Study finds that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant

Singer not only denied that second hand smoke causes cancer he denied that the act itself causes cancer. He denied (and still does AFAIK) both and even actively worked and accept payments for his "consulting" work to propagate the myth that they don't cause cancer. He also denied other health effects of smoking as well. His denial is complete and absolute. This isn't something a global warming website told me. This is Singer's own words and deeds on the matter.

 

Well done. That line of reasoning is taken right out of Singer's playbook. This is the tack Singer used. If you smoke, but die of something else before you got lung cancer then that proves that smoking cannot cause cancer. There are other logical fallacies as well. For example, if you actually get lung cancer without ever having smoked then that proves smoking cannot cause cancer because something else did. How do you guys not understand these fallacies? That's a serious question because it's so obvious to me and I don't understand why it isn't obvious to someone else. I think I'm starting to get a feel for the mindset that is required to deny cause-and-effect links when the proof is overwhelming, but I'm not quite there yet.

 

So now you are back to that claim but I notice every time you make it you can't source it. I've looked everywhere and all I find is claims like yours that say he said it. I can find no actual record or quotes of him saying it but I find numerous records and quotes of him saying second hand smoke doesn't cause cancer. It's time for you to put up or shut up and the fact that you won't quit repeating a lie you can't prove sheds equal doubt on all your AGW "facts".

"This is Singer's own words"

Exact in context Quote and source please

 

Should we talk about asbestos as well? I mean, might as well right? If you're willing to deny the link between smoking and cancer, sulfur dioxide and acid rain, CFCs and ozone depletion, CO2 and global warming then it only follows that you might as well deny the link between asbestos and cancer. Hell, let's just deny that there is even such a thing as a carcinogen. Is this really the direction this thread is going to go?

 

Still waiting for that quote of singer saying smoking doesn't cause cancer

 

The only thing obvious is that you ignored the followon. The assertion isn't that smokers die, as you point out, from other things. The observation was that most smokers never get cancer. And frankly, you can't reconcile that. That isn't a tactic. It's structural deficiency in your narrative. The observation is that our scientists still haven't actually been able to determine the cause of cancer... Which isn't at all the kind of narrative you're pushing here. The observation is that if not all folks who smoke develop cancer, why is that?

And look, I understand the fear you have. By writing down these ridiculous assertions, you open yourself up to real questions of credibility. For example, you say: "If you actually get lung cancer without ever having smoked then that proves smoking cannot cause cancer". Who, besides you, said such? But look at the flip side of your attempt to mock. Are you suggesting enough authority here that you can unequivocally tell us that you have anything more than an assumption of potential risk? Can you show actual mutation having occurred? I mean, if you do, feel free to publish, share your work with the world for all to behold. I'll send you real money.

So, instead of having the real conversation, you'd rather retreat back to the "proof is overwhelming" plea. Ok, overwhelming of what? You know, the funny thing. you tell us you have overwhelming evidence of cause and effect. And yet, you can't actually demonstrate the causality actually creating the effect except through statistical correlation.

 

It seems I owe you an apology on the "smoking itself causes cancer denial". It was Fred Sietz and not Fred Singer that held a wholesale denial of the smoking cancer link. Singer's denial was isolated to just SHS. Sietz and Singer were colleagues on many anti-science projects though. But just because their names are similar in no way excuses for me confusing the two. I take pride in making sure my claims are always accurate and I clearly failed miserably in this regard. Just don't let it be said that I don't admit my mistakes.

In fact, I'll do one better. Here is a document in which Singer says and I quote "It is accepted that smoking is linked to some forms of cancer..."

https://www.industrydocumentslibrary.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/#id=nrfm0045

 

The consensus of science was never that smoking always causes cancer. The consensus is that there is a causal link between both active smoking and passive smoking and cancer. Smoking is a risk factor. The chemicals in cigarettes are, in fact, carcinogens. You aren't guaranteed to get lung cancer if you smoke or live in the same house as a smoker, but your odds are greatly increased if you do.

 

Seen this movie before too. You won't get one. But don't expect the sputtering to stop any time soon. The whole statistical correlation thing just eats at him.

