sure what your point is. Unless you point is that skeptics seem to ask difficult questions for the herd mentality crowd to answer..

The fact is there are many more non smokers with lung cancer than smokers, so obviously something other than smoking also causes lung cancer. Most of the men in my family have always smoked. Not one case of lung cancer. Is it just genetic? If not, then what is it all these non smoking people are doing to give themselves lung cancer? Maybe we need to spend more time / money on the primary cause instead of blaming lung cancer on smoking alone.

What if it turns out that lung cancer is primarily caused by CO2 emissions? Do we then stone everyone with a large car and big house?

Answer 8

I am quite sure that there is a link between smoking and many lung cancers. However, are you aware that around 85% of smokers never get lung cancer no matter how much they smoke? Lung cancer from smoking is a genetic disease. Global warming is a natural cyclic event.

Answer 9

One could ask why "global warming" believers believe that life exist on other planets. There is absolutely no proof to support this claim, but they do. Some even think they have seen men from other planets.

A person only has the belief, the faith that life must exist elsewhere, as there is no evidence that backs up this claim.

You might believe that if one person says something, then everyone must also accept that claim as being true. You've demonstrated this is how you form your conclusions. Most people however think for themselves. Yea, I know this is a strange and foreign concept for you.....

Answer 10

How many cigarettes must one smoke before they get lung cancer?
My mother has smoked more than a pack a day for over 50 years and she is as healthy as you and I. My mother-in-law never smoked a cigarette in her life and she died from lung cancer.
Now tell me how you know that cigarettes cause cancer.