Scary as it relates to the tobacco prohibitions world.

[rothenbj]

This article relates to global warming and it's deniers. However, with the "scientific consensus" that tobacco control likes to market, all e cig research could be in danger based on TC's claim of "sun revolves around the earth, e cig smoking".

Philosophy Professor Wants To Criminalize Scientific Dissent - Hit & Run : Reason.com

 

[Kent C]

Some science mags have prevented any dissenting articles or comments. Universities have pulled tenure of professors/scientist that not only dissent, but in some cases, have dissented in only one area of the subject. And there's been a call for incarceration (and in some cases execution) of dissenters.

In tobacco and ecigarettes, we've seen the first step - refusing and scrubbing dissenting articles and comments.

 

[DrMA]

Some science mags have prevented any dissenting articles or comments. Universities have pulled tenure of professors/scientist that not only dissent, but in some cases, have dissented in only one area of the subject. And there's been a call for incarceration (and in some cases execution) of dissenters.

In tobacco and ecigarettes, we've seen the first step - refusing and scrubbing dissenting articles and comments.

Agreed. There's enough censorship going on in the "peer review" and editorial process. They might not be burning the dissenters at the stake in person anymore, but a lot of careers continue to be destroyed for challenging the accepted dogma. This is particularly true in the tobacco control field, but it happens in other fields as well. I know from personal experience that it's nearly impossible to publish research findings that do not agree to the "t" with the established "consensus" of a scientific field.

 

[Kent C]

Agreed. There's enough censorship going on in the "peer review" and editorial process. They might not be burning the dissenters at the stake in person anymore, but a lot of careers continue to be destroyed for challenging the accepted dogma. This is particularly true in the tobacco control field, but it happens in other fields as well. I know from personal experience that it's nearly impossible to publish research findings that do not agree to the "t" with the established "consensus" of a scientific field.

I forgot to mention the "squeezing out" via peer review censorship. As regarding 'to the "t" - more elaboration.... Some Climatologists agree with most but may not like some surface stations - where surface temperature is measured - in the middle of a blacktop parking lot, above a barbeque grill, in the immediate area of jet wash near and airport, and in a cabinet that has a 40 watt light going on inside at all times (all true and with photographic evidence).

Some agree the earth is warming but that it's not man-made; agree that it's warming and man-made but disagree with the solutions; some agree with all but regard sunspots as more operative, etc. etc., this list is quite lengthy and they're all out of jobs now.

One could likely make up a similar list for ecigarettes.

 

[rothenbj]

The earth is constantly changing as are it's inhabitants. Not to .... heads with the creationists, but that is the historical truth.

 

[zanedog]

I like the following, the media only ever quotes the part I've highlighted in red. Sometimes it's what is not reported that is just as important as what is reported.


In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. 97% of the scientists surveyed agreed that global temperatures had increased during the past 100 years; 84% said they personally believed human-induced warming was occurring, and 74% agreed that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiated its occurrence. Catastrophic effects in 50–100 years would likely be observed according to 41%, while 44% thought the effects would be moderate and about 13 percent saw relatively little danger. 5% said they thought human activity did not contribute to greenhouse warming.[

 

[Kent C]

I like the following, the media only ever quotes the part I've highlighted in red. Sometimes it's what is not reported that is just as important as what is reported.


In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. 97% of the scientists surveyed agreed that global temperatures had increased during the past 100 years; 84% said they personally believed human-induced warming was occurring, and 74% agreed that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiated its occurrence. Catastrophic effects in 50–100 years would likely be observed according to 41%, while 44% thought the effects would be moderate and about 13 percent saw relatively little danger. 5% said they thought human activity did not contribute to greenhouse warming.[

More recently - 11/2013 - George Mason University conducted another survey - this time contacting all members of the American Meteorological Society - More than 1,800 AMS meteorologists filled out the survey, and the so-called 'consensus' of 'warming and man-made' is down to 52%. The other 48 percent either questioned whether global warming is happening or would not ascribe human activity as the primary cause.

The Latest Meteorologist Survey Destroys The Global Warming Climate 'Consensus' - Forbes

I wish we'd see that type of fallout among the ANTZ as more information comes in...

I'm not holding my breath

 

[zanedog]

 

[molimelight]

Some science mags have prevented any dissenting articles or comments. Universities have pulled tenure of professors/scientist that not only dissent, but in some cases, have dissented in only one area of the subject. And there's been a call for incarceration (and in some cases execution) of dissenters.

In tobacco and ecigarettes, we've seen the first step - refusing and scrubbing dissenting articles and comments.

OK, I'll bite. Please cite specifics here. Where, when, who, date, article, university, etc.? Both the first part regarding universities and the second part about e-cigarette research that's been refused or scrubbed.

