By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
When a medical doctor with no prior record of publication in the learned journals of climate science wanders off the reservation and writes for a collectivist website about the totalitarians’ favorite Trojan horse, global warming, one expects nonsense.
One is not disappointed by: When Scientists Hate Science
Paul Offit is a paediatrician. Yet, in an article for one of the sillier groupthink websites, he considers himself qualified to state that the “climate denialists” President Trump and his appointees to EPA and Energy, Scott Pruitt and Rick Perry, “deny the fact that increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the environment have trapped heat, causing an increase in the Earth’s surface temperature … and consequent climate disruption”.
Offit loses ten points for his deliberate and malicious likening of those who disagree with him to Holocaust deniers. This is mere hate speech – and it is precisely this shrieking tone of quivering, anti-scientific, pseudo-moralistic, unreasoning hatred that has driven voters away from the Left on both sides of the Atlantic and has led to the timely collapse of the mainstream news media’s influence on public opinion.
In fact, Trump and his team cheerfully accept what experiment has established and theory demonstrated – that there is a greenhouse effect, and that some warming is to be expected.
How much “climate disruption” global warming causes, however, is a matter of legitimate scientific debate. Official sources such as IPCC have recently come down generally against the notion that warmer weather worsens floods, droughts, hurricanes and other natural disasters.
Next, Offit snarls, in that tone of perpetual malice: “Although climate change is undeniable, the current administration has managed to deny it.”
Note the calculated looseness and imprecision of the wording. Of course climate change is undeniable. One need only look out of the window to see the coming and going of the seasons. Climate change is cyclical. It has been occurring for about 4 billion years. Get used to it.
As recently as 5000 years ago, what is now the Sahara Desert was green, fertile, and home to lakes considerably larger than the Great Lakes. Then, within 200 years, as the monsoon rains drifted southward owing to the libration of the Earth’s axis, the desert suddenly took hold, driving the inhabitants of that formerly fertile region into Egypt and leading to the flowering of that great civilization.
Now the Sahara is greening, thanks to warmer and hence somewhat moister air. Nomadic tribes have been returning to places where they had not settled in living memory.
No one, therefore, denies that climate changes. No one denies that Man is now capable of exerting some influence on climate. The true scientific debate is about how much change we shall cause (answer: not a lot), and about whether it is cheaper to mitigate global warming today than to adapt to its imagined net-adverse consequences the day after tomorrow (answer: it is 1000 times cheaper to adapt later than to mitigate now).
Though Offit suggests otherwise, the new administration does not “deny” that Man’s energies and enterprises have restored to the air some of the carbon dioxide that was formerly present there.
Inevitably, Offit goes on to recite the Party slogan that “the overwhelming consensus among environmental scientists is that global warming is a real and present threat”.
Offit should get someone to read Legates et al. (2013) to him at bedtime. In that paper, we revealed that only 41, or 0.3%, of 11,944 learned papers on climate and related topics published in the journals over the 21 years 1991-2011 had stated that recent global warming was mostly manmade.
We also revealed that no peer-reviewed survey of a sufficiently large sample of published papers has even asked the question whether those peer-reviewed climate papers state – with evidence – that global warming will prove dangerous. This lack of curiosity is inferentially attributable to an awareness on the part of the dopes who conduct such surveys that they would not get the answer they want.
Not that that stopped Cook et al. (2013) from falsely reporting a 97% consensus when their own records clearly show they found only 64 of those 11,944 papers had explicitly assented to the consensus position as they had defined it: that recent global warming was mostly manmade. Police on three continents are investigating. Prosecutions will follow.
Science is not done by consensus, as Aristotle in the West and Al-Haytham in the East pointed out millennia ago. Totalitarian politics is done by consensus (or, rather, by the pretense of it). Those who argue from consensus, then, demonstrate two things: that they are scientifically illiterate and politically collectivist.
Offit is blissfully unaware of the mere facts I have set out here, for he is one of those drones who know that the only thing they need to know is the Party Line.
He then repeats, straight from the Party handbook, the smear that those of us whose research has led us to question climate extremism are no better than the tobacco corporations who pretended that smoking was good for you long after it was known that it was fatal.
He maunders on to accuse “climate denialists” of drawing inconvenient conclusions from the recent temperature record about the rate of global warming. For 18 years 9 months from 1997 to late in 2015, satellites showed there had been no global warming at all, even though one-third of all anthropogenic influences on climate had occurred over the period.
