The "Global Warming" Is Actually A Cooling And Is Due To Solar EMF Changes

[tca300]

And what would be the warmest places on earth during this ice age? No obvious answer to this question I think.

Yes, the equator.

 

[lollipop]

they use it as a reason not to make any changes to the way we are destroying our natural environment through other means

This is certainly true for a portion of “deniers”, but not for all. For myself personally, I am not certain the science is actually accurate for global warming. I prefer the electrical explanation of how stars work as opposed to the fusion explanation. That said, I am a STAUNCH supporter of environmental responsibility and have put my money to support such efforts. I think it gets real easy to polarize people and ideas and highly recommend in Ray Peat sphere we avoid that.

 

[Queequeg]

My issue with the CO2 deniers, is that they use it as a reason not to make any changes to the way we are destroying our natural environment through other means (most of which Haidut mentions above, along with overfishing and cutting down old growth forests).

My issue with CO2 alarmists is that they use it as a reason to make the wrong changes while still destroying our natural environment through other means (most of which Haidut mentions above, along with overfishing and cutting down old growth forests).

Ironic that you've referenced Ray's view since he, in your words, is a CO2 denier, and the environmental degradation he is talking about has nothing to do with placing limits on CO2. It's the CO2 alarmists who are doing more to hurt the environment by channeling money and energy away from the real environmental issues.

 

[aquaman]

My issue with CO2 alarmists is that they use it as a reason to make the wrong changes while still destroying our natural environment through other means (most of which Haidut mentions above, along with overfishing and cutting down old growth forests).

Ironic that you've referenced Ray's view since he, in your words, is a CO2 denier, and the environmental degradation he is talking about has nothing to do with placing limits on CO2. It's the CO2 alarmists who are doing more to hurt the environment by channeling money and energy away from the real environmental issues.

I totally agree with this. I could have phrased the CO2 denier part better.

 

[haidut]

The ‘Mini Ice Age’ Hoopla Is A Giant Failure Of Science Communication

If you read the article in that link, can you please tell me what you think of it. The person who wrote it starts with trying to argue with Zharkova and claims that the media misquoted her and that she never talked about mini iceage in her study. Then he basically says "oh, well, she does seem to be talking about mini-iceage after all. But she is wrong because CO2 will compensate for that drop in temps. Also, how dare she agree with clueless media quoting her studies!"

Wow, just wow. Does he think this incoherent rant qualifies as debunking??

 

[Hugh Johnson]

If you read the article in that link, can you please tell me what you think of it. The person who wrote it starts with trying to argue with Zharkova and claims that the media misquoted her and that she never talked about mini iceage in her study. Then he basically says "oh, well, she does seem to be talking about mini-iceage after all. But she is wrong because CO2 will compensate for that drop in temps. Also, how dare she agree with clueless media quoting her studies!"

Wow, just wow. Does he think this incoherent rant qualifies as debunking??

I noticed that too, I just wanted to post the answer of the mainstream faction. And the argument that CO2 forcing will be more of an effect than solar minimium is perfectly reasonable although I have no idea if it is correct. I could not find the full paper, but I found this presentation by her:

 

[Queequeg]

Yes, the equator.

Unless the impending Planet X or Nibiru flyby causes a pole shift and Antarctica becomes the next Riviera. /s

 

[aquaman]

For people who deny global warming, what is their answer to the ever-thinning arctic ice

 

[schultz]

One problem with the CO2 mania is that usually their solution is nuclear power because "zero emissions" and all that. "It's like super clean energy!" I suppose, depending on where the toxic waste is dumped or whether or not the plant has a meltdown. CO2 is good for plant and human health. According to wikipedia "Radioactive waste is hazardous to all forms of life and the environment..." Sounds lovely!

 

[PecosRiver]

It's very inspiring to see folks who seriously study PubMed regarding exotic hormone and supplement strategies so easily dismiss peer reviewed science articles regarding global warming. Reading posts found in this thread actually reduces my cortisol, because maybe I'll get to live out my natural life (with some IdeaLabs supps). I really hope the anti-science folks are right in this case.

 

[Hugh Johnson]

It's very inspiring to see folks who seriously study PubMed regarding exotic hormone and supplement strategies so easily dismiss peer reviewed science articles regarding global warming. Reading posts found in this thread actually reduces my cortisol, because maybe I'll get to live out my natural life (with some IdeaLabs supps). I really hope the anti-science folks are right in this case.

No one here is anti-science. We just don't trust blindly and haidut here has come to a different conclusion than the scientific consensus.

 

[Mufasa]

For people who deny global warming, what is their answer to the ever-thinning arctic ice

I was wondering the same. The evidence of global warming is clear.

 

[PecosRiver]

No one here is anti-science. We just don't trust blindly and haidut here has come to a different conclusion than the scientific consensus.

When the majority of anti-climate change research is funded by oil companies and the majority of "its a problem" research is done by universities and organizations that get donations, who do you think comes out ahead in this debate? Exxon-Mobil?

From Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia :
Scientific consensus[edit]
Several studies of the consensus have been undertaken.[1] Among the most-cited is a 2013 study of nearly 12,000 abstracts of peer-reviewed papers on climate science published since 1990, of which just over 4,000 papers expressed an opinion on the cause of recent global warming. Of these, 97% agree, explicitly or implicitly, that global warming is happening and is human-caused.[2][3] It is "extremely likely"[4] that this warming arises from "... human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases ..."[4] in the atmosphere.[5] Natural change alone would have had a slight cooling effect rather than a warming effect.[6][7][8][9]

Science is science. Peer reviewed articles are peer reviewed articles and most folks would agree that this is the highest standard. Is it so easy to say (like Trump), "I don't believe it" when you look at the statistics in this wiki article?

