Second Hand Smoke and Global Warming

Obligatory disclosure - I'm not a smoker, nor do I work for Big Tobacco. Smoking makes no sense to me, and I'm glad that people had the moxie in the 60's and 70's to start demanding no smoking areas, and eventually outlawed smoking on planes. But I'm enough of a libertarian to resent the prohibition, in WV at least, of all indoor smoking, even in bars and restaurants that want to allow smoking. We all have vices, and tobacco is still a legal vice. Why not let people go and smoke with other smokers, and those who want to join them?

The answer is that many of us want to improve other people's lives by eliminating their perceived character defects, rather than working on our own, so we join crusades against other's vices. But that sounds vaguely, well . . . judgmental . . . and it's really none of our business . . . so we come up with other reasons to accomplish the same end. And that "other reason" is a concern about second hand smoke. After all, what about the waitresses and others that have to put up with second hand smoke? (Never mind that no one has a right to any certain job, and everyone is free to leave to find more congenial employment.) We need to rescue people from the unintended effects of smoking by callous, uncaring others, so we prohibit smoking in public places to eliminate the scourge of second hand smoke.

I've always been a bit skeptical of the second hand smoke research, in the same way I've been skeptical of the global warming computer models. It's the absolute certainty of those who announce the study results, in a way that brooks no dissent, that makes me suspicious. I'm not enough of a scientist to pick apart anyone's research, but the explanation of natural climate cycles by global warming deniers always has made more sense for me than the IPCC reports, or the explanations by anyone else on the climate change bandwagon. So I suspect that second hand smoke research, which everyone "knows" to be true, might also be an example of the Emperor's new clothes. It set me to wondering, which led me to Googling, which led me to Dan Hitt's website. It's worth a look from anyone who wants a scientific analysis of major second hand smoke research, and what it really shows. At least it looks scientific to me.