Offit says: “By examining only the 10-year interval between 1998 and 2008, scientists minimized the problem.” What he should have said was, “By examining a period of almost two decades with no warming, scientists found that the predicted acceleration in the warming trend as CO2 concentration increased was not occurring, and concluded that the predictions had been exaggerated and were wrong.”
But let us help him out in his ignorance by going back further in the record. The warming rate over the 40 years 1694-1733, demonstrated by the Central England Temperature Record, a reasonable proxy for global temperature anomalies, was considerably greater than in any subsequent 40-year period. There were not many coal-fired power stations at the turn of the 18th century.
For good measure, the medieval, Roman, Minoan, Egyptian Old Kingdom and Minoan climate optima were all warmer than the present. And the Holocene Climate Optimum, which prevailed from 10,000 to 6000 years ago, was warmer than the present for four millennia (subject to a brief dip in the middle).
So there is nothing remarkable either about the rate of global warming (except that it is slowing when the climate extremists had predicted it should be accelerating) or about the absolute global temperature (except that it is remarkable only for being unremarkable).
Offit then says “prominent scientists deny scientific truths” because “they are paid to do it”. He cites the unreliable Michael Mann as saying: “The war on climate science may well continue as long as there are fossil fuels to be mined and mercenaries to be hired.”
It is the other way about. Facts, Offit, facts. So much more interesting than petty prejudices of Party Lines. The big bucks are in climate extremism, not in scepticism. Offit is simply wrong when he says scientists are only “rewarded with publications and grants when they find something new.”
In climate “science”, according to research by the redoubtable Jo Nova, about 5000 times as much is spent on scientists interminably promoting and rebarbatively regurgitating climate extremism than on research by skeptical scientists.
In future, let the cobbler stick to his last or he will find himself talking cobblers. Come off it, Offit!
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Further to comments above:
Even today, we have little idea what the temperatures are in the Southern Hemisphere, and hence Globally, since there is so little sampling of the Southern Hemisphere. Going back in time, the position is even worse.
We have some indication of what temperatures are in the Northern Hemisphere. We can therefore only reasonably examine Northern Hemisphere temperature data.
It has been suggested that I should have stated:
I have no issue with that statement provided it is restricted to Northern Hemisphere temperatures and not world temperatures (since as noted there is insufficient temperature sampling in the Southern Hemisphere to make a statement that is global). Since the highs of the 1930s/early 1940s and the early 1970s, the Northern Hemisphere cooled by about 0.6 to 0.8 degC, and since the early 1970s the Northern hemisphere has probably warmed by about 0.4 to 0.7 degC, ie, approximately by about the same amount such that today, the Northern hemisphere is about the same temperature as it was in the late 1930s/early 1940s.
.
But do not forget that NCAR used to be of this view:
And so did the National Academy of Science:
<b.AND so was Hansen in his paper published in issue 213 of Science in 1981
Fig3 in the Hansen 1981 paper is very similar to the NCAR and NAS temperature plots. It is interesting to remember what Hansen had to say in 1981 regarding temperatures He said when introducing Fig3:
And
So Hansen was of the view that in 1981, the temperatures globally were lower than they were in the 1940s, and in the Northern Hemisphere, the temperature in 1991 was quite a bit cooler than in the 1940s. His Fig 3 shows Northern Hemisphere temperatures in 1980/91 to be about 0.3degC cooler than Northern Hemisphere temperatures in 1940.
If Northern Hemisphere temperatures have warmed by about 0.3 degC since 1980 to date, then the conclusion is that temperatures today in the Northern Hemisphere are about the same as they were in 1940.
That is quite important since during this period man has emitted about 95% of his total CO2 emissions and yet it would appear that this has had no measurable impact upon Northern Hemisphere temperatures.
richard verney on January 18, 2017 at 9:45 am
1. Even today, we have little idea what the temperatures are in the Southern Hemisphere, and hence Globally, since there is so little sampling of the Southern Hemisphere.
I replied to this elsewhere in the thread but unfortunately the comment was not published.
You might agree with me that for satellite-based temperature readings in the troposphere the “little sampling” will not exist.
