SkepticLance

As far as I am concerned, the issue of harm from second hand smoke is relatively unimportant, since the studies would indicate the level of harm is slight. There are, however, two other issues. 1. Simple courtesy and consideration. Smokers frequently fail to understand just how unpleasant their residue is to non smokers. That is because they live with the stench 24 hours a day. It is in their lungs, airways, and in their clothes all the time, and they simply cannot detect it any more. However, for myself, and other non smokers, it is exceedingly unpleasant. For this reason, I see smokers as having a duty to courtesy and human consideration not to smoke where it can affect non smokers. 2. Tacit encouragement of others to take up smoking. It distresses me to see the smokers on this forum justifying their habit. This is the science forum. It is supposed to be run by people who can think in a rational manner, and who avoid self deception. Smokers may be addicted and unable to give up their habit, but they should be able to recognise clearly that what they are doing is self-destructive, and something to discourage in others. Yet there are dozens of people who read these postings, even without responding. This will include young people who are candidates for future addiction. The smokers on this forum should be sending them a firm, clear message that smoking is NOT OK.

To Phil. One of the problems of the issue of second hand smoke is that literally dozens of studies have been carried out, with variable results. Most show little harm to health. A few show more harm. If you want to publish results of a study to show your own particular bias, you can select the data to suit. Overall, as far as I can judge, overall the data indicates some harm to the health of people breathing second hand smoke, but the harm is minimal comparted to the harm to the smokers themselves.

Sayonara said : at the time we had a habit of taking disease-ridden rats with us everywhere we went, which had a hand in many extinctions. But for all intents and purposes, yes, this example is "human interference". Kind of stretches credulity to suggest that a bird that reached 3 metres tall could be driven to extinction by small rats. We have not encountered diseases carried by these polynesian (hence small) rats that might affect birds. We already know the early humans hunted this bird. We need not look for alternative explanations. is still a useless question until we decide what range of reasons qualify as "loss of habitat". I suggested we accept any change to the habitat that changed it sufficiently to make it non survivable. Is this idea not sufficient for purposes of discussion?

To Sayonara. Re magnitude of habitat loss. Lomborg talks of two examples : Puerto Rico and the Atlantic coastal forest of Brazil. In both cases, massive destruction of forest took place. In neither case was the forest totally destroyed, although in Puerto Rico, more than 100% was felled. It was just that it recovered sufficiently to ensure that 5 to 15% of the original forest area remained, albeit as new regrowth. About 12% of the Atlantic Brazilian coastal forest remains, though in very fragmentary state. I know of a number of cases of extinctions that can be put down pretty much to single causes - mainly alien predators and to direct human hunting - but I do not know of a single extinction event that can clearly be laid at the door of Habitat loss alone. The Yangtse River dolphin comes close. The only thing about that is the propensity of the Chinese people to kill and eat anything that moves. This leaves a large space for doubt when pondering the assertion that this extinction was totally caused by pollution of the river - hence habitat loss. In New Zealand, 1000 years ago, there were 11 species of large flightless birds - the moas. They ranged from turkey size to 3 metres tall. Within 150 years of the first human contact, all 11 species were gone. A clear cut example of extinctions by human hunting. Do we have any such clear cut examples of extinctions by loss of habitat?

To Icemelt. Interesting stuff. Keep those graphs coming. Just a small point. Your 10 C in 50 years. This is from Greenland data, where temperature change is 3 times global average. So this translates at 3 C in 50 years global average, assuming the same ratio holds. Still a lot faster than present day warming, which is less than 1 C in 50 years.

Should smokers have the right to smoke in public? This particular argument is, ultimately, all about individual philosophy. Do people have the right to engage in an activity around others, which those others find unpleasant, and which confers no benefit to ourselves or to society, except to relieve an artificially gained addiction? To me, the answer is no. No-one should have such a right. However, the reality is that second hand smoke, unpleasant though it is for myself and others, actually causes only trivial harm. Because of this, smokers can argue with some credibility that second hand smoke should not become a cause celebre. I still claim that the act of starting the smoking habit, is a highly non rational behaviour. Once addicted, of course, it is damned hard to stop. The only good solution is not to start in the first place. It is starting that I call an example of idiotic behaviour. Current estimates are 2 million deaths each year from smoking. And this is growing. In addition, there is enormous pain and hardship from all the ills that smoking causes, even when it does not directly cause death. I made the decision not to start 44 years ago, as a result of information that was readily available then. I was only 14 years old and fully capable at that young age of making an informed decision. I find it hard to understand how anyone can begin this destructive habit any time within the past 40 years, and fail to call that a non rational act.

