I think this is it: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images...
This is a reprint from the SPPI site, but the pdf ends with the comment…
“Revised on July 24, 2009 for publication to Geophysical Research Letters”
So I think that’s the place to look for the original.
Also, a quick comment to Paul: you’ve commented several times recently about your claim that Lindzen believes smoking is harmless. I did a search and found numerous sites mentioning that he thinks *passive* smoking is harmless, but not one supporting your claim.
Could you provide a source, please?
In response to Paul’s response to me...
So, I’m an idiot, am I? How’s *that* for ad hominem.
But still no link provided, I see?
Well, that’s what you expect from Global Warming Lairs, unfortunately.
Here’s what Michael Crichton had to say on the subject of second-hand smoke...
“...with a catchy name, a strong policy position and an aggressive media campaign, nobody will dare to criticize the science, and in short order, a terminally weak thesis will be established as fact. After that, any criticism becomes beside the point. The war is already over without a shot being fired. That was the lesson, and we had a textbook application soon afterward, with second hand smoke.
In 1993, the EPA announced that second-hand smoke was "responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths each year in nonsmoking adults," and that it " impairs the respiratory health of hundreds of thousands of people." In a 1994 pamphlet the EPA said that the eleven studies it based its decision on were not by themselves conclusive, and that they collectively assigned second-hand smoke a risk factor of 1.19. (For reference, a risk factor below 3.0 is too small for action by the EPA. or for publication in the New England Journal of Medicine, for example.) Furthermore, since there was no statistical association at the 95% confidence limits, the EPA lowered the limit to 90%. They then classified second hand smoke as a Group A Carcinogen.
This was openly fraudulent science, but it formed the basis for bans on smoking in restaurants, offices, and airports. California banned public smoking in 1995. Soon, no claim was too extreme. By 1998, the Christian Science Monitor was saying that "Second-hand smoke is the nation's third-leading preventable cause of death." The American Cancer Society announced that 53,000 people died each year of second-hand smoke. The evidence for this claim is nonexistent.
In 1998, a Federal judge held that the EPA had acted improperly, had "committed to a conclusion before research had begun", and had "disregarded information and made findings on selective information." The reaction of Carol Browner, head of the EPA was: "We stand by our science....there's wide agreement. The American people certainly recognize that exposure to second hand smoke brings...a whole host of health problems." Again, note how the claim of consensus trumps science. In this case, it isn't even a consensus of scientists that Browner evokes! It's the consensus of the American people.
Meanwhile, ever-larger studies failed to confirm any association. A large, seven-country WHO study in 1998 found no association. Nor have well-controlled subsequent studies, to my knowledge. Yet we now read, for example, that second hand smoke is a cause of breast cancer. At this point you can say pretty much anything you want about second-hand smoke.
As with nuclear winter, bad science is used to promote what most people would consider good policy. I certainly think it is. I don't want people smoking around me. So who will speak out against banning second-hand smoke? Nobody, and if you do, you'll be branded a shill of RJ Reynolds. A big tobacco flunky. But the truth is that we now have a social policy supported by the grossest of superstitions. And we've given the EPA a bad lesson in how to behave in the future. We've told them that cheating is the way to succeed.”
Comment on antarcticice’s comments on Monckton...
Yet again, typically ad hominem attacks (can you see a pattern forming?) For me, the proof of the pudding is in the eating; and the truth is that no Global Warming Lair will dare to enter into a public debate against Monckton. If he’s so easy to refute, why don’t you challenge him? (Get ready for the excuses!)
And I had to laugh at Dana’s final paragraph. He doesn’t “trust a word SPPI says”, but accepts everything RealClimate says without a nanosecond of critical thought. That’s why he’s a Global Warming Lair!
More, in response to Paul...
On the subject of Lindzen and smoking, you say “He said that there was little relationship between smoking and lung cancer in a Newsweek interview.”
OK, thanks for that Paul. However, given that, as you see it, “an idiot with a search engine is not infallible”, you’d have thought you might have helped me out and found the link for me. But apparently not.
Still, I tried really, really hard and managed to find 5 articles on Newsweek which referred to Lindzen, only one of which mentioned smoking. So, one assumes, this is the article you are talking about: http://www.newsweek.com/id/78772
Unfortunately, there is no direct quote from Lindzen on the subject of smoking, only the following from the author...
“Lindzen clearly relishes the role of naysayer. He'll even expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking.”
But, I reiterate, that is *not* a direct quote from Lindzen. It is what the article’s author, Fred Guterl, says.
As I pointed out above, I “found numerous sites mentioning that he thinks *passive* smoking is harmless”.
Now, I base my conclusions on *evidence*. I’m aware that that is not a concept that you are familiar with, but it’s what I use. So, I have a plethora of quotes saying that Lindzen has doubts about a link between *passive* smoking and lung cancer, while you have one quote from the author of an article in Newsweek who is summarising Lindzen’s comments.
Now, I look at this evidence and the conclusion I draw is that this Fred Guterl has probably misunderstood, or misquoted what Lindzen said.
You, on the other hand, ignore any and all evidence that contradicts your belief that Lindzen thinks there’s no link between smoking and cancer, and absolutely believe it based on one Newsweek comment that the evidence suggests is wrong.
Well, that’s why you’re a Global Warming Lair, I suppose.