It takes a lot to pull tenure from a professor at a US university. Is it done? Yes, but rarely and for far more than dissenting on a popular view of other faculty members. If a professor started saying evolution is untrue, that we were all created from Adam's rib, or started denying the Holocaust, then he would probably lose his tenure. If a dissenting view is supported by good, well documented research I can't see other faculty members calling for someone's tenure just for the fact that they have a different viewpoint. Peer review is just that, a review of research by others knowledgeable in the the specific field. Again, if an article is rejected it is not due to the fact that it dissents from a popular viewpoint, but rather due to shoddy research design and leaps of logic that are not supported by the evidence. If you are going to go against accepted theories based on years of research, you had best back up your dissent with good research that supports your dissenting view. The scientific community has always worked this way. While it may make it difficult for dissenting views to be heard, it provides a stability and cohesion to research that would not be there if every theory is given equal weight and discussion. And if a person's dissenting view is presented with solid research and explanations, others will take it on and see if those results can be duplicated. If they are duplicated, eventually the scientific community is forced to accept the new viewpoint. Are some dissenting theories rejected by the scientific community? Absolutely, but due mostly to the fact that it's just poorly designed, executed, and written research, not because of any conspiracy.

I just think that there are enough roadblocks to researching e-cigarettes, that the viewpoint that there is a conspiracy keeping down good research serves no one. We are at the beginning of something brand new. It is such a new technology, that's changing every day, that there are no established parameters for research. Good research, well done will have a voice. Dr. Farsalinos is a good example of that.

 

[swampergene]

Well said molimelight.

I think regarding ecigarettes the issues begin once you get outside the scientific community. Solid research means nothing to a politician with an agenda, who will twist, distort, and outright lie to make science "fit" their cause.

 

[DrMA]

Next time you meet Dr. F at a vape conference, ask him how many of his submissions came back without review, or with raving personal attacks instead of actual peer review.

I'm not saying there's a conspiracy, but peer review is not the perfect shiny example of unbiased academic opinion you make it to be. Like any human system, it has drawbacks and limitations, not the least of which are the personal beliefs and perception biases of the reviewers themselves. Do you really see Glantz as a reviewer ever accepting any paper submitted by Siegel?

 

[Kent C]

OK, I'll bite. Please cite specifics here. Where, when, who, date, article, university, etc.? Both the first part regarding universities and the second part about e-cigarette research that's been refused or scrubbed.

Information about lost tenure and the refusing peer review, and the Science mag proclamation is in many places. "The Skeptical Environmentalist" by Bjørn Lomborg is a good source as is almost any book by Christopher Horner but the one that focuses on the discriminatory practices and the tenure problem is "Red Hot Lies".

Should newspapers ban letters from climate science deniers? | Graham Readfearn | Environment | theguardian.com

As far as ecigarettes go, almost anyone here who has made comments to various publications can tell you that they've had comments deleted and in some cases emails not to post. I can't recall the publication that stopped articles from being published. Perhaps someone else here can chime in, but it was an article by Clive Bates (Or perhaps Phillips) where he reported the 'new rule' that an editor made. It was posted here in the last couple of months. Seems like also the LA Times was not allowing pro-ecig articles as well. If you don't believe me on that, that's fine with me, but almost everyone else here knows what I'm talking about.

 

[Kent C]

Next time you meet Dr. F at a vape conference, ask him how many of his submissions came back without review, or with raving personal attacks instead of actual peer review.

I'm not saying there's a conspiracy, but peer review is not the perfect shiny example of unbiased academic opinion you make it to be. Like any human system, it has drawbacks and limitations, not the least of which are the personal beliefs and perception biases of the reviewers themselves. Do you really see Glantz as a reviewer ever accepting any paper submitted by Siegel?

I'm just assuming that Bill G, Dr F, Siegel and Phillips have all run into this at one time or another. But it seems like the last one I saw was from Clive Bates link here in this forum.

 

[wv2win]

Some science mags have prevented any dissenting articles or comments. Universities have pulled tenure of professors/scientist that not only dissent, but in some cases, have dissented in only one area of the subject. And there's been a call for incarceration (and in some cases execution) of dissenters.

In tobacco and ecigarettes, we've seen the first step - refusing and scrubbing dissenting articles and comments.

This makes me think if an interesting segue about how a group of professors at Rutgers University, New Jersey requested that the university resend an invitation to Condoleezza Rice to speak because she was President Bush's Secretary of State and planned to boycott the speech and encourage their students to do the same. This is the same state that is proposing taxes on vaping equivalent to analogs.

 

[Kent C]

This makes me think if an interesting segue about how a group of professors at Rutgers University, New Jersey requested that the university resend an invitation to Condoleezza Rice to speak because she was President Bush's Secretary of State and planned to boycott the speech and encourage their students to do the same. This is the same state that is proposing taxes on vaping equivalent to analogs.

Yeah, it's a "conspiracy"

 

[molimelight]

Next time you meet Dr. F at a vape conference, ask him how many of his submissions came back without review, or with raving personal attacks instead of actual peer review.

