Study finds that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant

No deniers of science can know a basic way of reasoning or can maintain an intelligent conversation:

roughly like that:

Fact 1=true (statement 1 of climotologists is obviously idiotic)
fact 2= true.(statement 2 of climotologists is obviously idiotic)
Fact 3= true.((statement 3 of climotologists is obviously idiotic)
If facts 1,2,3 are true then conclusion from fact 1, 2, 3 "climotologists are idiots"=true.

You have to dispute facts 1,2,3.
Since you can't and you don't, the conclusion that climotologists are idiots stands to be true.

When instead of facts and the topic of discussion you bring in totally unrelated topic, it is called red herring.
When you attack totally unrelated to the discussion topic, true or false facts, you are attacking a strawman.
But I don't expect from deniers of science any ability to reasoning or to maintaining an intelligent conversation, otherwise they would not be deniers of science, would they?

Who is .Fred Singer?

 

He is the father of global warming denial. He was also instrumental in the spread of propaganda surrounding the denial of smoking causes cancer, sulfur dioxide causes acid rain, and CFCs cause ozone depletion.

The scam has these elements.

- Focus on cherry-picked dissenting evidence
- Hide or pretend like supporting evidence does not exist
- Prefer non-peer-reviewed literature over peer-reviewed literature
- Prefer sources who have a history of anti-science behavior
- Prefer sources who have a history of denial
- Ask questions with an incredulous tone or context even though science already has adequate answers
- Make unsubstantiated claims of fraud against credible sources
- Make fraudulent claims yourself to deceive the public
- When all else fails call it all hoax

Fred Singer was really good at all of them.

 

Plants adapt to climate change? Who would have thunk? Lmao

 

You have fallen for or are purposely perpetuating a smear campaign that has been waged against this man.

"The ultimate aim of these attacks, at least in my case, has been to discredit my work and publications on global warming. I am a nonsmoker, find SHS to be an irritant and unpleasant, have certainly not been paid by Philip Morris and the tobacco lobby, and have never joined any of their front organizations. And I serve on the advisory board of an anti-smoking organization. My father, who was a heavy smoker, died of emphysema while relatively young. I personally believe that SHS, in addition to being objectionable, cannot possibly be healthy."
"To sum up this somewhat technical discussion, while I cannot give specific answers about lung cancer or other medical issues connected with SHS, I can state with some assurance that the EPA analysis -- to paraphrase my former teacher, Nobel physicist Wolfgang Pauli -- is "not only wrong, but worthless."

"My assessments are independently confirmed by the Congressional Research Service (in report CRS-95-1115) and by a lengthy judicial analysis in 1998 by Judge William Osteen -- all available on the internet. Science journalist Michael Fumento presented, in 1993, a well-researched and eminently readable account in Investors Business Daily.

In the largest (in terms of statistical power), most detailed (in terms of results presented), and most transparent (in terms of information about its conduct) epidemiologic paper on SHS and mortality ever published in a major medical journal (in the May 17, 2003 issue of the British Medical Journal), UCLA Prof. James Enstrom found no significant relationship between secondhand smoke and lung cancer. It is worth noting also that the World Health Organization, in a just-completed study reported in the British medical journal Lancet, gives a lung-cancer death rate (for US, Canada, and Cuba) of barely six hundred per year, only a fraction of the EPA number of U.S. deaths. An independent study, published in BioMed Central (2010) and supported by the Canadian National Cancer Institute and Canada's Cancer Society, found no noticeable lung-cancer effect from SHS in nonsmokers; however, there was a significant effect from welding, use of paint thinners and solvents, and exposure to diesel exhaust, soot, and smoke from sources other than tobacco.

But just when we thought that nothing could top the EPA claims, along comes this bombshell from Obama's surgeon general Regina Benjamin: "Even brief exposure to secondhand smoke can cause cardiovascular disease and could trigger acute cardiac events like heart attack." Not just long-term exposure to SHS -- just a whiff can kill you, asserts the surgeon general's media release of Dec. 9, 2010. Of course, there is no evidence cited to back up this wild claim -- just the usual and undisputed evidence about the health consequences to actual (primary) smokers.

