New Health Hazard

Those who have been following my intermittent threads, know that Second Hand Smoke Legislation is one of my major peeves. The risk from exposure is so minor that only the most paranoid should concern themselves.

In previous posts, I mentioned that the health risk from working in a smoky bar is less than the health risk from, a couple bags of microwave pop corn, or a can of pop every day.

In an Editorial for Jerry Agar's Blog over on the WLS website, I explore a new threat that needs to be banned from all workplaces:

Cell phones!

entire post

Dodgeball Analyzed

After posting my Dodgeball Routine The Great Orac arose from his slumber. He posted it over at his site so all his scientist buddies could hurl a couple rubber balls back at me. I’m resisting the urge to point out how many of them still throw like girls.

So now that the Science has weighed in, the consensus clearly demonstrates, there is absolutely no scientific evidence that I am a comedian. So perhaps I should try and explain my bit as it were a thesis, which is the level so many scientists want to argue with it.

Remember I'm in the Entertainment Business, and if I were to start reading scientific papers every night, I would be completely out of the business. I would be as broke a a scientist without a grant, and as lonely as a game of Dungeons and Dragons. The nature of Comedy requires that I omit some of the fine details to keep the routine light and fast moving.

If I had to turn this routine into a thesis, my premise was not that Global Warming isn’t happening, but that the consensus is insufficient to warrant legislative action. As I have been told on numerous occasions, there is no reason to debate Global Warming; it is already settled. Global Warming is happening, and it is man made. Those who have called me a denier are not only fabricating a straw man, they are also coming dangerously close to violating the rule against invoking Nazis. There is a big difference between denying a historical fact like the Holocaust, and being skeptical about the consequences of a theory.

My first bit compares Al Gore to Pat Robertson, who both have blamed hurricanes on the activities of humans. While most scientists agree that Pat Robertson is being goofy, not many recognize that Al Gore is being goofy as well. There is no scientific agreement that Hurricanes are caused by Homosexuals or Global Warming; so giving one man trophies, while laughing at the other is nothing more than zealous bigotry. It’s like Catholics laughing at Buddhists for praying to a statue.

Next, we move on to the strength of a consensus. By using examples of historic scientific consensus, that turned out to be wrong, I illustrate how meaningless a consensus can be. Orac loves to point this out as a gotcha, since a failure of science in the past is no indication of it’s current veracity. In fact “The Science Has Been Wrong Before” is a well documented fallacy .

Right now, consensus only gives a 90% chance of a anthropomorphic signal in the observed warming to date. In horse racing terms, that translates to 9 to 1. So betting against future Global Warming catastrophes is a long shot for sure, but not improbable. And if I were betting on a horse with roughly those odds, I might point out to a handicapper, that Seabiscuit in his first race at Aqueduct came in at 26 to 1. That is what I did here. I pointed out that betting on the scientists isn’t always a sure thing, and sometimes it pays off to back a long shot.

Proposals for reducing human impact on the climate include higher taxes, and more expensive energy technologies. Which means that the economy will impacted negatively. Already the small increase in energy costs over the past year is slowing growth, and raising food prices. And if, gas at three bucks a gallon, hasn’t decreased the demand, taxes would have to get that price a lot higher before CO2 levels start decreasing. So we know that any solution to the “crisis” is 100% certain to impact our economy negatively. You don’t put forth legislation that is 100% certain to slow the economy for a theory that is only 90% probable. It is a really bad bet.

Next, I point out that much of what Al Gore says, just apocalyptic rhetoric, because only bad things are predicted to come about from Global Warming. The DVD recorder skipped here so a lot of the point I made didn’t get recorded. Certainly there should be some benefits to Global Warming, and in fact there is science to indicate that warmer weather is good for humanity. I like warm weather. Which is why I personally think we should encourage Global Warming.

Rather than taking a balanced look at the possible outcomes of a warmer climate, many just point to the bad. It is impossible for every result of Global Warming to be harmful. Nature doesn’t care if something is good for humanity or bad for humanity. In fact, Nature has done everything in it’s power to try and eliminate humanity from the face of the earth, and in a victory of Evolution, we survived. (Our use of petroluem is one reason we won the fight.) To say petroleum consumption will result in more human suffering is just moralizing. Which isn’t science, it’s religion.

There is such a rush to scare people, that every disaster gets blamed on global warming. This sometimes causes humorous contradictions, and occasionally a completely ridiculous claim. The diapered astronaut being blamed on AGW was a joke of exaggeration. But that doesn’t mean that equally ridiculous claims are not made: The Secretary General of the United Nations actually blamed Global Warming for the genocide in Darfur. With a straight face.