Let us therefore compare satellite data (UAH6.0) with surface data (GISTEMP Land/Ocean) measured for the Southern Hemisphere (SH), from 1979 till 2015:
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170119/vvykbvwf.jpg
You hopefully see like me a good correlation between the two, shown by both linear estimates and 60 month running means.
Linear trends for 1979-2015 in °C / decade (all 2σ below 0.025)
– SH UAH6.0: 0.089
– SH GISS: 0.085
This correlation imho is due to the SH being dominated by oceans. If we compare there “land only”, the situation does not differ much:
– SH land UAH6.0: 0.142
– SH land GISS: 0.104
because here too, UAH’s trend is higher than GISS (as opposed to the Northern Hemisphere, where GISS trends are way higher than UAH’s, for both land+ocean and land-only).
Thus having surface trends even lower than those in the troposphere hardly could be a hint on „little sampling“ problems in the Southern Hemisphere.
2. Going back in time, the position is even worse.
On what do you rely here, richard verney? On 45 years old charts?
I would rather want to rely on modern data 🙂
As always a good read and frankly easy take down of a fatuous argument. Hopefully the doctor is better educated on babies than climate science.
That materials come into radiative balance with the power spectra impinging on them ( APL at http://CoSy.com ) is not disputed — tho the computations for arbitrary spectra for even this most computation are astoundingly poorly taught or widely groked .
That no cascade of of such spectra can “trap” heat internally in excess of that spectrum as seen from outside is not only computationally demonstrable but would violate the undergraduate mathematical Divergence Theorem .
Thus any claim the bottom of a planet’s atmosphere is hotter than than its top due to spectral “trapping” is simply false — which is why neither equation nor experiment enabling or exhibiting the purported phenomenon has ever been presented .
As Cork Hayden says : alarmists will do anything — except take a physics class .
Bob,
What you say is true. Of course, the earth is never in radiative balance, but that doesn’t matter. What matters is that it is always moving towards that balance. This is a consequence of conservation of energy (unless you don’t think that applies on a planetary scale, which would be a radical idea). The total energy in for any time period will be equal to the total energy out. It seems to me the only thing the atmosphere can do is add some delay between the input and output. It is a bit like a heatsink in that regard, however it is more complex because it is a fluid and moves energy both through radiation and convection. Still, the total amount of energy in the atmosphere at any time is a function of the energy input (sun), the total size of the atmosphere, and its composition. Of those, it seems to me that the first one is the major driver of the system. The total size does not change much on human time scales, and our contribution to changes in the composition is tiny (less than 0.1%). That makes our effect on global energy level of the atmosphere (global temperature, if you will) small and probably undetectable alongside the natural variations in total energy input.
Actually , I believe that there is a theorem which states that over a cycle of a conservative quantity , like energy , there is an equilibrium .
Certainly a rotating planet ranging from peri- to ap-helion during its yearly revolution is always just chasing its equilibrium . But over complete cycles equilibrium obtains . While the peri- to ap-helion variation for the Earth , about 4.6K , 1.6% , is much larger than the ~ 0.4% variation this whole brouhaha is about , it’s still much less than our 3% , ~10K , warmer surface than our ~278.6 mean orbital gray body temperature . The high emissivity of CO2 in the IR actually contributes to our radiative equilibrium temperature being another 20K or more lower than that but I’ll wait until somebody is interested in implementing the computations in CoSy or puts a table , not a graph , of an actual measured mean spectrum in my lap .
Further , of course , it is basic optics that the net effect of a stack of filters is just the product across the spectrums of each filter . (
*/in APL ) so their effect can be lumped into a single filter . There is no “trapping” of energy as , eg , Pierrehumbert asserts without equation in his textbook .One has to look to the other macroscopic force which is conspicuously absent from the GHG assertions ( can’t call the “equations” because such don’t exist ) , gravity , to explain the 3% , in the case of Earth , and 125% , in the case of Venus , greater surface than orbital temperatures ( take those figures to the 4th power for equivalent energy densities ) seen in all planetary atmospheres , and indeed all gravitational wells .
Bob,
Your point about gravity is quite right, which is why at the surface, the temperature is higher than the stratosphere. A denser fluid will show down energy transfer and can accommodate more kinetic energy than a less dense fluid of the same composition. However, the total amount of energy in the system is still bounded by the things I listed. Venus has much more kinetic energy in it’s atmosphere because it has a lot more of it, and it is closer to the sun. Compositional differences between the two atmospheres are negligible.
