*Why* do they want us to eat bugs?

[Lollipop2]

Please explain how exactly might global warming cause these things, especially given that this year is -2,5°C colder than long term average in Europe

+1

Electroverse

Documenting Earth Changes During The Next Grand Solar Minimum

electroverse.net

 

[dabdabdab]

+1

Electroverse

Documenting Earth Changes During The Next Grand Solar Minimum

electroverse.net

I appreciate the link.
but that's still insufficient to explain weather changes that I've witnessed.
Doesn't matter when only two week ban on gasoline and thus less cars in the streets created huge rain falls in my country and resulted in a much cleaner air. the effects are not deniable.
my father tells me when he got to school 70 years ago, he had to create a tunnel inside the snow from their house door to get to school.
I don't live in a country that had advanced tech back then.
it changed just after the increase in personal vehicles.

 

[Lollipop2]

my father tells me when he got to school 70 years ago, he had to create a tunnel inside the snow from their house door to get to school.

I also have heard stories like this from my husband’s family in Canada. I remember hearing a science show somewhere about earth cycles - normal - and there is a spurt (can be lots of years) of warmth before cooling as in an ice age. Apparently related to the sun as well. I think it is worth digging in deeper and not accepting the mainstream narrative.

 

[dabdabdab]

I also have heard stories like this from my husband’s family in Canada. I remember hearing a science show somewhere about earth cycles - normal - and there is a spurt (can be lots of years) of warmth before cooling as in an ice age. Apparently related to the sun as well. I think it is worth digging in deeper and not accepting the mainstream narrative.

I agree, there's no reason to be dogmatic about this, while I'm aware of other reasons behind it, I can't ignore the effects of fossil fuels in global warming . the things I've witnessed about weather change after gasoline ban and then again changing back to its default state after lifting the ban is undeniable. that's why I insist on recognizing greenhouse gasses as a great part of global warming.
however I don't believe that the agriculture and cattle farms should be put to blame. industrial pollution has a much bigger role in that.

I believe there should be something done about that, denying without doing anything beneficial to stop it; will do no good for anyone.

 

[BearWithMe]

I believe there should be something done about that, denying without doing anything beneficial to stop it; will do no good for anyone.

Fighting a scapegoat instead of the real enemy will also do no good for anyone.

 

[dabdabdab]

Fighting a scapegoat instead of the real enemy will also do no good for anyone.

except it's a great part of it, scapegoat doesn't apply here

 

[Mossy]

...the things I've witnessed about weather change after gasoline ban and then again changing back to its default state after lifting the ban is undeniable....

This is quite an astounding claim. And one that would seem to be able to be replicated and measurable, quite easily, as far as the behemoth task of applying the scientific method to things on a global scale goes. I don’t think anyone would have an argument against global warming if it was this simple.

 

[dabdabdab]

This is quite an astounding claim. And one that would seem to be able to be replicated and measurable, quite easily, as far as the behemoth task of applying the scientific method to things on a global scale goes. I don’t think anyone would have an argument against global warming if it was this simple.

nope, it's deniers who simplify everything and deny a world of evidence.
this is not regular misleading physician's advice which they study briefly in med school, this is the work of active scientists who've spent their whole life on the subject.
the difference between dumb doctors and the respectable researchers who have a coherent system of health lies on this.
what we admire most about ray peat is his never ending analysis and deep research.
the same applies to climate scientists. you shouldn't equate conspiracy lovers with scientists who are working their **** of on the subject.

and I live in a huge country that has gone through a two_weeks ban on gasoline, the effect of it was obvious all over the country.

 

[BearWithMe]

nope, it's deniers who simplify everything and deny a world of evidence.
...

You have not posted any evidence so far.

Let's say I don't know anything about the topic. Please give me a brief summary of the evidence we have that global warming exists and that it causes the effects you described - floods etc.

 

[BearWithMe]

this is not regular misleading physician's advice which they study briefly in med school, this is the work of active scientists who've spent their whole life on the subject.
the difference between dumb doctors and the respectable researchers who have a coherent system of health lies on this.
what we admire most about ray peat is his never ending analysis and deep research.
the same applies to climate scientists. you shouldn't equate conspiracy lovers with scientists who are working their **** of on the subject.

Active scientists who've spent their whole life on the subject are also saying that covid is the deadliest virus ever, that wearing face masks, closing stores and businesses and restricting traveling will save us.

Active scientists who've spent their whole life on the subject are also saying that you should avoid eating sugar and saturated fat, and eat whole grains and PUFA instead.

Active scientists who've spent their whole life on the subject are also pushing statins as a treatment for high cholesterol.

A couple of year ago, active scientists who've spent their whole life on the subject were saying that smashing your brain with long nail is a good treatment for psychiatric illnesses.

A couple of year ago, active scientists who've spent their whole life on the subject were saying that all people who doesn't have blue eyes and blonde hair should be killed by a gas.

A couple of year ago, active scientists who've spent their whole life on the subject were saying that we need to kill goats to trigger the rain and avoid drought.

A couple of year ago, active scientists who've spent their whole life on the subject were saying that earth is flat and sun revolves around it.

