By Joseph Archer January 29, 2017
My wife parroted the comment that secondhand smoke is worse for you than firsthand smoke. I was struck by the obvious insanity of the statement – and more importantly, the intellectual laziness of subscribing to it. Now, it is not entirely impossible that 100% of a toxin is less harmful than 5% of a toxin – perhaps air dilution multiplies the toxicity – but to readily accept that assertion is simply intellectual laziness. It would take some really conclusive evidence to believe such a claim, and that evidence does not exist.
Another good example of intellectual laziness is the global warming hypothesis. If all the molecules in the atmosphere were lined up between N.Y. and L.A., with CO2 at the front of the line, you would run out of CO2 before your plane got off the runway. It is called a trace gas because 4 parts in 10,000 is a pretty small fraction. For CO2 to have the impact claimed, it would have to qualify as a supernatural atom. Add to that the facts that CO2 represents only maybe 1% of the global heat retention caused by water and that anthropogenic CO2 is a small fraction of global CO2 production, and it is clear that the anthropogenic CO2 "hypothesis" is simply farcical.
Post a Comment