I misspoke. I meant to say “Compositional differences between the two atmospheres has a negligible effect.
Physics is very inconvenient for those of a totalitarian mind-set. Lord Monckton is prone to follow logic instead of convenient and comfortable pathways to ideological answers that leap over facts to arrive at a per-conceived, and usually profitable, political vantage point. It seems to me that Lord Monckton represents an very inconvenient truth but displays wonderful insight into reality. That must be very scary for the alarmists.
Bob, the mechanism is that CO2 converts 15 micron radiation into kinetic energy. It’s just energy transfer. In terms of radiation, IR is converted into black-body. Nothing is really trapped. It’s just that the more CO2, the more IR energy is converted into kinetic energy.
A static dry atmosphere would warm up with more CO2, without any irradiance increase. But water completely dominates the atmospheric thermal balance on Earth. Spontaneous adjustments in the rates of evaporation/condensation could render the injection of extra kinetic energy from CO2 emissions thermally invisible.
Water dominates as far up as the mid-troposphere saturating CO2’s absorption bands, but in the dry upper troposphere CO2 dominates.
Dear moderators,
My post of January 18, 2017 at 8:42 am was, yes, plain spoken but I believe did not violate the posting rules of WUWT. If I am mistaken, please go ahead and delete it. Respectfully yours, hunter
You need to learn not to be so sensitive. Stuff gets automatically flagged for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with moderators.
The whole notion that the Tobacco industry somehow pulled the wool over the eyes of the public strikes me as laughable. I’m an old man now dealing with the consequences of a lifetime smoking habit but I can assure you that my grandmother warned me about the evils of smoking for good health and the expression “coffin nails” predates the 50’s. Hell, there is even testimony in some of Ernest Hemingway’s short stories and books during the interim of the first and second world wars about smoking tobacco destroying lung capacity and ability to smell. Big tobacco was not influencing the public’s understanding of smoking effects. However, cigarettes were given away free on airlines and distributed with every can of combat rations so the tobacco companies were likely trying to influence government to continue to allow that inducement to new customers. They were selling to the huge market of Congressionally paid for military supplies. Think Hershey and Mars (to be included in c-rations was a market worth fighting for) and a life time of customers looking to your product as refuge in a hostile environment. It is congressmen from tobacco producing states that needed the lies to keep congress from defunding inclusion of the product in military issue.
Dear Christopher Monckton of Brenchley,
Now you need to tell Stephen Hawking to “come off it” too, along with other respected scientists, who insist on (hard to wrap my mind around) … IGNORING the relevant science upon which climate doom is based (or should I say, glorifying the relevant mythology derived from debased science ?)
He’s a bit more politically savvy than you give him credit for Robert.
I have long puzzled why AGW believers think the way they do and why they believe and act with such passionate certitude. Scientists can be passionate and should use discussion and argument to both test and promulgate new ideas, but they must be reasonable and listen to opposing viewpoints with courtesy and manners. And they must always use sound logic when developing their arguments. So why don’t the AGW people follow these long established principles if they are scientists and logicians?
We know their understanding of statistics and their computer modelling is weak, and they confuse correlation with causation, but I believe they are using a deeply flawed logical fallacy to assert their conclusions. This fallacy is called affirming the consequent. Unfortunately, it is a hallmark of the social sciences which has lead to such abominations as post-modernism. It works as follows using the logically valid argument: If Napoleon was German then he was a European, since all Germans are Europeans. Now if the conditional is true (all Germans are Europeans), and the consequent is true (Napoleon was European) then can we not assert that the antecedent (Napoleon was German) is also true. NO, you can’t. You have made the logical error of affirming the truth of a consequent of an argument that, though logically sound, cannot be used to discover the truth (or otherwise) of the antecedent because we know that the argument’s components are F T and T or at best ?TT. Logic tests the soundness of arguments, not the truth of the components of the argument.
In the AGW case the argument is that anthropogenic CO2 causes climate change (antecedent), CO2 is increasing (conditional), therefore there is global warming (consequent). By affirming the conditional and the consequent to establish the truth of the antecedent we get the attractive and simple but wrong conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 production is responsible for climate change. That CO2 is increasing is true, and it is also true (sort of) that global temperatures are increasing, so the original argument is ?TT which is logically OK. But the antecedent is scientifically and logically unproven.