 

[dfspcc20]

Rivers in the Sky: How Deforestation Is Affecting Global Water Cycles

Also, I highly recommend this book, as it heavily critiques CO2 reductionism while still being very pro-environment.
http://a.co/d/4BOaySM

 

[lampofred]

Not knowledgeable enough to have an well-informed opinion on global warming, but what I do think is that there is way too much of an emphasis on CO2 as being the problem gas when there are so many other industrial pollutants that are far more toxic that aren't getting any attention

 

[Queequeg]

For people who deny global warming, what is their answer to the ever-thinning arctic ice

It's called natural climate variations that have little to do with man made CO2.


I would also call it cherry picking of the data. What do you make of what is going on on the opposite side of the world

 

[Queequeg]

It's very inspiring to see folks who seriously study PubMed regarding exotic hormone and supplement strategies so easily dismiss peer reviewed science articles regarding global warming. Reading posts found in this thread actually reduces my cortisol, because maybe I'll get to live out my natural life (with some IdeaLabs supps). I really hope the anti-science folks are right in this case.

You must love cooking in corn oil and taking your Statins, both PubMed approved. This forum btw is about discernment and real science. Not blindly following the mainstream ideology.

When the majority of anti-climate change research is funded by oil companies and the majority of "its a problem" research is done by universities and organizations that get donations, who do you think comes out ahead in this debate? Exxon-Mobil?

From Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia :
Scientific consensus[edit]
Several studies of the consensus have been undertaken.[1] Among the most-cited is a 2013 study of nearly 12,000 abstracts of peer-reviewed papers on climate science published since 1990, of which just over 4,000 papers expressed an opinion on the cause of recent global warming. Of these, 97% agree, explicitly or implicitly, that global warming is happening and is human-caused.[2][3] It is "extremely likely"[4] that this warming arises from "... human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases ..."[4] in the atmosphere.[5] Natural change alone would have had a slight cooling effect rather than a warming effect.[6][7][8][9]

Science is science. Peer reviewed articles are peer reviewed articles and most folks would agree that this is the highest standard. Is it so easy to say (like Trump), "I don't believe it" when you look at the statistics in this wiki article?

That 97% study has been thoroughly debunked over and over. It was actually done by a college undergraduate.

The government has far more money than the oil companies (which for several years now have jumped on the climate change band wagon). Today if you aren't a climate alarmist your career is over.

 

[Mufasa]

You must love cooking in corn oil and taking your Statins, both PubMed approved. This forum btw is about discernment and real science. Not blindly following the mainstream ideology.



That 97% study has been thoroughly debunked over and over. It was actually done by a college undergraduate.

The government has far more money than the oil companies (which for several years now have jumped on the climate change band wagon). Today if you aren't a climate alarmist your career is over.

That’s because most global warming deniers do it with no better arguments than the flat earthers.

 

[Queequeg]

That’s because most global warming deniers do it with no better arguments than the flat earthers.

ironic example of another alarmist quality argument

 

[Hugh Johnson]

When the majority of anti-climate change research is funded by oil companies and the majority of "its a problem" research is done by universities and organizations that get donations, who do you think comes out ahead in this debate? Exxon-Mobil?

From Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia :
Scientific consensus[edit]
Several studies of the consensus have been undertaken.[1] Among the most-cited is a 2013 study of nearly 12,000 abstracts of peer-reviewed papers on climate science published since 1990, of which just over 4,000 papers expressed an opinion on the cause of recent global warming. Of these, 97% agree, explicitly or implicitly, that global warming is happening and is human-caused.[2][3] It is "extremely likely"[4] that this warming arises from "... human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases ..."[4] in the atmosphere.[5] Natural change alone would have had a slight cooling effect rather than a warming effect.[6][7][8][9]

Science is science. Peer reviewed articles are peer reviewed articles and most folks would agree that this is the highest standard. Is it so easy to say (like Trump), "I don't believe it" when you look at the statistics in this wiki article?

Saturated fat and cardiovascular disease
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to navigationJump to search
Most medical, scientific, heart-health, governmental, and professional authorities agree that saturated fat is a significant risk factor for cardiovascular disease, including the World Health Organization,[1] the Food and Nutrition Board of the National Academy of Medicine,[2] the American Dietetic Association,[3] the Dietitians of Canada,[3] the British Dietetic Association,[4] the American Heart Association,[5] the British Heart Foundation,[6] the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada,[7] the World Heart Federation,[8] the British National Health Service,[9] the United States Food and Drug Administration,[10] and the European Food Safety Authority.[11] All of these organizations recommend restricting consumption of saturated fats to reduce that risk.

However, some meta-analyses of clinical trials and cohort studies have provided evidence against the recommendation for reduced intake of saturated fat,[12][13][14][15][16][17] including one critique by scientists[18] and one by a trade association.[19]
​

The scientific consensus, as we have seen in our own lives, is highly unreliable. Most things the mainstream scientists say about diet are clearly wrong, and while I lack the knowledge to judge the claims pertaining to climate change, I won't just accept an appeal to authority.