Tobacco Science Vs. Climate Change Science

Posted by | February 16, 2015 23:00 | Filed under: Contributors Opinion Planet Stuart Shapiro

Republish
Reprint


In my latest column for The Hill, I look at how opponents of tobacco regulation denied the science for years and how we may be repeating history with climate change.

When the science is as clear as it is on climate change or tobacco, eventually the public and then their representatives move toward the scientific consensus. The question is how long is “eventually”? For tobacco, resistance to the science cost untold thousands of lives. With climate change, the cost of delay could be even greater.

All you have to do is click to “like” us on Facebook

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2015 Liberaland
By: Stuart Shapiro

Stuart is a professor and the Director of the Public Policy
program at the Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers
University. He teaches economics and cost-benefit analysis and studies
regulation in the United States at both the federal and state levels.
Prior to coming to Rutgers, Stuart worked for five years at the Office
of Management and Budget in Washington under Presidents Clinton and
George W. Bush.

7 responses to Tobacco Science Vs. Climate Change Science

  1. Mike February 18th, 2015 at 16:19

    And in 2015 we still have 40 million smokers…That’s 40 million people who know smoking will harm them yet still choose to do it…why would you ever think Climate Change would be different???

  2. Mike February 18th, 2015 at 17:19

    And in 2015 we still have 40 million smokers…That’s 40 million people who know smoking will harm them yet still choose to do it…why would you ever think Climate Change would be different???

  3. NickD February 19th, 2015 at 03:20

    I do not believe you can compare the two. The characterization of the chemicals in tobacco is completed by either using reagents to identify the chemical, measure it indirectly using reactions, Mass Spec, chromatography or Magnetic Resonance. Climate warming, now climate change is not all similar. The models use have wide variance (weak confidence) and 98% of the models hypothesized a temperature SIGNIFICANTLY higher. Science is based on objectivity, not emotion, sensationalism and special population desires.

    • Roctuna February 20th, 2015 at 21:08

      Let’s take Michael Mann’s famous hockey stick. The variance you refer to is less than 0.5 degrees. I leave it to the objective LL reader to make their own decision on the trends, but I think they’re obvious.

  4. ComMedic66 February 19th, 2015 at 04:20

    I do not believe you can compare the two. The characterization of the chemicals in tobacco is completed by either using reagents to identify the chemical, measure it indirectly using reactions, Mass Spec, chromatography or Magnetic Resonance. Climate warming, now climate change is not all similar. The models use have wide variance (weak confidence) and 98% of the models hypothesized a temperature SIGNIFICANTLY higher. Science is based on objectivity, not emotion, sensationalism and special population desires.

    • Roctuna February 20th, 2015 at 22:08

      Let’s take Michael Mann’s famous hockey stick. The variance you refer to is less than 0.5 degrees. I leave it to the objective LL reader to make their own decision on the trends, but I think they’re obvious.

  5. thud March 1st, 2015 at 18:37

    Cuz it’s apple’s and oranges.

Leave a Reply