Too bad we don't have him today to take on AGW propaganda!

A scientific proof of causation requires observation of cause effect connection with certainty which can be independently reproduced. When we use statistics instead we have such a bizzare causes of cancer like cellphone microwave high voltage lines or what have you. The last example of this anti-scientific approach is a claim that vaccines cause autism. Statistically people with blue eyes have much more heart attacks than with brown. Can we really correlate the color of eyes with heart disease?

A scientific proof of causation requires observation of cause effect connection with certainty which can be independently reproduced. When we use statistics instead we have such a bizzare causes of cancer like cellphone microwave high voltage lines or what have you. The last example of this anti-scientific approach is a claim that vaccines cause autism. Statistically people with blue eyes have much more heart attacks than with brown. Can we really correlate the color of eyes with heart disease?

For me the most important thing that this article identifies is that many things do not have correlation/causation proof. Specifically, I thought that with climate change we have the same issue as with smoking. We cannot do a controlled studies of one where we are not emitting any CO2 and one where we do. So, what do we do? We build models. For example, one climate model uses as an initial condition the assumption of CO2 doubles in say 50 years and then they run the model. The model assumes that there is causation between CO2 levels and temperature. The problem is that this is an assumption. There is no proof to substantiate the assumption. Now maybe, like with smoking, there will be an overwhelming preponderance of evidence that leads us all to believe that such a linkage exists, but we don't have it. It could be that CO2 decreases world-wide temperature. Right now we don't know.

I think that causation is different that just a probability. When you can link correlation to causation then you have a proof. Not a formal as a mathematical proof, but can be close.

There cannot be causation unless you have actual studies that confirm it. No such study was done (or could be done) re smoking and cancer. The subjective proof is clear, but that is not a formal statistical proof.

Genetics do have a lot to do with susceptibility to cancer. My family history going back a couple of centuries has zero incidence of any kind of cancer or heart disease. Both my parents smoked until the last few years of their life, and died from unrelated disease in their 80s. However, my kind of stock appears to be rare.

Statistics is never proof for anything. It's applicable only to the large group of people give you only probability that X causes Y. In other words we are talking about potential, not actual reality. Smoking causes certain kind of lung cancer in 1 out of 800 people. So probability is 0,125 %. But that doesn't apply to the real .smoker. For him is always 100 or 0%.So how one can establish cause effect connection based on probability?

Anything that does repeated damage to your body (inside or out) can cause cancer. It's your body's genetic makeup that determines the ease at which you can get cancer.

Facts:
My grandfather was a heavy smoker an died, from cancer, in his 80's.
My grandmother never smoked, yet, died from cancer some years later.
My mother smoked, for years, but quit. She died, from "lung cancer", some 20 years, later.

Direct cause, or environmental conditions? Why did my mother die, 20 years after quitting, yet 7 of her children (raised in a smoke filled environment) continue to thrive into their 70's?

Finally, while the states damn tobacco, they fall over one another to legalize pot. The lack of simple logic astounds me.

I agree that eliminating all possible factors is impossible and therefore causality is not provable. However I am sure that smoking is not a healthy thing to do.

The correlation between smoking and lung cancer is so high that few would argue there is no causation.

It's the poisons they put in cigs that causes problems and Yes, some are more vulnerable to anything but clean air in their lungs. But there are those that think that a virus and pathogens are the real cause of lung cancer. (true, smoking is not a good thing but not a direct cause).
The causes of cancer now are being re-thought finally...accounting for high levels of heavy toxic metals, pesticides etc, candida yeast overrun and a poor immune system, Which anyone on prescription drugs and have been vaccinated to death would fit into that category.

Cancer is such a money maker for the lamestream allopathic sickness system...it's amazing anyone has been able to see thru the bull crap.