You're overthinking it -- I think.

I am not a statistician. I wild admit that the burden of proof properly rests on the side that makes the positive assertion (for instance "This causes that.")
--However, whatever evidence exists in favor of some foods/drinks versus others, the fact is that
smoke is neither food nor drink; it does not natu-
rally belong in the body, and its initial introduction is likely to cause coughing, or other
physical discomfort. It is really unwise to get
into such a habit. (Not to mention the stench,
extremely offensive to a non-practicioner). I can
see why an addict would have a motivation to
convince people (or primarily, himself) that it is
not harmful, but I have to disagree (with all due
respect to anyone, whatever that person's a-
chievements, who tried to glamorize it).

Maybe intellectually honest would work. There one would at least recognize when they really do not know and need to fudge a little.

Well put.

A good friend of mine used to deny the risks of smoking. Then, he admitted that he quit when they were wheeling him into the cath lab for angioplasty while the nurse explained how smoking makes your blood sticky. Luckily, my friend is still alive...and is a real character.

For smoking and cancer, as well as asbestos, there is some strong anecdotal evidence. For global warming, absolutely none. If you looked closely at "Climategate", it is not a hoax, it's worse: "scientists" working to "prove" a preordained conclusion handed to them by governments. An international State Science Institute.

In the case of my example the 2nd hand smoke was used to simply complete the comparison. You are right, though, no one is fully rational, not even a computer since they are programed by men. But in using the term rational, it usually means mostly rational. However, that is a clumsy term. I think most people understand that rational when applied to a human being infers the baggage that goes along with it, otherwise we'd need to specify just how rational in every case. 10%, 5%, 15%? You get the point.

That's all nice and good, but all one has to do is look at the lung tissue from someone who has smoked for years and compare it to someone who hasn't to see pretty clearly that smoking isn't good for you. One can rail on and on about causation (or lack thereof), but the physical evidence is there in the lungs. I think what is amazing is that people who quit smoking heal - even if they smoked for years. It can take months to completely rebuild all the alveoli destroyed by smoking, but it can happen. But what strikes me is that if the body is repairing damage, how someone would discount this reality in an attempt to downplay the very real dangers of smoking (which do include cancer) is to me avoidance of reality.

Re-Tobacco companies and second hand smoking. It's a political, not scientific matter. It was very important step in the modern trait of vilification of the business to present capitalists as profiting from illness and death. It was also important statist further curbing of property rights by regulation of smoking in private establishments.

CO2 in the upper troposphere is likely the way the atmosphere releases radiation to space because the 99% of gases of the atmosphere N2, O2, and Ar do not radiate well but hold energy and thus have temperature which has to be radiated to space. CO2 can be heated by them and then radiate the energy away and then with convection working, the lapse rate of about 6 deg C decrease per kilometer comes about. At least that is the way I understand it.

You might update that to no people are fully rational, since, as far as I know, they will go to great extents of mental gymnastics to protect their own beliefs even when confronted with the contrary. I would say that everyone has those little moments when some cherished belief is in danger enough to throw in a little tiny bit of mental dishonesty.
Decades ago, the second hand smoke study results were somewhat shaky due to two studies showing benefits to secondhand smoke and the evidence not being clear at the standard significance level so the level was reduced to make the studies look significant.

You can "prove" anything with statistics. Especially if you make them up.

Correlation is not causation.
Good one. I shall "borrow" that in the future.

Exactly.

There is a higher incidence of respiratory illnesses among smokers, but as I stated there are too many variables to make it a certainty.

Anything put forth by Algore should be completely discounted. His advocacy of "climate change" is motivated by self-aggrandizement, and a way to make large sums of money. I have no complaint with making large sums of money, but not by promoting a fraud.

Rarely is anything done by the state logical. That is a mistake that rational people often make because they find it difficult to believe that anyone can progress merrily on not using their faculties.

Anyone who tries to prove that climate change is or is not happening is attacking a straw man. Everyone knows the climate and temperature change over geological ages. The important questions to ask about climate change are (1) is it likely to have any ill effects on humans, or on anything that humans depend on? (2) If yes, what is the most effective, cheapest, and fastest way to stop it or alleviate the ill effects?

So far, Gregory Benford's boatload of iron filings appears a much better answer to (2) than the Al Gore program of cutting back on energy use. But even that may very well be unnecessary, because no one on either side of the debate has even tried to answer (1) yet.

Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

I've never smoked in my life, as I observed as a youth its effects on my parents and other relatives.

But that was my personal choice.

In terms of real science, there is no evidence of direct causality, or not nearly enough, to hold tobacco companies legally responsible.

I also highly doubt the "evidence" of second hand smoke and the legal restrictions mandated.

To me, that is the same as the much more serious power grab over AGW.

Exactly. Statistics operate with chances, probabilities, not actual causation.

This is wonderful stuff. Thanks.

We might be able to correlate them. Especially if they are both in this dataset: http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-co...

Personally I find this site amusing - and handy when you need some random correlation to demonstrate to someone that correlation is not causation.

Enjoy! You can indulge in all the vices. Twinkies and whiskey forever.

Statistical analysis provides a way of characterizing observable behavior. While it may reveal correlations and relationships it does not demonstrate a causal link. Statistics can suggest where to look but it cannot reliably predict what you will find when you do so. Statistical analysis is also subject to hidden assumptions. For example, there is a strong correlation between shoe size and mathematical ability. Now this may seem absurd at first but when you realize that a representative sample must include infants it makes sense.

It cannot be claimed that driving too fast will kill you. Too many variables depending on the skill of the driver, the make and model of the car and other considerations. Yet, for the average rational person, the question becomes, "Why take the chance if it is not necessary?" If you like to speed and you are willing to chance it, go for it, but remember to take into consideration the fact that you might kill others. Smoking is actually similar. Like speeding, not everyone who smokes will develop lung cancer or other respiratory illnesses. There is the factor of harming others with secondary smoke. Again, if you are rational, you won't smoke, but if you love doing it, do it in a way that doesn't harm others. Smoke in open air, speed on race tracks or similar venues. Unfortunately, most people are not fully rational. Rationality in the form of what we used to call common sense is no longer taught or appreciated. So it goes.