So what does it all mean? The issue is not whether SHS is healthy; it obviously is not. One issue is the use of the "tobacco weapon" to attack the credibility of climate scientists -- in place of using scientific arguments. It bespeaks of the desperation of those who don't have any valid scientific arguments and wish to avoid public debate. (Imagine, if you will, Oreskes attacking the validity of the notorious "hockey stick" temperature curve by linking its author, Michael Mann, to tobacco company Philip Morris, instead of describing his faulty use of statistics.)

The other issue is the conduct of science and the integrity of the science process: the intrusion of government political agenda -- worthy or not -- on the way science is done and reported to the public. The corruption of science in a worthy cause is still corruption, and it has led to its further corruption in an unworthy cause -- the ideologically driven claim of anthropogenic global warming.


Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2010/12/second_hand_smoke_lung_cancer.html#ixzz5SmFecleS
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

 

Fact: Fred Singer not only denies the link between second-hand smoking and cancer he denies the link between the act of smoking itself and cancer which was actually the focus of denial to begin with.

Fact: Fred Singer denies the link between sulfur dioxide and acid rain.

Fact: Fred Singer denies the link between CFCs and ozone depletion.

Fact: Fred Singer denies the link between human activity and global warming and was one of the founder fathers of the denial scam.

Fact: Fred Singer has played an active role dispensing propaganda to further these scams often through appointments to key committees or by being paid for his "consulting" services.

His involvement in the first three scams are well documented. And, of course, we all now know he was on the wrong side of science in all 3. The fourth scam is playing out pretty much exactly the same way as the first three.

Oh, and by the way, Mann, whom I have no love for, has never had a substantiated claim of faulty statistical usage leveled against him. In fact, over the last 2 decades dozens of independent studies have confirmed his work time and time again using multiple lines of evidence. And Mann does not deny the link between smoking and cancer, sulfur dioxide and acid rain, CFCs and ozone depletion. Singer, on the other hand, does deny all of this and he does use statistics incorrectly and has even fraudulently manufactured data and made other erroneous claims which is all well documented so this is like the pot calling the kettle black.

And this is one of, if not the, father of the global warming denial scam.

 

You are doing exactly what singer accuses you of in the link I gave you. You attack him and attempt to discredit him instead of conducting a rational discussion on his views of AGW. It's SOP for the left.

 

Here is a condensed history of Fred Singer, the Boogeyman under the bed of the cult.

1950: United States NavyEdit
After his masters, Singer joined the Armed Forces, working for the United States Navy on mine warfare and countermeasures from 1944 until 1946. While with the Naval Ordnance Laboratory he developed an arithmetic element for an electronic digital calculator that he called an "electronic brain". He was discharged in 1946 and joined the Upper Atmosphere Rocket Program at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory in Silver Spring, Maryland, working there until 1950. He focused on ozone, cosmic rays, and the ionosphere, all measured using balloons and rockets launched from White Sands, New Mexico, or from ships out at sea. Rachel White Scheuering writes that for one mission to launch a rocket, he sailed with a naval operation to the Arctic, and also conducted rocket launching from ships at the equator.[3]

1951: Design of early satellitesEdit

Singer's MOUSE satellite, which he designed in the early 1950s.[19]
Singer was one of the first scientists to urge the launching of earth satellites for scientific observation during the 1950s.[20]In 1951 or 1952 he proposed the MOUSE ("Minimal Orbital Unmanned Satellite, Earth"), a 100 pounds (45 kg) satellite that would contain Geiger counters for measuring cosmic rays, photo cells for scanning the Earth, telemetry electronics for sending data back to Earth, a magnetic data storage device, and rudimentary solar energy cells. Although MOUSE never flew, the Baltimore News Post reported in 1957 that had Singer's arguments about the need for satellites been heeded, the U.S. could have beaten Russia by launching the first earth satellite.[19] He also proposed (along with R. C. Wentworth) that satellite measurement of ultraviolet backscatter could be used as a method to measure atmospheric ozone profiles.[21] This technique was later used on early weather satellites.[22]

