I don’t agree with the opinion in the op-ed.
Then again, I think that Michael’s question is valid.
Is the situation different here because there is more scientific agreement over climate change than over cigarette smoking and cancer?
At what point in the debate about cigarette smoking different than the debate about climate change?
Was the “controversy” about cigarette smoking accompanied by scientists who had different viewpoints mounting a “scientific argument” by promoting a stream of articles questioning the value of scientific consensus, or the process of publishing scientific literature, or the validity of scientific research – as we see here constantly on Judith’s blog?
What’s the difference? Is a contextual difference, in that blogs didn’t exist before the scientific debate about cigarette smoke was considered “settled.” Is it a scientific difference, in that there wasn’t the same degree of scientific controversy? Is it different because the “consensus” viewpoint didn’t include scientists whose would could be criticized as politically influence or tribal?