Classically trained scientists would never make this elementary mistake, but social scientists use such fallacies much of the time. For an example of their kind of reasoning the following is from social anthropology. The OK statement is as follows: the lost Tribe X has equally valid beliefs (antecedent), other tribes have beliefs (conditional) , therefore all tribes have beliefs (consequent). This argument is (logically) ?TT. But postmodernists assert that all beliefs of all tribes are equally valid on the basis of this false argument. They are wrong: we cannot say whether or not Tribe X’s beliefs are valid and we certainly cannot conclude that they are equally valid with all other tribes and civilizations.
I think most AGW experts came through the social science route – they were probably geographers rather than physicists. Geographers do not use experiments and they are used to making broad sweeping conclusions based on data sets without ever testing their conclusions using the established methods of science, logic and philosophy. And they base their work on a discredited but dangerous philosophy – postmodernism. But what they do do well is to develop persuasive arguments that have sucked in the powerful and gullible of the world. Bad news sells ideas. And people who believe in false philosophies are almost impossible to convince of their errors since you seem to be attacking their very being. It is like telling mother that her baby is ugly.
Long posts are easier to read, if you break them up into paragraphs with some horizontal space in between.
A full computer screen of continuous text lines (with NO white space between any of those lines) is almost as scary as climate doom. (^_^)
@Kelvin Potter Duncan
What you say is just a list of unsupported assertions with no basis in reality.
“… their understanding of statistics and their computer modelling is weak …” – That is just unjustified.
“… they confuse correlation with causation …” – Er, no they don’t.
“… trained scientists would never make this elementary mistake” – Exactly. You blow away your own argument.
“I think most AGW experts came through the social science route …” – No they do not.
“they were probably geographers rather than physicists.” – Unlikely. cf Tim Ball. LOL
“And they base their work on a discredited but dangerous philosophy – postmodernism.” – No they do not.
A quick and random investigation of climate scientists obtained from the climate literature would show how wide of the mark you are. You are just constructing a mythical fantasy that suits your world outlook.
“The war on climate science may well continue as long as there are fossil fuels to be mined and mercenaries to be hired.”
Read as: “The war on climate skepticism may well continue as long as there are wind turbines and solar panels to destroy the land while netting huge corporations (often oil companies) even bigger incomes, and all of these actions make the rich feel sooooo good about themselves while mercilessly destroying the poor and the planet.”
Lord Monckton, I think Offit’s can best be described as “ultracrepidarian musings.”
(Let that be our Word of the Week.)
Medically qualified climate dunces abound in Australia, too. Lord Monckton no doubt will recall his comprehensive submission in 2015 ahead of the Australian Medical Association’s (AMA) proposed position statement on climate change. His hope was that practitioners would be brought up to speed on climate 101. In vain, of course. Silliness on stilts we got from the AMA. Take its president, Brian Owler’s howler:
‘AMA president Brian Owler said doctors were already seeing the effects of climate change.
“The heatwaves that we’ve experienced, particularly in some of the more southern climates such as Melbourne … we have already seen deaths occurring in our public hospitals from people, particularly those who are vulnerable in our community,” Mr Owler said.
“[That’s] the elderly, the young, those that are sick, those that don’t speak English as their first language.”‘
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/06/australian-medical-association-survey-on-climate-change/
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-30/human-health-to-be-impacted-by-climate-change-experts/6433308
‘particularly those who are vulnerable in our community,” Mr Owler said.
“[That’s] the elderly, the young, those that are sick, those that don’t speak English as their first language.”‘
Global Warming kills off people whose first language is other than English! This will make communication simpler in the future.
“Police on three continents are investigating. Prosecutions will follow.”
I would like to believe that. Can you provide any support for the claim?
Wait and see.
Christopher, will your supposed cure for HIV, malaria and Graves help us with curing the effects of climate change?
..
For how long? I am no longer quite in the first flush of dewy-eyed youth, so I doubt that I will see the results if the investigations drag out too long.
And if they are quietly shelved, how will I know they were even started?
In reply to Mr Clark, we make no claims, but we are researching a promising treatment that may be of value against certain infections. That, however, is off topic here.
Monckton, I am a health professional involved in government lobbying on behalf of Royal Colleges. I would very interested in your research. Climate science is a hobby which I enjoy, although I am no expert. However healthcare certainly is my expertise so I would really appreciate some links giving an outline of the issues you are researching. many thanks Gareth.