 

Of course. And the reason is that science has never actually created an actual demonstrable experiment that produces the outcome of the causal effect statement. So, instead, they half step. Just like you. There's a link. Cool. There's a link. As long as that's the only thing we discuss. And yet, we see, time and again, that smoking causes cancer. The FDA make manufacturers to label their products with the myriad potential harms of smoking. Right? Smoking leads to three heads, or one eye, permanent defects in kids, etc. So, you create a value/risk statement instead. You create an irrefutable untestable standard which still then is conflated as smoking kills. You're a smart guy, you should be capable of recognizing this. And yet, here you are. Again. Claiming exclusive credibility but only for the validity of the statistical work, not the actual causality link that the reliance on the statistical model was used to assert.

Her's something. If you poison yourself with stuff like, heroine for example, you can get a pretty quick ratio of what will actually kill someone. Right? 10 mgs mainlined, death. Right? I mean, we could actually test this.. (different moral conversation about death penalty)... right? Can you show me the number or regularity of cigarettes smoked that kills someone? Or created the dosage necessary to develop say non small cell types of lung cancer? Or for that matter, small cell types? Can you?

And the answer is.... No. You cannot. But, you can point to some data sets that interestingly correlate the fact that folks with those types of cancer also smoked. I bet they also liked bacon. Brushed their teeth with fluorinated water... Used hair spray...

But gosh durn it, the model just spits out for smoking. So it must be the causal link.... I mean, we get it. Cancer is deadly, it's a huge financial drain on our health systems. All those "evil" things progressives like to point to to get them just a little more tax dollars to "help". Got it. So, we do all this. We sin tax the crap out of cigarettes, rates of smoking is down, everywhere, states have been using their taxes to pay for who knows what, but it was still necessary to tax the product more, sue the companies that make them, to pay for the health care? Like, where did the sin tax money go? and then we get crickets....

 

You're right. You won't get one because, as far as I know, it doesn't exist. That's a mistake on my part in confusing Fred Sietz with Fred Singer. Totally inexcusable. And for that I apologize to you as well.

 

First, yes it has. There are definitive experiments linking the causal effect of smoking and cancer. These experiments were pretty conclusive as early as the 1950's. Even Phillip Morris' own experiments confirmed this. They just hid it really well for decades.

Second, the problem is that none of that is justification to 1) deny that there is a link between smoking and cancer and 2) deny the public the right to know about it. Yet, that was Fred Singer's role at APCO and TASSC. He was paid to discredit the EPA, Surgeon General, etc. even though none of them had any egregious errors in their reports and which their policy was consistent with the science.

 

Again, with the half step. Show the work. Show that X number of cigarettes causes this type of cancer. Not that there's a link to it, but that smoking this number of cigarettes causes this cancer. Know know that if you use X amount of morphine you kill people, right? So, show the same level of detail. Not the "we think it does" link. the "here's what happens when" data.

 

Glad we cleared that up. When I googled your claim I found numerous warming sites that imply and lead you to believe Singer had said smoking doesn't cause cancer and then used this false allegation to mock and ridicule everything he had to say about their global warming hypothesis. I'm sure after you and others see this lie repeated so often the old adage " everyone's saying it so it must be true" comes into play. You and others can learn from this and realize these sites pushing AGW just might be distorting facts or even telling you outright lies to sway your opinion and everything they say should be taken with a grain of salt.

 

Whoa...hold on there. I admit that I made mistake regarding his denial of first hand smoke and cancer. But that's where it stops. He still very much denies the link between second hand smoke and cancer, the link between sulfur dioxide and acid rain, the link between CFCs and ozone depletion, and the link between CO2 and global warming. He absolutely embarks on a disinformation campaign on each and every one of these issues up to an including committing actual bona-fide fraud like when he conspired with Nierenberg to alter an official government report after the peer review process. My issue isn't with Singer's character. It's with his science. Or more precisely, his misrepresentation of it and general lack of it. And I fully accept the fact that just because you're wrong on one topic doesn't necessarily make wrong on the next. But, when you have a repeated history of being wrong you're going to get a more focused critique from me and generally everyone for that matter.

And by the way, do you think Singer will ever be man enough to admit when he is wrong? It doesn't seem that way does it? Notice how I handled the situation. I owned up to my mistake right away. I even posted bona-fide evidence refuting my own claim. Why? Because I'm driven by the pursuit of truth. It's far more important to me that the truth be known and that I'm not seen as someone who dispenses misinformation like what Singer does even if that means I have to take it on the chin. I am human afterall. I make mistakes. This isn't the first and it won't be the last. And I absolutely welcome you to find any mistakes I make.