1953: University of MarylandEdit
Singer moved back to the United States in 1953, where he took up an associate professorship in physics at the University of Maryland, and at the same time served as the director of the Center for Atmospheric and Space Physics. Scheuering writes that his work involved conducting experiments on rockets and satellites, remote sensing, radiation belts, the magnetosphere, and meteorites. He developed a new method of launching rockets into space: firing them from a high-flying plane, both with and without a pilot. The Navy adopted the idea and Singer supervised the project. He received a White House Special Commendation from President Eisenhower in 1954 for his work.[3]

He became one of 12 board members of the American Astronautical Society, an organization formed in 1954 to represent the country's 300 leading scientists and engineers in the area of guided missiles—he was one of seven members of the board to resign in December 1956 after a series of disputes about the direction and control of the group.[2

1962: National Weather Center and University of MiamiEdit
In 1962, on leave from the university, Singer was named as the first director of meteorological satellite services for the National Weather Satellite Center, now part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and directed a program for using satellites to forecast the weather.[20] He stayed there until 1964. He told Time magazine in 1969 that he enjoyed moving around. "Each move gave me a completely new perspective," he said. "If I had sat still, I'd probably still be measuring cosmic rays, the subject of my thesis at Princeton. That's what happens to most scientists."[37] When he stepped down as director he received a Department of Commerce Gold Medal Award for Distinguished Federal Service.[40]

In 1964, he became the first dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences at the University of Miami in 1964, the first school of its kind in the country, dedicated to space-age research.[41] In December 1965, The New York Times reported on a conference Singer hosted in Miami Beach during which five groups of scientists, working independently, presented research identifying what they believed was the remains of a primordial flash that occurred when the universe was born.[42]

1967: Department of Interior and EPAEdit
In 1967 he accepted the position of deputy assistant secretary with the U.S. Department of the Interior, where he was in charge of water quality and research. When the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was created on 1970, he became its deputy assistant administrator of policy.

1971–1994 University of VirginiaEdit
Singer accepted a professorship in Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia in 1971, a position he held until 1994, where he taught classes on environmental issues such as ozone depletion, acid rain, climate change, population growth, and public policy issues related to oil and energy.[citation needed] In 1987 he took up a two-year post as chief scientist at the Department of Transportation, and in 1989 joined the Institute of Space Science and Technology in Gainesville, Florida where he contributed to a paper on the results from the Interplanetary Dust Experiment using data from the Long Duration Exposure Facilitysatellite.[3][43] When he retired from Virginia in 1994, he became Distinguished Research Professor at the Institute for Humane Studies at George Mason University until 2000.[44]

Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway say that Singer was involved in the Reagan administration's efforts to prevent regulatory action to reduce acid rain.[45]

ConsultanciesEdit
Singer has worked as a consultant for several government agencies, including the House Select Committee on Space, NASA, the Government Accountability Office, the National Science Foundation, the United States Atomic Energy Commission, National Research Council, the Department of Defense Strategic Defense Initiative, Department of Energy Nuclear Waste Panel, and the Department of the Treasury. Other clients have included the states of Virginia, Alaska, and Pennsylvania. In the private sector he has worked for Mitre Corporation, General Electric, Ford, General Motors; during the late 1970s Singer consulted with Exxon, Shell, Unocal Sun Oil, and ARCO; and Lockheed Martin, Martin–Marietta, McDonnell Douglas, ANSER, and IBM on space research.[44] He has also advised the Independent Institute, the American Council on Science and Health, and Frontiers "

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer




Now let's see your credentials iamanonman

 

He doesn't have rational views on global warming though just like he doesn't have rational views on smoking, sulfur dioxide, and CFCs. He was instrumental in delaying policies that save peoples lives, reduce the effect of acid rain in Canada from our pollutants, and mitigate the damage to the ozone layer. And his claim that he "[has] certainly not been paid by Philip Morris and the tobacco lobby, and have never joined any of their front organizations" is a bald face lie. He even brags about how he consultants with APCO and TASSC. He also brags about being the founder of SEPP. And he's also paid by the Heartland Institute to the tune of $5000/month for his anti-science rhetoric. Which, by the way, is ironic because he's said in the past that if you accept money to do scientific work then you're necessarily a fraud. Umm...excuse me...if that's the epitome of the pot calling the kettle black then I don't know what is. And this is your hero. This is your knight in shining armor that lead the charge on the global the warming denial scam and many others as well. And he does it all, not by producing his own research, but by proclaiming that reputable scientists who do actual work are wrong without providing any scientific basis for those claims, providing an alternate explanation for their results, or something by not even providing an explanation at all.

