2 stories
·
0 followers

Fake Science Gets Smoked—and What It Means for Climate Change

1 Share
(Steven Hayward)

Cast your mind back to the late 1990s, when trial lawyers and state attorneys general were after the tobacco companies for what resulted in the “Master Settlement Agreement” by which the tobacco companies agreed to pay tribute of billions of dollars to the states for decades to come in exchange for relief from the uncertainty of endless private and public litigation. I think it was a great deal for Big Tobacco (how do I know? Just check tobacco stocks since the agreement was struck), and I teach this episode to students as an example of “how the sausage is made” in real politics in the U.S. (especially the lingering constitutional question of whether this agreement violates the Constitution’s state compact clause of Article I, section 10).

In the middle of all this political maneuvering, the Clinton EPA came out with a finding that “second-hand smoke” was nearly as bad for you as first hand smoke, which merely reinforced my view that you should always get your smoke first hand: why take chances? However, like the “social cost of carbon” calculation of the Obama EPA used to justify their so-called “Clean Power Plan,” the EPA depended on some statistical latitude that the late Justice Scalia would rightly have called “jiggery-pokery.” In one sentence, the EPA relaxed the standard test for statistical significance in order to generate their “finding.” Because the standard statistical test found little or no effect from second-hand smoke. Hey—when there’s billions of dollars in tobacco money to loot at stake, what scientific rigor among friends? How convenient that the government would come out with such a finding at a key moment. I’m sure it was just a coincidence.

This kind of statistical exactitude is over the heads of most Americans and all mainstream media journalists, so the EPA got away with it, just as they are trying to get away with the “social cost of carbon.” (Aside: The Trump Administration ought to commission an OMB study of the “social cost of bureaucrats.”) When scientifically literate observes tried to blow the whistle on the EPA’s relaxing of standard tests of statistical significance, the anti-smoking lobby called the critics “tobacco deniers,” a prelude to linking climate skeptics to “tobacco deniers,” which is quite wrong, though the media rolls with it, naturally.

This is all prelude to a terrific story at Slate that demolishes the second-hand smoke thesis. Slate. Let that sink in. It’s a long story, detailing how one semi-anecdotal “Helena study” of a spurious correlation was used to justify anti-smoking measures around the world, but turns out to be total crap.  Kudos to Slate for this.  It’s a long story and you should read the whole thing if you can, but here are some extensive excerpts:

We Used Terrible Science to Justify Smoking Bans

By Jacob Grier

. . . When the Helena study and its heirs were originally published, a few scientists noted that the results were wildly implausible and the methodologies deeply flawed. So did a handful of journalists, including Jacob Sullum writing for Reason (to which I am also a contributor) and Christopher Snowdon in England. Yet their criticism was generally ignored. Studies reporting miraculous declines in heart attacks made global headlines; when better studies came along contradicting those results, they barely registered a blip in the media. As Jonathan Swift said in an apt aphorism, “Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it.” Too late to help smokers banished from public life.

There were good reasons from the beginning to doubt that smoking bans could really deliver the promised results, but anti-smoking advocacy groups eagerly embraced alarmism to shape public perception. Today’s tobacco control movement is guided by ideology as much as it is by science, prone to hyping politically convenient studies regardless of their merit and ostracizing detractors. . .

Read the whole thing, which is devastating to the anti-smoking advocates.

No serious person thinks smoking is not bad for your health. But the overreach on second-hand smoke is a perfect case study of what happens when an issue become badly politicized. There were no “smoking deniers”—just  some scrupulous people who noted scientists and policy makers were cutting corners, but who got slimed for doing so. That’s what so-called “climate deniers” are doing today, and the same thing is going to become apparent about the climate change cabal someday, and for the same reasons. This is why I have complete contempt for the “climatistas,” even if warming turns out to be a serious problem. The issue doesn’t deserve the mountebanks who have perverted the science and policy of the whole domain.

Read the whole story
darrylhiestand
216 days ago
reply
Share this story
Delete

From the Annals of Scientific Objectivity

1 Share
(Steven Hayward)

In the last few years the virtues of a low-fat diet have gradually come undone, though some “nutritional anthropologists” keep the faith like those Japanese soldiers in the island jungles who refused be believe World War II was over. Yesterday the Washington Post reported on how the full data from a major nutrition study that helped cement the old conventional wisdom was never fully analyzed, but might have saved us from error (and saved some lives) if it had been:

It was one of the largest, most rigorous experiments ever conducted on an important diet question: How do fatty foods affect our health? Yet it took more than 40 years  — that is, until today —  for a clear picture of the results to reach the public. . .

Today, the principles of that special diet — less saturated fat, more vegetable oils — are included in the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, the government’s official diet advice book. Yet the fuller accounting of the data indicates that the advice is, at best, unsupported by the massive trial. In fact, it appears to show just the opposite:  Patients who lowered their cholesterol, presumably because of the special diet, actually suffered more heart-related deaths than those who did not. . .

The new researchers, led by investigators from the National Institutes of Health and the University of North Carolina, conclude that the absence of the data over the past 40 years or so may have led to a misunderstanding of this key dietary issue.

“Incomplete publication has contributed to the overestimation of benefits and underestimation of potential risks” of the special diet, they wrote.

Good thing this could never happen with climate science. What’s that you say?

But Broste suggested that at least part of the reason for the incomplete publication of the data might have been human nature. The Minnesota investigators had a theory that they believed in — that reducing blood cholesterol would make people healthier. Indeed, the idea was widespread and would soon be adopted by the federal government in the first dietary recommendations. So when the data they collected from the mental patients conflicted with this theory, the scientists may have been reluctant to believe what their experiment had turned up.

“The results flew in the face of what people believed at the time,” said Broste. “Everyone thought cholesterol was the culprit. This theory was so widely held and so firmly believed — and then it wasn’t borne out by the data. The question then became: Was it a bad theory? Or was it bad data? … My perception was they were hung up trying to understand the results.”

Read the whole story
darrylhiestand
527 days ago
reply
Share this story
Delete