Yes, again. I made a mistake. I will learn from it. That's the difference between truth seekers and people like Singer.

Then lay it on me. How is NASA, NOAA, and IPCC distorting facts?

And by the way, I find this whole lecture incredibly ironic considering the kind of information these denial websites are proliferating.

Oh, and one last thing. I made a mistake when I confused Fred Sietz with Fred Singer. There is no excuse for that kind of mistake especially considering I accused Fred Singer of something Fred Sietz did. I can absolutely guarantee you that I will be more careful in the identification of people in the future. Actually, I'll use this mistake as a learning opportunity to try even harder to avoid mistakes of any kind in the future.

 

Wait...are you arguing that smoking does not cause cancer?

 

Great back peddle... I've challenged you to actually show the secret sauce. Let us know when you find it. How about this, why not start with "this number of smoked cigarettes leads to the development of this type of cancer". Super easy, right? Is that a cigarette a day, a week, a month? A pack a day, two packs, three packs? Do I have to smoke 1, 10, 100, 1000, 10K, etc? I think that's what would be useful to see.

 

No, that's not easy. And that's not how the link works anyway. There is no hard and fast rule that says X cigarettes smoked necessarily leads to cancer. It's different from person to person and situation to situation. The link is statistical; not deterministic. I can't find evidence regarding these questions because I doubt any exists. And if it did I'd be highly skeptical of it because I understand that determinstic conclusions isn't what the issue is about. But, that doesn't mean there isn't a link between smoking and cancer. Your question is designed to obfuscate the link by reframing the issue from something we know with high confidence to something that cannot be determined determinstically. That's the strategy Singer and Seitz used for years to deny the right of the public to know the risk. I can't say that if you smoke X cigarettes you will get lung cancer. But I can say that if you smoke you are at an increased risk of getting lung cancer. You can see a brief introduction to the risks of smoking at the CDC site here. For example, you are 25x more likely to develop lung cancer if you are a smoker and smoking causes of 90% of all lung cancer deaths.

Again I ask...are you claiming that smoking does not cause cancer?

 

See, that's the problem. "It's statistical not determinative".. Right there. So, Again, you say, 40% of all people who eat sugar get superfart warts cancer. But that isn't factually accurate. The statistic is, 40% of the subject group who ate sugar also got superfart warts cancer. Beyond that, you got nothing. There isn't anything remarkable about your study other than you were able to find and put together mind you, a group who ate sugar, and 40% of those assembled came down with the superfart warts cancer.

So, you'll squeal because you think you've by gosh demonstrated something. Something that leads you to believe that you have sufficient authority to express an opinion. Again, horseshytes'... You just assembled a group of folks who all happened, by coincidence it seems because you'll agree to the "There is no hard and fast rule that says X cigarettes smoked necessarily leads to cancer. It's different from person to person and situation to situation." right? So you completely exonerate yourself from ever having to credibly prove your link is capable of ever being extrapolated to others because you already acknowledge that ever instance is inherently different.

See why that's problematic? I can tell you, with confidence that if I inject you with say 100CCs of fentanyl, you're going to die. 100% certainty. I can then emphatically decry that use of this amount of fentanyl causes death right? I don't have to "believe" anything, it's testable. See the difference yet? I don't have to take it on faith that your assertion of faith is something that I should put actual stock in.

I'll put a fine point on it. I don't smoke. Not because it might lead to cancer, but because, well, I don't care for the experience. My Parents (still living, no lung cancer) smoked the entire time that I grew up in their household so I was exposed daily to their second hand smoke. (no lung cancer here). I have grand parents who all smoked. Their entire lives. No cancer. Their kids were all exposed to their second hand smoke, and all of them smoked in their adult lives, including like in my house, exposing their kids to their second hand smoke. To date, no lung cancer.

Now, perhaps we're just exceptional. I care to believe something entirely different. I think our genetic code didn't fire for smoke induced lung cancer, that our lineage isn't predisposed to lung or other types of cancer. We do have a string of skin cancer, but likely that's because none of us ever use sun screen, and we like the outdoors.

If, as you demand, we fear the cigarette, and we have faith in the link you profess, at least some of us must have developed lung cancer. Right? Some of us would have had to have developed mouth, throat cancer, heart disease etc. Because the entire family tree were users.