To ParanoiA I am sure my argument did not fit the definition of argument from ignorance. Reason : I was not saying that the computer models were false, or that something else was true. I was simply saying that the data was not sufficient to derive accurate conclusions. This is very different to the argument from ignorance as defined in your source. Anyway, thanks for the reply. I am glad to clear up my own lack of understanding on that point.

Sayonara's response to Lomborg. Dunno. What's his evidence? Does he give any basis from ecological evolution, or is it mainly by example? In science it is well known that it is virtually impossible to prove anything. Thus we have the Popper Falsification Principle. That is : any hypothesis is put up to others to attempt to falsify through argument (based on empirical data), experiment or observation. When something survives many attempts to falsify it, it is considered to be a good scientific model. So let's consider Lomborg's idea as a candidate for falsification. Can anyone demonstrate it to be false? If not, we have to consder it a good scientific model. So far, several examples have been raised which suggest that habitat loss may contribute to extinction of species. However, nothing yet to show that it can, as a single cause, drive a species to extinction.

1veedo said : I was not calling you or anyone else "ignorant." Your statement just happens to be argument from ignorance which is a logical fallacy. I am sorry, 1veedo, but you are going to have to explain your reasoning. I simply do not see what you are driving at. I pointed out an example by which computer models were incomplete due to the lack of vital data. Conclusion : With new data coming in all the time, we cannot be sure that there is sufficient data yet to ensure computer models are accurate. You call this arguing from ignorance. Please explain.

Sayonara said : I doubt that there are many extinctions caused solely by a single factor, and in this respect I don't see why habitat destruction as a cause should stand alone. I have a nice story to illustrate my point. The Stephens Island Rock Wren. This was a small, largely flightless bird living only on Stephens Island (north end of New Zealand's South Island). It was discovered by the lighthouse keeper on Stephens Island. Every morning his cat would deposit a small and somewhat undistinguished looking bird at his feet. After a few months of this, his curiosity was aroused, and he sent one of the sorry corpses to the museum in Wellington. They identified it as a new, previously unknown species, and immediately sent a scientific team to Stephens Island to investigate. When they got there, the species was gone. Since that day, not a single Rock Wren has ever been seen. This extinction was caused by a single introduced predator. More than that. By a single individual predator - the lighthouse keepers cat. So the truth is that extinctions are, in fact, from single causes on occasion. Predation by an introduced species is a common one. But direct human hunting/fishing is another. So is Lomborg right in saying that habitat loss is a rare cause? Incidentally, I think we should agree that pollution can be classified as habitat loss. If the habitat is changed to the point where survival is impossible, then that is the same thing.

Quote from 1veedo, Originally Posted by SkepticLance A new oceanic current pattern, which is said to help make computer models more accurate. Obviously, without this knowledge, the models are less accurate, which has been the case up to the present. So what else remains to be discovered, which is needed to make models accurate? Lots I suspect. This is an argument from ignorance. And this is absolutely true. The complexity is beyond any human mind, and is STILL beyond the capacity of computer models to cope with. Then can you please explain why these computer models are so exceedingly accurate? Eg the original NASA GISS simulation back in the 80s that is, still today, "right on the money" (actual quote from NASA)*. The current situation is that for 30 years CO2 increase and warming correlate well. Before that, things were different. This is a false cause and is therefore a rather unreliable method to infer causation -- correlation does not imply causation. 1. You are claiming I am arguing from ignorance. No. I am arguing from your ignorance, and the ignorance of everyone who tries to set up climate models without all the facts. 2. Computer models have been 'right on the money' only over the past 30 years, when warming has been almost linear. Whoop de do! 3. Correlation indeed does not imply causation. However, the reverse is 100% reliable. That is, there is no causation without correlation. Since greenhouse gas increase and warming/cooling did not correlate before 1975, then, either, it was not a cause and effect relationship, or at least, other causes were more important.

It's pretty tough. I can name a heap of extinctions caused by the introduction of an alien predator. And there are a whole lot more caused by over-hunting or over-fishing by people. There are, without doubt, lots of cases where loss of habitat was a contributing factor. But I don't think Lomborg was denying that. The question is whether there are any cases which are undeniably caused by loss of habitat, with no significant other contributing factors.