Well then, if there is no certainty that Global Warming is catastrophic, why would anyone insist that we need things like a carbon tax? Here is where I lose most of the scientists (the Dodgeball Routine). I chronicle the dramatic descent of a smart young boy into the perdition of Socialism. I speculate that there is envy and a desire to control within the hearts of some scientists. Not all scientists, just enough to give my argument some weight. I have met many highly educated people who believe a persons wealth should be in proportion to his education. They claim there’s something wrong with this country, when a guy like Bill Gates could drop out of college and become the world’s wealthiest man. These are the people to whom this bit is dedicated.

Often people without money or power, resent those who have it. Socialism attracts people wrought with envy and impotence. And just like alcoholics often find themselves working in a bar, Socialists often find cover within the environmental movement. The regulations and confiscatory taxation often proposed as environmental solutions, are virtually indistinguishable from Socialism.

And I’m not buying that science supported Al Gore claiming 20 feet. If the 20 foot rise is possible, then why did the IPCC settle on 23 inches by 2100? According to the IPCC: ”Larger values cannot be excluded, but understanding of these effects is too limited to assess their likelihood or provide a best estimate or an upper bound for sea level" Which means it "might" go higher, but there is no consensus on when the 20 foot rise would occur, or if it ever will. If you are arguing from the authority of the consensus, you have to go with 23 inches figure. Which is what I did.

When Gore demonstrated the impact on the world, he used a current map of population centers. That indicated he believed that the twenty-foot rise was imminent. Which was a clearly a scare tactic. Populations can move quite a bit over decades, there is no way anyone is going to sit in one spot as the ocean rises over their heads. New Orleans lost half its population after the last deluge, I can’t imagine that many would stick around if it happens again. Perhaps in another 100 years, the French Quarter will be a really cool dive site. The history of the world is full of population migrations, and I don’t think that’s ever going to change, whether we pass Kyoto or not.

Since Most scientists agree that Global Warming doesn’t cause Hurricanes, there is a 10% possibility that they’re wrong (again), some are just responding to envy and a lust for power, and any ocean rise will be small and gradual; the consensus on Global Warming is insufficient to pass any legislation at this time.

Now where’s my Grant money?

11/4: Corrected math error. Odds are actually only 9 to 1 in favor of Global Warming.

entire post

Once More Round the Wheel

I crossed the line. My last shot, certainly got someone’s attention. What I thought was just a spirited debate, is starting to blow a few circuit breakers. My recent post about anti-smokers being power hungry control freaks hit a nerve over at Respectful Insolence, and the normally emotionless and rational Orac has actually gotten angry.

Let me note first, that I never said that proponents of the smoking bans are geeky kids trying to get even with the cool kids that smoke. That’s just reducing my original argument to the point of ridiculousness. What I’ve been saying, is that kids who grew up being bullied, sometimes grow into adulthood with a tendency to bully. The fabled Napoleon Complex is one example of this phenomenon. The way I got treated by scientists, for suggesting that a bicycle emits the same amount of CO2 per mile as a Moped was another. (I still have a few bruises, from what happened on THAT playground.)

I believe that people who were bullied, sometimes grow up to be bureaucrats who use the power of government to push others around, and lose sight of the human aspect. This example certainly fits the dictator I mentioned in my last post (He who Cannot be Named). I did not mean to associate the horrors of his regime with smoking bans. But when you start making the decision that public health is more important than the investments of small business owners, you are invoking tyranny. Sure it’s just a small step towards dictatorship, but it is the same concept.

I think some scientists might also harbor a version of the Bureaucrat Complex. I think when a person spends too much time in the laboratory, he starts looking at everything as a lab experiment. People become less like individuals, and more like figures on a report, that can emotionlessly be pushed around to achieve a favorable result. So what if a few people lose their livelihoods, if it will marginally increase public health? (Orac suggested as much when he inferred that he might have succumbed to the legendary surgeon’s “god complex.”)

I stated that a lot of people in the Minneapolis Food and Beverage Industry have suffered material hardship. (Others have suggested that the link I provided was biased, and without a proper control). In response, Orac pulled up a few “studies.” But before we move on to those, lets look at what the author of that “biased” link (a non-smoker) had to say about his motivations for jumping into the debate:

“My career of 15 years, selling Smokeeter air filtration equipment to bars and restaurants came to an abrupt end once the debate for smoking bans began ...

During that time period of being unemployed, without the ability to continue making car payments my vehicle quickly fell into repossession status, and eventually was surrendered. Without the ability to continue making child support payments a family court judge decided I was in contempt and ordered me to jail. Without the ability to continue making mortgage payments our home quickly fell into foreclosure status, the sheriff's sale ocurred on May 5, 2006, and as it currently stands we are to be evicted”

Ouch. That’s kind of hard to look at when you get real close isn’t it? This kind of suffering never shows up in “studies.” And his story is only one of hundreds. I’m telling you, the loss is real. I’ve talked to a lot of the people with stories similar to the ones on his list.