 

I've inhaled it and exhaled it. CO2, that is. Purer than Ivory soap, 100% natural, 100% pure.

Purer than 10,000-year-old water in Maine.

 

Character assassination noted. Far easier to attack somebody personally with unsubstantiated charges than it is to refute their stands on issues one by one isn't it. To start with you spread the charge that Singer worked for tobacco companies and said smoking doesn't cause cancer. That's what all the AGW sites say so it must be true huh. The reality is he didn't work for tobacco companies and he said second hand smoke doesn't cause cancer and new research agrees with him.

No Clear Link Between Passive Smoking and Lung Cancer

https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/105/24/1844/2517805

 

First, these aren't unsubstantiated charges. Second, this is like the pot calling the kettle black because this is the exact strategy Singer and other global warming deniers level against credible scientists like Santer, Hansen, etc. Except in these cases the charges really are unsubstantiated.

I'm not claiming that he is employed by a tobacco company. I'm claiming that he works on their behalf. Singer himself is open about his involvement with APCO and TASSC. That's how the sleight of hand works. The tobacco companies create and fund shell organizations to undermine public perception of the science of smoking. This creates at least two degrees of separation between companies like Phillip Morris and himself. That gives him the legal out he needs when he testifies before congress (which he's done numerous times) and is asked if he accepted payment from a tobacco company. And yes, he absolutely and vehemently denies that smoking causes cancer. And he apparently has no shame in doing so and is very open about it.

That's what Singer himself says. I mean he's testified in front of congress on multiple issues including the smoking cancer link, sulfur dioxide acid rain link, and CFC ozone depletion link. He's even testified in front of congress regarding global warming. In each case it's an open and blatant denial. He's penned many articles and has (or had) a wide public following. This isn't something some shoddy AGW made up.

That's like saying he doesn't work for Exxon because Exxon gave money to his SEPP institution but not him personally. Except that, almost in a move that almost defies credulity, ExxonMobile really did pay him directly. Phillip Morris created and funded TASSC for the purpose of managing the second hand smoking fallout. Singer was a member of this task force. And before that he was employed by APCO to deny the link between the act of smoking itself and cancer.

And here we go. It plays out the same way regardless of what the issue. Whether it's smoking causes cancer or sulfur dioxide causes acid rain or CFCs cause ozone depletion there's always that "but I found this one study that refutes it all" claim. It's all proven to be bunk for first hand smoking-cancer denial, SO2 and acid rain denial, CFC and ozone depletion denial, and it's true for second hand smoking denial. That fact is that you really are at a higher risk of getting cancer if you are exposed to cigarette smoke. Please, for the sake of your kids, do not take up smoking or encourage someone else to smoke despite your denial that it won't actually harm those in the home. There is a reason why the Surgeon General warms parents not expose their kids to their smoking habit. It's just an "irritant and unpleasant" as Singer says. It's actually lethal and the abundance of evidence proved this more than 3 decades ago.

 

Just more character assassination based on the smear campaign of the AGW sites you apparently live in. I'm not saying I agree with everything Singer says and he is not my hero as you earlier said but he is an incredible intellect with an amazing record of achievement and I hate seeing him and everyone else like him raked over the coals by the little piss ant global warmers and their smear campaign against anyone and everyone who doesn't jump on board the AGW bandwagon. The allegations that he denied smoking causes cancer is twisting of facts to the extreme. He said second hand smoke doesn't cause cancer which is a big difference and new research is proving he was right not to jump on that bandwagon too. Now let's clear up what exactly Singer said and put the smoking myth to bed.

