Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The warmists have over 70 "scientific" models that they have used to base their theories on. These models predicted rapid increases in temperatures which have not occurred. They were wrong. All of them. And all in the same direction (to the hot side), and by no small margin, either.
It is not only the cholesterol consensus that is wrong, the AGW alarmism consensus is wrong also.
I and most people who think like me would be pleased to have them study this until they get it right. Science is a good thing, when it is actually practiced in a scientific manner. But this left driven agenda obviously has not been and is clearly drowning in politics. It is not very scientific, despite the number of "scientists" that have associated themselves with it.
Do you at least understand why your OP is a fallacy?
The models have nothing to do with the theory of whether or not Co2 warms the Earth. They are about predicting the effects of that warming, NOT determining whether or not it is occurring. Please don't bring up your ridiculous lying Telegraph/Daily Mail article again-- I've already responded to it with articles that explain why data must be processed, and without that processing temperatures would register as warmer, not cooler.
If the models need to be revised, then they will be revised-- but climate normals are measured as 30 year averages, NOT 10-year, NOT 5 year, NOT even 20 year. 30 years is considered a long enough period of time to discount anomalies that could effect a period of years or even a decade but which do not reflect overall climate trends.
And given they're based on all available data, models are still useful in terms of predicting long-term trends. As knowledge of the climate improves, the models will be revised to reflect the 'shape' of the climate trends-- likely one that involves rapid bursts of warming over land, followed by a slowdown, then another rapid burst of warming... but which still reach the same temperatures in the long run (barring unforeseen events).
There are a lot of variables at play that can effect the climate, both in the short and in the long term... but increased aerosol pollution or cyclical ocean currents do NOT change the long-term warming trend, unless the pollution is substantial, such as in the event of a nuclear war or some massive economic boom in a country with loose environmental regulations.
All of your BS about left-wing conspiracies isn't even worth addressing.
New dietary recommendations have not yet been issued. However, cholesterol is not the bad guy we once thought it was. Shrimp, for example, has a lot of cholesterol, but little fat.
So for the last 30 years, we have been told that cholesterol is a health risk, especially for circulatory and heart problems, and that we must completely change our diets to avoid this risk to human health. Everybody just assumed that the scientists must be right, because they are the "experts" or whatever, and who are you to think for yourself after someone tagged as an "expert" has spoken.
{snip}
Be smart. Don't just take their word for it. Dig into this subject and think about it for yourself. They are misleading us again. It is not too late and the debate is not over.
the trouble is, if you read all you can, it's full of bull **** talking 'experts' feeding you the same consensus line of bull ****.
The so called experts forced a lot of people off butter and onto margarine and low fat, 'light' everything, which are filled with fillers and additives to make them palatable.
For example, babies under the age of three need a lot of dietary fat to help their bodies grow. Health freaks who deny their children fat in their diet at these ages will stunt their children's growth, especially the development of their brain.
All of your BS about left-wing conspiracies isn't even worth addressing.
Yes, you do well not to bring that up. If you do, I will ask you to address your conspiracy proposals dealing with the oil companies and the Koch brothers on this topic.
Yes, you do well not to bring that up. If you do, I will ask you to address your conspiracy proposals dealing with the oil companies and the Koch brothers on this topic.
The difference between those two conspiracies is that yours is global, involves 10s of thousands of people in various governments, is unprecedented and totally implausible.
The oil industry funding of denial involves the same people who denied the dangers of second-hand smoke, acid rain, DDT, etc., involves a very small handful of people, makes all the sense in the world and has happened multiple times in the past.
The difference between those two conspiracies is that yours is global, involves 10s of thousands of people in various governments, is unprecedented and totally implausible.
The oil industry funding of denial involves the same people who denied the dangers of second-hand smoke, acid rain, DDT, etc., involves a very small handful of people, makes all the sense in the world and has happened multiple times in the past.
So, in other words, conspiracy theories are legitimate, but only as long as they are your own.
Yeah, one depends on government force to place the hydrogen, and the other is anarchist placement of the hydrogen.
Most things created or maintained by use of force and/or fraud (Government/Corporation) will wax toxic over time.
"It was originally created from beef tallow and skimmed milk in 1869 in France by Hippolyte Mège-Mouriès, as a result of a challenge proposed by Emperor Louis Napoleon III, as a substitute for butter which would later be renamed “margarineâ€." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margarine
Margarine is a toxicity of oils transgenderated by force and fraud - A wannabee butter, for sucks sake!
It just ain't natural, boy!
It's hydrottenated oil.
Hey, I know what you're thinking - that genetically modified humans resulting from eating genetically modified foods will make humans (GMHOMOS) beg for transfattiated foods.
Hey, anything for a patent profit.
Monsanto probably owns a patent on you, right now.
Many people want to be part of a toxic whole, because for them, any whole will do.
The difference between those two conspiracies is that yours is global, involves 10s of thousands of people in various governments, is unprecedented and totally implausible.
The oil industry funding of denial involves the same people who denied the dangers of second-hand smoke, acid rain, DDT, etc., involves a very small handful of people, makes all the sense in the world and has happened multiple times in the past.
Who knew politicians and bureaucrats could be corrupted with taxpayer money, power and votes?
The difference between those two conspiracies is that yours is global, involves 10s of thousands of people in various governments, is unprecedented and totally implausible.
Just like the Cholesterol situation that the OP discusses above.
This is not unprecedented at all, you are very much mistaken.
Just like the Cholesterol situation that the OP discusses above.
This is not unprecedented at all, you are very much mistaken.
That doesn't even make sense.
I wasn't talking about consensus views, I was talking about the plausibility of an AGW conspiracy vs the plausibility of a denier one.
Now you've somehow swung all the way back into your previous fallacy and taken it even further. Not only are all consensus views wrong, but they always involve a massive conspiracy as well.
I really thought you had understood why you were wrong, but now you're just doubling up on the fallacies.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