If Mr Phillips will email me at monckton-at-mail.com I’ll outline what we’re doing.
The question was “Why”? What “crime” has been committed?
Getting even more silly.
The crime is fraud, a serious imprisonable offense.
“Police on three continents are investigating.”
Why? I would hope the police have better things to do.
Silly.
A crime is a crime, even if it’s a crime in support of the Party Line to which “Ens Josh” subscribes.
The question was “Why”? What “crime” has been committed?
Getting even more silly.
The crime is fraud.
You are just being really silly now.
Fraud? No it’s not.
The idea that the police on “three continents” would be interested is just an odd fantasy. You may have noticed the police have serious things to occupy themselves with.
How very typical of “Ens Josh” to pronounce a verdict without having seen the evidence.
Evidence? What evidence? Evidence of what? All you do is hint at dark deeds. Not really quite enough to pique the interest of the “police on three continents”.
A truly IR-transparent container (mylar balloon) full of CO2 casts no heat shadow.
Really?
http://www.flir.co.uk/ogi/display/?id=66607
Toneb … you do realize that “something” had to “heat” that CO2 for it to show up on an infrared camera. CO2 generates no heat of itself.
Amazing that you would fall for such trickery. …. but then … maybe not.
Well obviously!
The poster I replied to said “heat shadow”.
And what does the first video show?
Dr. Deanster:
CO2 “generates no heat” in the atmosphere either my friend.
It does what is shown in the first video.
The second shows it emitting heat that IT HAS ABSORBED, via use of an IR camera.
Same as IR satellite pics of clouds revealing their temps and therefore heights for meteorologists.
Amazing that you display such ignorance . …. but then … maybe not.
Yes of course, …. but what is being concluded from the videos, and stated in the videos is questionable.
It’s all a matter of “wording”. According to CAGW theory, and physics, CO2 does not “prevent heat from escaping”, it merely slows it [in a vaccum]. Such does not account for the circulating nature of the atmosphere. The adiabatic theory would hold that CO2 actually acts as a coolant to the atmosphere, by trapping heat and carrying up to TOA to be released, … just as the other well known GHG, water vapor, does.
CO2’s impact on climate is clearly demonstrated in Antarctica, where there is little to no water vapor. Trend is flat to decreasing. If CO2 was a strong as CAGW advocates pretend, Antarctica would be warming in the interior. It’s not.
Then there is the other question … concentration?? I like the disappearing flame video, but he says nothing about concentration. As such, the video is video trickery to imply that what is happening in the tube is also happening in the atmosphere. As we both know, CO2 only absorbs and emits at certain wavelengths. That all or even the majority of the LW would disappear, even the wave lengths where CO2 is transparent in his video is rather puzzling … don’t you think??
Another question … if the CO2 is trapping the heat, the surrounding “blue” would change color as it changes temperature ….. maybe it was too small of a change to notice, but I would think that the IR camera would detect the changing heat of the tube …. as well as the change in heat of the candle. Granted the majority of the heat is outside of the tube, and thus only small amounts of IR would be expected to pass through the walls of the tube, so don’t know how much impact it would have on internal tube temp … but then again, makes me question the just how much of the flames IR is actually penetrating through the tube and reaching the camera. IR is not the same as SW, which readily passes through clear surfaces. …… I don’t know toneb …. given the tendency of advocates for CAGW to lie and deceive, photoshop polar bears onto ice cubes, flood homes on mountains and everything else …… this looks a lot like video trickery to me dude.
How does a habit cause cancer that’s not already there:
“The tobacco industry also found scientists willing to deny that cigarette smoking caused lung cancer.”
No pain from a lung as long it’s not chemically or mechanically stressed.
Nature was always there, chemical compounds dito. In plants as in the natural atmosphere. Nature is a harsh Mistress.
And Nature is the stressor to mutations by natural radioactivity. So there’s a statistical propabilty you’re hosting cancer.
Freedom be with you, Offit, السلام عليكم.
Not recommended is chewing of dried nicotine – containing plant components.
Regardless cancer, real problem is poison.
The nearest to endless Living the highest probability you’re hosting cancer.
Be assured TobaccoIndustry didn’t know better. Just guessing, easiest guess is when cancer is already there.