A friend of mine owns a restaurant connected to a small bar. Since he is a bit of a gourmand, he made the restaurant portion of his establishment non-smoking, long before the ban. The bar side of his restaurant, catered to an entirely different crowd. A factory down the street was a boon for his business, since workers could walk there for lunch, and after shift drinks. It also served as a place where diners could enjoy a cigarette with their aperitif, or a smoke after dinner.

When the ban passed, the bar went entirely empty. No more lunch crowd, no shift change, and the smokers all rush straight outside after dinner. He told me that the ban has cost him close to $125K per year in lost revenue. Fortunately, his restaurant is successful enough to keep him afloat, but as he told me, “If I had been just a mom and pop, beer and a shot bar (like most of the ones that closed are) the ban would have devastated me. None of those smaller operations could bear a loss like that.”

But if you want statics. Let’s take a look at some of the links Orac provided in his response:

This one was from a group headed by Dr. Stanton Glantz and “supported by grants from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.” Pardon me, if I don’t take that one seriously. I would be laughed out of the room if I sent anyone to a link on the Phillip Morris website, for a study compiled by Richard Lindzen. I trust Orac will grant me the same courtesy here.

His second link, cites a New York Times article. It is a questionable study done by comparing tax revenue and employment in restaurants before and after the ban. I don’t really put a lot of credibility in this methodology. However the study concluded, that by those proxies, that New York Food and Beverage business is up. But deeper in the article is a suggestion why:

''The increase in tax payments and jobs must be weighed against the restaurant industry's emergence from the post-9/11 recession, said David Rabin, president of the New York Nightlife Association”

A perfectly reasonable criticism since the study compared tax revenues from 2003 to 2002; less than a year after 9/11. It seems to me that this would have set off a big red light for a scientist as skeptical as Orac. But what makes it even more questionable is the following statement:

“The report does not reflect the harsh realities faced by the city's bars, which catered to a smoking-heavy crowd before the ban, said bar merchants, who questioned why bar data was not separate in the report. The city's answer is that data that separates bars from restaurants is not reliable, said Sam Miller, a spokesman for the Department of Finance.”

Not reliable? Or maybe it didn’t fit well into their agenda. Such a possibility seems to be proven on the third link. I don’t even think Orac bothered reading the original report this article was based on. (Bad Orac!) If he had, he certainly would have had his interest piqued by the following:

“For the remaining two categories of businesses, revenues decreased from 2004 to 2005. The rate of decrease for neighborhood bars was 4.15 percent, and for downtown clubs, 0.09 percent. “

Furthermore, during that same time frame, bars and restaurants had raised their prices around 15% to pay for the Minnesota minimum wage hike. So actually, tax revenues should have been up 15% over that time frame. If statistics were compiled from bars and restaurants outside of the Twin Cities, it would have given a much better perspective on the true state of the Industry. Comparing revenue to the previous year is an inferior control.

It seems my claim of a recession in the Twin Cities Food and Beverage Industry isn’t specious. I ask again: Why must every bar be smoke free? There is obviously a market for smoking bars in America. Orac, as a non-smoker, might not understand the concept; but it is real. His insistence that all bars must become smoke free, (just because that is how He chooses to drink) is why I accused him of tyrannical behavior.

Here’s the Slagle Compromise: Currently 20% of the population in the United States are smokers. Why not allow States to allow 20% of all liquor licenses to be designated “Smoking Allowed.” They could originally take bids for the licenses, after which they become property of the establishments. Ultimately they could trade smoking exemptions amongst themselves. So a bar that relies on smokers for it’s business could buy an exemption from an establishment that wants to open a non-smoking restaurant. This way, 80% of the bars and restaurants would be smoke free, and smokers could still find a bar or two where they could light up. Non-smoking waitresses who didn’t want to expose themselves to the 1.2 risk of heath complications, would still be able to find work in the other 80% of the bars and restaurants. (I still think some non-smoking waitresses would rather work in the smoking bars, because it is my understanding that smokers are much better tippers).

I think this is a perfectly reasonable solution to the dilemma. However, it runs contrary to what I believe is the ultimate goal of the Anti-Smoking Lobby: Complete Tobacco Prohibition. Those who doubt me, need to reacquaint themselves, with the concept of incrementalism.

Correction: I originally misread the New York Times article. I thought the tax revenue was averaged over the amount of restaurants. Most certainly, a closed bar would be reflected in total tax receipts, which was how the study was conducted. I have applied changes to the article to reflect this realization.

entire post