To Bascule. Since you are opposed to Aristotle's dictums, what about the one that says everything can be deduced by process of logic? That idea held science back for 2,000 years. It was only with the work of Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton and Robert Hooke that destroyed that piece of nonsense. They came up with the modern idea that only empirical data could drive our scientific knowledge forward. The modern equivalent of Aristotle's 'logic' is calculation, theory, and computer models. While these may be useful tools, over-reliance is highly destructive. In particular, computer climate models cannot give accurate or reliable results until we have nailed down all relevent empirical data. As an example : I read today an account of a recent discovery in Antarctica. http://abc.net.au/science/news/stories/2007/1919192.htm A new oceanic current pattern, which is said to help make computer models more accurate. Obviously, without this knowledge, the models are less accurate, which has been the case up to the present. So what else remains to be discovered, which is needed to make models accurate? Lots I suspect. You said : The complexity of understanding the climate system exceeds any one human's ability And this is absolutely true. The complexity is beyond any human mind, and is STILL beyond the capacity of computer models to cope with. You said : The emergent effects are both unexpected and counterintuitive. Which is also absolutely true. Yet you insist that the pattern is real simple. That is, CO2 increase drives warming. Full stop! Did you even consider that there might be powerful other factors? You said : SkepticLance and Icemelt, who will not directly argue but insinuate the possibility that climate is driving CO2 increases, rather than vice versa. If you re-read my earlier comments, you will find that I said that, in the middle term past (about 10,000 to a million years ago) warmings preceded CO2 increase, which is a simple fact, not open to debate. I also said that this does not apply to the current warming. The current situation is that for 30 years CO2 increase and warming correlate well. Before that, things were different.

In Bjorn Lomborg's book : "The Skeptical Environmentalist", he makes the statement that loss of natural habitat is a minor cause of extinctions. Two examples are given of places where massive natural habitat loss occurred with very little in the ways of extinction of species. 1. Puerto Rico. 2. Atlantic coast of Brazil. Yet in environmentalist literature, habitat loss is almost invariably described as a major cause of extinctions. Does anyone have any unambiguous examples of cases where habitat loss has caused substantial extinctions? Please try to use examples where other causes are unlikely.

To KLB If you feel I have accused you of extremism, I apologise. My intention is not to do that. In any debate like ours, there is a wide range of opinion. Some people tend towards one extreme, and other people tend towards the opposite. This debate is no different. I try, myself, to develop a more balanced set of views, based on hard data rather than political opinion and I try to encourage others to do the same. Thus, I am inclined to push against those who are promoting a view towards one extreme or the other. This does include the extreme GW deniers. The hard data at this point shows serious increase in greenhouse gases over the past 100 years. It shows global average warming of about 1 C over the period spanning 1910 to 2007. Warming is about 3 times global average in the high Arctic and the Antarctic Peninsular. Warming is minor in the tropics. These are facts and those who deny them lose credibility. Any GW denier who disputes these facts, I will argue with. However, beyond that we get into interpretation. I have said, and I believe the data supports this, that greenhouse gases correlate with warming very well over the past 30 years, and very poorly before that. However, sunspot activity correlates very well with both warming and cooling before 1975. My conclusion is that GHGs are a strong effect only over the last 30 years.

KLB said : Labeling someone an extremist is an unprovable effort to smear and discredit other people's stance. Why don't you start practicing what you preached to me. I went back through this thread four pages to try and find my original statement on extremists and couldn't find it. This thread is growing too damn fast! Anyway, I do not recall labelling anyone extremist. That is not a tactic I use. However, extremists do exist, on both sides of the argument. There are sceptic extremists who ignore data and propose silly scenarios; and there are GW extremists who exaggerate the situation into extremely unlikely catastrophes. I am not calling you or anyone else an extremist. However, sometimes some people posting items on this thread come close, and need to be warned that their opinions are going a bit too far. This applies both to sceptics and GW enthusiasts.

To P.O.M. Hi. You pointed out this strategy to myself and others on another thread. It looks pretty good to me. I doubt that it will, of itself, solve all the world's woes. However, as part of an overall action plan, it looks like it has much to offer.

To Icemelt. Very nice quote from Richard Lindzen, even if the GW extremists are avoiding it. Do you have any references to the 'iris effect' Lindzen talks about? It sounds important.

To ParanoiA Actually, I judge life the same way you do - mainly by its quality. While I would love to live to 110, it is only with the proviso that it is quality life. When you see a person dying from emphysema caused by smoking, and taking ten miserable years to do so, where is the quality? Taking risks is fine. Driving a car can kill you, but has only a lifetime risk of 0.5%. Smoking can kill you and has a lifetime risk of more than 50%. I drive a car and don't smoke. Both are rational decisions based on risk.

To natureboy. I do hope you are kidding us. Cell phones killing bees? Yeah. Riiiiight! Why is it that the scientists researching bee death are now concentrating on bee diseases? Nature driving humans to cause global warming? Also, Yeah riiiight. Humans need no-one to drive us. We are real good at doing things the human way. Unable to affect global warming? Nonsense.