I'm not saying there's a conspiracy, but peer review is not the perfect shiny example of unbiased academic opinion you make it to be. Like any human system, it has drawbacks and limitations, not the least of which are the personal beliefs and perception biases of the reviewers themselves. Do you really see Glantz as a reviewer ever accepting any paper submitted by Siegel?

I understand where you're coming from and agree to a point. There are many professors, I'm sure, who harbor resentments and ill will toward other academicians that have nothing to do with research or science. I had a run in with one when I was doing a psych research project where I had to go the the Dean of Instruction to get this professor to allow me to have access to his students to collect post treatment data. Had I not been able to, my research would have been worthless and I would have flunked the research class. He actually threatened me with some Tai-Kwon-Do (sp?) physical harm after the dean ruled in my favor. But, in spite of it's warts, I have faith in science and the system (in a free and open society) to work toward truth (whatever that may be) in the long run. I got 5 hours of A for the research class by the way.

I think part of the problem Dr. F ran into was a lack of understanding of E-Cigarettes by others in his field. While I'm sure it hasn't gone away, I think it is changing and he's becoming more respected and recognized as an authority in a brand new field. I think we will also gain more advocates as we go along. And by advocates, I just mean people like Dr. F who are willing to learn about vaping and build solid research that will support it at least as harm reduction and could actually lead to improvements in the vaping experience and vaping products.

I've always said that I see this as a long term thing. There will be reactionary forces against vaping (Glantz) that will eventually give way to science and reason. As far as global warming goes, I accept the majority view that it is occurring. How much is natural and how much is induced by mankind, I don't know. I do know that we would be brutally stupid to not do everything in our power to reduce it or slow it's growth considering the consequences. I feel the same way about vaping. Considering the harm reduction from cigarettes that it offers, we would be just as brutally stupid to impede its growth.

 

[Sundodger]

As far as global warming goes, I accept the majority view that it is occurring. How much is natural and how much is induced by mankind, I don't know. I do know that we would be brutally stupid to not do everything in our power to reduce it or slow it's growth considering the consequences. I feel the same way about vaping. Considering the harm reduction from cigarettes that it offers, we would be just as brutally stupid to impede its growth.

Who is the "majority view" you speak of? And like the ANTZ where is their money coming from? What exactly are these consequences that we have to stop? A warmer Earth, better growth of plants that feed the populations? Higher water levels on the coasts next to the salt water oceans?

Who is to say what the normal temps for the planet are, the best for the planet and ALL life forms on it? Men in suit coats peering into their computer screens? I have a nephew (PH.D. Marine Biologist) that had to dump all data from a five year project because of the East Anglia email hack. He's as left as it gets, but he now will not trust any of those involved with climate change politics.

I see too much of the same science types quoted, with money behind the curtains to trust anyone to tell me different from what my lungs have been telling me for the last 6 months.

 

[Kent C]

Who is the "majority view" you speak of? And like the ANTZ where is their money coming from? What exactly are these consequences that we have to stop? A warmer Earth, better growth of plants that feed the populations? Higher water levels on the coasts next to the salt water oceans?

Who is to say what the normal temps for the planet are, the best for the planet and ALL life forms on it? Men in suit coats peering into their computer screens? I have a nephew (PH.D. Marine Biologist) that had to dump all data from a five year project because of the East Anglia email hack. He's as left as it gets, but he now will not trust any of those involved with climate change politics.

I see too much of the same science types quoted, with money behind the curtains to trust anyone to tell me different from what my lungs have been telling me for the last 6 months.

Some of the most radical of the global warmers say it can't be stopped. This is why Bjørn Lomborg said the tremendous amount of money and resources that are being used to attempt to reduce carbon to an amount that won't make a difference anyway, should be used for stuff like stopping AIDs and hunger an Africa and other problem in other parts of the world. He was railroaded out of the movement (and Greenpeace) along with death threats - similar to a suggestion that the pro ecig forces just got recently in a post linking to such threats.

When you see that same type of junk science applied to ecigs and the same type of tactics employed - using 'nicotine deniers' or similar to demonize the pro-ecig forces, and the idea that it's a threat to kids to justify stopping, regulating or taxing, it's the same manner used by the global alarmists. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck..... DUCK!

 

[DrMA]

OK guys, this is about ecigs and the tobacco debate. Let's move the global climate change debate Outside.

However, if you want to read more about incompetence in the peer-review process and scientific misconduct in the academia, here's the premier website that tracks these kinds of records: Retraction Watch | Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

This other website http://www.science-fraud.org/ was forced to shut down by pressure from "unknown parties"

 

[Katya]

This article relates to global warming and it's deniers. However, with the "scientific consensus" that tobacco control likes to market, all e cig research could be in danger based on TC's claim of "sun revolves around the earth, e cig smoking".

Philosophy Professor Wants To Criminalize Scientific Dissent - Hit & Run : Reason.com

Not a very original idea, come to think of it.

Eppur si muove!

-Galileo Galilei