So what are we to determine then from our conversation? You have some numbers that you think prove that you're right. I have a lifetime of experience where your proof hasn't ever demonstrated it's viable. You believe you're right. I can look within my family and ask how. That doesn't mean that some folks have developed lung cancer. They worked with asbestos, they worked in coal mines, they all smoked, they lived in erradiated homes on granite, etc. They all drank fluorinated water. They all got vaccinations. The all wore polyester. They probably all like bacon. See, this is where the wheels fall off. I don't smoke, again, because I don't like it. I can't stand the smell, or the experience, or any of it. I cringe on the road driving in a convertible with folks in front of me flinging their still lit cig butts into the abyss in front of me. I think there are tons of reasons not to smoke. I think it's a dirty habit, makes you smell like an ashtray. But can you just for once show me the equation that says, this many cigarettes condemns you to a life of lung cancer? Can you? By your own admission, you cannot. So other than your belief that your number studies reflect any part of reality, you have to explain how with all of your certainty my example, my life of example is that outside of your model of expectation. I doubt you have anything meaningful that we can discuss, but I'm willing if you think you have something to say.

 

I responded to your admission that you were wrong about Singer saying smoking didn't cause cancer. My response was many have been led to believe this by the cult and this false urban legend type allegation. They did and do this purposely in order to diminsh everything else he says. Let's leave it at that.

 

I think I see the problem. You just simply do not see probabilistic lines of evidence as convincing. If a cause and effect relationship can't be quantified determinstically on an individual basis then it should be discounted. That's fine. But, you're not going to be satisfied with most disciplines of science. My hunch is that you're not as incredulous about this issue as you let on though.

It could be that your family genetically predisposed to a resistance against the carcinogens in cigarettes or perhaps cancer of any type itself.

I have numbers that prove if you smoke or live in a house with a smoker then you are far more likely to get lung cancer, asthma, and/or pulmonary disease. And unlike Singer and Seitz I believe people have a right to know the risks. I don't think we should ban smoking, but we shouldn't deny people the scientific evidence demonstrating the risk just because it's incomplete or non-deterministic.

 

Fair enough. And I agree let's move on. And by "move on" I don't mean pretend like I didn't make a mistake. I only add that last line so other's on here don't get the wrong idea about my motives.

 

It’s impossible to satisfy a non believer who knows so little about the science to begin with.

 

And there you have it. Acquiescence. I will add this, though. When we talk about risk, we have risk all around us, every day. And many of those risks are far more likely to influence my life, health, or prosperity. The insidious part though, is that those things generally aren't revenue generators. But, because some things, like cigarette usage, can be tied back, directly, to a stream of ready revenue, it becomes a target of government to attach additional usage taxes to, because, it makes them money. And not just a little bit, a lot of money. And money is what makes government powerful.

At the same time, folks who have smoked also seem to consume a lot more health care services. And well, that costs governments money, even though that cost is already funded. The rub is when folks believe they shouldn't then have to cover the costs because they rather that income be used to say COMPENSATE their constituents instead of actually providing health coverage. So, two choices, you either A) fail to compensate your fan base, or B) you are forced to figure out a way that won't alienate your voting base to convince them that additional revenue is required. Gosh, which one do you suppose government folks are going to choose? Ding ding, we get plan B.

Ok, so now that we understand the motive, now we need an enabler. Hmm... what could provide that? Oh, I know, let's use fear. So what should we use as the trigger? Hmmm... Cancer. Dang, that's awesome, right? We make people afraid of the thing that creates a ton of revenue, knowing that folks aren't actually going to stop smoking, but we cast them as bad for the public good because they smoke, and the get themselves sick with cancer that then robs all that money from doing more important things for the fanbase...

And who provides that leverage? Studies like the one that you admit just produce the hint of a risk. Right? See how cool all of this is? You never actually have to prove that this much leads to cancer, you just have to make folks think there's a risk of it. And frankly, it isn't impossible. So, you get folks like me, who actually know better, but still harbor a lingering doubt that I cannot absolutely rule out the possibility, so because I can't, I'm unwilling to say, there is no link, or risk. And because even folks like me cannot, the rest of the public then cower to the fear that studies like the ones you manufacture induce, and they fork over yet more money to government.

That's how this works. Ignorance of this has no excuse.

 

Does anyone actually care about your personal failings?