"In 1993, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published what was then the most comprehensive study on the effects of tobacco smoke on health, which stated that exposure to secondhand smoke was responsible for about 3,000 deaths a year in the United States. Singer promptly called it "junk science." He warned that the EPA scientists were secretly pursuing a communist agenda. "If we do not carefully delineate the government's role in regulating ... dangers, there is essentially no limit to how much government can ultimately control our lives," Singer wrote.

http://www.spiegel.de/international...alesmen-of-climate-skepticism-a-721846-2.html

 

Note that this EPA report was peer reviewed for months by many independent scientists who had no skin in the game. They overwhelmingly agreed that the EPA report was factual and represented the scientific consensus on the subject. The nail was driven into this proverbial coffin before the EPA report even came out and now 25 years later the evidence just keeps piling on. I don't even think the Heartland Institute denies the link between smoking and cancer, but I think they are still denying that SHS is harmful to innocent bystanders like children.

Oh, and by the way, don't think I missed the fact that Singer mocks Oreskes and Conway's claim that he was motivated by a fascination with communism while indicting the EPA of secretly pursuing a communist agenda. And this doesn't even scratch the surface of his behaviors. There is a huge laundry list of false claims, misunderstandings of research, unsubstantiated claims of fraud against credible people all the while he himself at times committed outright fraud like when he conspired with Nierenberg to change the OSTP board report concerning acid rain after the peer review process was completed and which substantially altered the tone and rhetoric without the panel's knowledge. The final report was published to the dismay of the panel members. That act alone would get you banned from ever publishing research again. But, since Singer doesn't actually do science he isn't bound by the same code of ethic. He gets a free pass with his SEPP organization to deny global warming science by whatever means necessary. Remember, unlike the scientific community there's no mechanism for preventing fraud in the circles Singer runs in.

 

Your reference. You own it
“Passive smoking has many downstream health effects—asthma, upper respiratory infections, other pulmonary diseases, cardiovascular disease—but only borderline increased risk of lung cancer,”

Oh great, no lung cancer but nearly everyother respiratory illness known., Guess you really don’t care that second hand smoke STILL KILLs.

Seeing that the scientific method is the gold standard in solving most of the worlds problems, can you describe YOUR method

 

It's not a fact that anyone likes but there really are substances used by industry that are harmful to the environment. And I reject Singer's hypothesis that the fix is "a billion dollar solution to a million dollar problem" (Singer's quote by the way). Take CFCs for instance. He claimed that even if CFCs were a problem (which he adamantly denied) the fix would be worse. He cited that CFC alternatives would be less energy efficient, more expense, flammable, and corrosive. The reality...they were more energy efficient and cost less when adjusted for inflation. Oh, and they were neither flammable nor corrosive. When CFCs were being phased out companies were forced to innovate. Innovation is born out of necessity. Contrary to the popular talking point regulation doesn't always impede innovation. I'm not saying CFC alternatives wouldn't have been developed without regulation, but this is a case where it certainly didn't stifle it.

It's the same old talking points.

- Effect E isn't a problem.
- But even if E is a problem then C isn't causing it.
- But even if C is the cause then it's still not our fault.
- But even if it is our fault the positives outweigh the negatives.
- But even if they don't the fix is worse than the problem.
- But even if it isn't it's too late to do anything about it.
- But even if it's shown to not be too late then all of the science is fraudulent and should be considered a hoax.

You can replace C and E with whatever cause and effect you want. Singer and the like follow the same script every time.

 

These guys are in the “business could do no wrong” frame of mind. It’s been we’ll known for years that it’s always better long term to minimize pollution which lowers property values and makes many places uninhabitable. The mantra of the right is, “we aren’t agasint clear air and clean water”, we just don’t want any regulations. As if corporations wouldn’t pollute if left alone. Probably the dumbest statement a pro business “at all cost” supporter could make.

 

Which is certainly understandable, seeing the causal link has never been proven. If it had, of course, we'd know why some people who never smoke get lung cancer anyway, and why some people who smoke like chimneys never do.

 

The casual link has been proven. It was done more than 60 years ago. The link is probabilistic; not deterministic. And smoking is just one among many risk factors. That's why some people get lung cancer even though they've never smoked. And it's why some people never get it even though they've smoked for decades. If you smoke your risk of getting lung cancer and other ailments goes way up.