Let me give you guys a bit more background, and you might understand my stance more. My father took up smoking at age 29, as a young man in the north African desert in World War II. At the time, no-one knew of the long term devastating consequences, and of course, the stress levels on the front line in the African desert were unbelievable. My father saw both of his best friends die within metres of him. I accept that, for him taking up smoking, there was justification. He later died slowly of lung cancer! My father-in-law died an even nastier death. He was a long term smoker and contracted emphysema. He spent the last few years of his life on pure oxygen struggling for every breath, till he died. That is a process of dying of slow strangulation. I decided not to start, many years before either father or father-in-law died. My dear old Dad, however, strongly approved of my decision. I accept that, once you start, it is very difficult to give up, and only those people with exceptional strength of will are likely to succeed. Today, and any time over the past 44 years that I am aware of, there has been ample information telling people of the harm of smoking. I am not calling smokers idiots. However, I am saying that the act of taking up smoking - getting yourself addicted to a self-destructive substance - is an idiotic behaviour. I have been told that heavy smokers (defined as 2 or more packs per day) obey a 60:60 rule. 60% will die before they are 60 years old. I am 58 years old and in the pink of health. Had I been a heavy smoker, I would probably be dead. It is understandable that those who smoke will justify their original decision to smoke, and come up with slogans like "eat, smoke, and drink, and be merry." My father and father-in-law showed that smoking does not make you merry. It makes you dead. Slowly and painfully!

Sayonara made the following comment, relating to my description of smokers as idiotic. However that is not even what you meant. The implication of "a person who is idiotic enough to smoke" is pretty clear; you are proposing that one must be an idiot to smoke. It is hardly ambiguous. Given that idiots are traditionally linked with exhibiting idiotic behaviour, you can't seriously expect now that someone has taken offence to be able to change tack and say that you were "talking about behaviours rather than people". Particularly considering the fact that you were actually, if you remember, talking about people. Or I presume they are people, since on the subsequent four occasions you mention the smoking assistant in your experiment, you refer to them as "the sucker". You have been warned without infraction points ("verbally", you might say) because it was obviously an off-the-cuff comment. I don't intend to labour over this any further and I am not interested if you "disagree" with me or not. Learn from the mistake of assuming that you are free to take pot-shots at a group you perceive to be universally unpopular, and move on. I know that you are quite capable of making your points without needing to flaunt petty prejudices. Let me tell you a story, Sayonara. I am now 58 years old. When I was 14, I was told of the fact that smoking caused lung cancer. That was 44 years ago. I decided on the spot that I would not smoke, and I have not. I am a non smoker, and I do my best to persuade everyone else not to smoke. Now, unless you are a lot older than me, you would have had access to the same information. I am aware that you are a smoker and that you take offense at being told that smokers are 'idiots', or any implication that says the same thing. If you are a lot older than 58, and you inform me so, I will apologise to you for personal affront. If you are younger than me, then you took up smoking knowing that it was damaging to your own health. Without apology, I tell you that was an idiotic decision. By definition, anyone who engages in idiotic behaviour is behaving as an idiot. In the same way, I do not hesitate to tell anyone who takes up smoking, then they are behaving as an idiot. I accept that if you became an addict in the days before we knew better, then you are unfortunate. However, if you willingly took up smoking any time in the last 44 years, you did so in the clear knowledge of harm to yourself. That is a self destructive act, and has to be described as idiotic. If that offends you, tough!

1veedo said : the fact of the matter is that saying 40% of CO2 is anthropogenic is incorrect. In about 100 years, 1900 to 2000 AD, atmospheric CO2 increased from approx. 300 ppm to approx 370 ppm. The 70 ppm increase is approx. 19% of the final amount. If we assume that all the increase is anthropogenic, then this says that (for this 100 years) 19% of atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic. If we carry out this calculation over a longer time period - say 1800 to 2007 AD, then the percentage is greater - about 28%.

KLB There would be no problem if you left personalities, and concentrated on science.

To KLB. The reason it is distasteful is because it is just plain nasty, and is something that is done only by nasty people. I live in a small community, and malicious and vindictive gossip is a major hobby for many of the residents. Often, when I am out and about in this community, I join groups of people I know in conversation. Sometimes that conversation turns to character assassination. When that happens, I do two things. 1. I leave. 2. I tell myself that it is all lies. I have been following the global warming debate for over ten years. I have come across the character assassination tactic many times before. Sometimes it is people like you attacking sceptics. Sometimes it is sceptics attacking their opponents. Whenever I come across that tactic, I do two things. 1. I delete the reference 2. I tell myself that it is all lies. I strongly suggest to other people following this thread that they treat your increasingly unpleasant postings exactly the same way.