It's a weak parallel you are attempting to render. Your linkage is denial.

But while few today would argue that cigarettes don't elevate a smoker's risk for cancer, at least in some, it is also true that it is not only cigarettes which cause cancer, but also a whole array of other things, some of which remain either poorly understood, or completely unidentified, and, as I alluded above, not all smokers get cancer.

Further, in the case of cigarettes, it was primarily the tobacco industry which argued against the cause and effect relationship between smoking and cancer. In the case of so-called Anthropogenic Global Warming, it is not only those who have a vested interest in, for example, continued use of coal as a primary fuel who have raised objections to this theory, but also many scientists and engineers who question the role of CO2 in any warming.

That said, I think it's a better idea to stick to the issue at hand rather than trying to drag in some completely unrelated issue like cigarettes and cancer. Instead, may I suggest spending some time reading the articles and comments at Watts Up With That?

If you do, I think you'll find informed opinion that the climate models are flawed, that the climatic role of 3 or 4 molecules of CO2 out of 10,000 is questionable, polar bears are not drowning, mankind's contribution to atmospheric CO2 is miniscule, there is no consensus on what an "ideal" level of atmospheric CO2 might be (but at least some observers believe that more is better than less, and in any event, the data seem to show that we may be entering a period of cooling, and that is an eventuality which represents a far more ominous threat to our species than any modest rise in global temperatures ever would.

Granted, Watts' blog attracts AGW skeptics, but "Warmists" and Hansen's defenders are in evidence as well and allowed to have their say. As I've noted before, no matter what your point of view, it's always best to have a close listen to what the opposition has to say.

My participation in these discussions about the role of mankind in any theorized global warming is to arrive at the truth, not to prevail in an argument, but to help ensure that policy is based on sound science, not on scare tactics used to stampede the ignorant into supporting hare-brained schemes like wind farms, carbon taxes, ethanol, and many if not most of the other agendas being advanced to combat so-called man-made climate change. Beyond that, China and India are engaged in ambitious coal-fired power-plant construction. In case you hadn't heard, these countries are not only populous, but also fierce economic rivals which have already taken a large share of industries which once made their homes on these shores.

S