 

Sure, and people who obey all the rules of the road, still die in car crashes. Regardles of second hand smoke causing cancer or not, it contributes to everyother respiratory illness. So much so, that businesses have for years, separate smokers from non smokers. Now, if we could only separate good drivers from the idiot drivers.

 

It sounds like you are admitting you were spreading false propoganda you read and believed on your warmer web sites stating Singer said smoking doesn't cause cancer. Now you are at least willing to discuss what he actually said which was second hand smoke doesn't cause cancer. Think about how you had been lied to and manipulated here by your warmer websites and then you may begin to wonder what other lies and or distortions of facts they have spoon fed you.

 

The claim has been made and accepted by the masses that Singer said smoking doesn't cause cancer. This has been used to discredit his views on global warming and as you can see he never actually said that. Myth busted.

 

All true. It is not, however then "true" that if you smoke you will get lung cancer. Neither is it true that if you're the recipient of second hand smoke that you'll get lung cancer. The fact is, we don't actually know WHY folks get lung cancer, do we?

So, you'd play the statistical fear game here. You're more likely to get lung cancer, as if, the statistic becomes the fact. If you say that 40% of smokers will get lung cancer, can you tell why they did? Was it because they smoked? or was it because they belong to a group of folks who have a genetic predisposition to develop cancer? your statistic doesn't account for, or measure the difference, does it? But, you have a statistic. You can say, with deep confidence that your 40% probability is testable, because it is. You can say with confidence that your 40% number is predictive, right? oh wait... no, you actually can't, can you. Because the 40% number is just the result of the actual calculation, and not a prediction of future cases, is it? Because statistics don't actually do that. do they?

So, riddle me this. If smoking tobacco created a 40% correlation with cancer, what the F are you folks doing spreading the use of cannabis? If you're so worried about smokers getting cancer, why aren't you worried about pot smokers? If, as you've suggested time and again on these threads, that the statistics are absolute, then why wouldn't your statistic then apply to the use of non tobacco smoking?

 

It’s BS because a single opinion unverified by institutional research is not science regardless of who makes it. It’s BS because second hand smoke is variable and can only be tested when the quantity of second hand smoke is known and consistent.
Just ask institutions which use peer reviewed research over time done by hundreds of scientists. Second hand smoke contains a variety of cancer causing substances.
https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/health_effects/index.htm

https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/tobacco/second-hand-smoke-fact-sheet

 

I originally ignored this post because I didn't want to get off the subject of AGW and on to second hand smoke but it could be a good comparison to the current alarmist mindset in the global warming community. Then as now all the scientist and all the peer reviewed studies said second hand smoke causes cancer and numerous other health issues.They even gave some pretty explicit numbers on how many deaths were caused by second hand smoke just as they do now in how many degrees our C02 has and will add to the climate.
Now fast forward a couple or three decades and those peer reviewed studies accepted as fact by "all the scientist" are starting to fall apart and scientist are backtracking saying maybe its not as bad as we originally thought. There is a lesson to be learned here.








We Used Terrible Science to Justify Smoking Bans
Will we look at the new evidence for long enough to at least consider whether we’ve gone too far?






"No clear link between passive smoking and lung cancer,” read a 2013 headline in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, hardly a pro-tobacco publication. That was a report on a cohort study tracking 76,000 women that failed to detect a link between the disease and secondhand smoke. The finding comports with existing literature suggesting that the effect is borderline and concentrated on long-term, high levels of exposure."

http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...ondhand_smoke_isn_t_as_bad_as_we_thought.html

"A large-scale study found no clear link between secondhand smoke and lung cancer, undercutting the premise of years of litigation including a Florida case that yielded a $350 million settlement.

The article in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute details a study of 76,000 women over more than a decade, which found the usual link between smoking and cancer. Lung cancer was 13 times more common in current smokers, and four times more common in former smokers, than in non-smokers.

The study found no statistically significant relationship between lung cancer and exposure to passive smoke, however. Only among women who had lived with a smoker for 30 years or more was there a relationship that the researchers described as "borderline statistical significance."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/daniel...een-secondhand-smoke-and-cancer/#244ee56765d4

 

You missed or are purposely avoiding the point? Singer has been falsely labeled in a smear campaign that accuses him of saying smoking doesn't cause cancer. He never said that.