 

[dabdabdab]

nope.
covid is new, no one has spent their whole life studying it.
active scientists don't say pufas are good, most will say keep fat to minimum and only care about omega 3 ratio over 6, though they haven't spent their whole life on the subject. in their low fat health system that works perfectly. it's a subject among lots of other topics they are reseaching about.
they do random research on pufas, and lots of their studies confirms peats ideas.
the same studies you and others refer to on this forum.
climate change is a coherent subject, with far more focus that far more scientists have spent their whole life on. (not far more scientists just far more scientists who've spent their whole life on a single subject)
please look into fraud pathology and bugs that allows them. fossil fuels role in climate change is undeniable

 

[dabdabdab]

A couple of year ago, active scientists who've spent their whole life on the subject were saying that earth is flat and sun revolves around it.

a couple years ago?! you just lost credibility at this moment. though I appreciate your general anecdotes about health remedies.
bye

 

[BearWithMe]

You still haven't posted any evidence though

 

[dabdabdab]

You still haven't posted any evidence though

do your own homework mate!
you can easily find it by a lil search.

 

[BearWithMe]

do your own homework mate!
you can easily find it by a lil search.

That's not how it works. You come to this discussion with a claim, you need to back it up.

 

[dabdabdab]

That's not how it works. You come to this discussion with a claim, you need to back it up.

when you want to go against the whole world of evidence, you need to back it up.
evidence for global warming and fossil fuels role in it are everywhere.
coherent research versus random guesses from those haven't read a scientific article in their whole life.

 

[BearWithMe]

when you want to go against the whole world of evidence, you need to back it up.
evidence for global warming and fossil fuels role in it are everywhere.
coherent research versus random guesses from those haven't read a scientific article in their whole life.

If theres' the whole world of evidence, then post some

 

[BearWithMe]

it's more about the placement of the heat in the atmosphere and less about the temperature that you can measure inside cities.(warmth pushing clouds to other places and actually causing an area to become cooler and others to become warmer)
I've witnessed immediate changes in the weather after the a short ban of gasoline for two weeks in my country.
I know pollution and fossil fules have serious effect for sure.

and I live in a huge country that has gone through a two_weeks ban on gasoline, the effect of it was obvious all over the country.

You kinda disproved yourself here.

You claim that two weeks gasoline ban in your country somehow fixed the effects of global warming in the matter of hours or days.

But then these effects could not have been caused by global warming, because
1) Short term gasoline ban in one country does very little to global climate, considering that most polution comes from China and India anyways
2) It would not work so fast, because reversing the "global warming" would take years and years of global effort, according to "active scientists who've spent their whole life on the subject"

 

[dabdabdab]

You kinda disproved yourself here.

You claim that two weeks gasoline ban in your country somehow fixed the effects of global warming in the matter of hours or days.

But then these effects could not have been caused by global warming, because
1) Short term gasoline ban in one country does very little to global climate, considering that most polution comes from China and India anyways
2) It would not work so fast, because reversing the "global warming" would take years and years of global effort, according to "active scientists who've spent their whole life on the subject"

nope, I just stated the effects of the reduction of greenhouse gases in a short_scaled observable matter.
if it could have that effect in an area in that short amount of time, it shows how fossil fuels can have serious effect on the large scale of he global warming.
don't try to find errors in my comment by your own false assumptions.

 

[Eberhardt]

nope, I just stated the effects of the reduction of greenhouse gases in a short_scaled observable matter.
if it could have that effect in an area in that short amount of time, it shows how fossil fuels can have serious effect on the large scale of he global warming.
don't try to find errors in my comment by your own false assumptions.

I am sorry for myself for dabbing in on this beyond silly discussion but lets ssay you are right and observed this. That doesnt mean it is due to co2 - the global warming arguement is driven by the "greenhouse gasses" - now to bypass the disucssion of the relevance of that term, just how on earth do you assume the CO2 levels in the atmosphere to be that rapidly affected, then to have time to bring on changes and the residual heat from earlier to dissipate without being affected by the rest of the world.

And what about considering other causes even if it might have been just a coinicidense. Pollution is quite much more then co2 (which I consider to be good as it generates more plant growth which is observable and IS scientifically measured - theres a reason it is actually used for plant growth), not the least of which is particle pollution/soot - and this does affect cloudformation which indeed have some effects on temprature and weather. Not saying that is whats behind the general climate things (whatever their nature) but regardless of whether it is it DOES affect local weather.

I hope you are aware that even if there are complete idiots ranting about the falcity of the co2 hypothesis there are also nobel pricewinners, AND not to mention any argument should be judged by actuall presented evidence. If not we must conclude that blood-letting was right just because all the medical experts used to say so. Along with mercury. I have so far seen nothing but appeal to authority - if authority or common opinion says something that is against observable empirical research then it is still their job to prove it. The argument that one who claims something extrordinary that goes against previous research is the one that has the burden of proof is correct. The thing is if it goes against any actuall research. It does not mean if an argument has a lot of follwers the burden of proof is on the other part. If flat earthers gain traction and most people gets convinced including a lot of researchers, as long as they dont come up with new evidence the burden of proof is still on them as it is things that are opposed to previous results that must have the burden of proof. And since there has been very little if any in the way of proof of this manmade co2 heating problem and no real clear argument even on how that would cause disrupted weather patterns I think it is safe to stay with the accepted science (sciense as in actually measured and observed and tested processes)that blames this on a mix of natural causes and the increased amount of particles in the atmosphere and not to mention the large scale deforestation which already 60 years ago was predicted to cause droughts, extreme weathers, tornadoes etc. Which is only not talked about the last 20 years but was mainstream before, and never was disproven just fell out of fasion. It also is quite easy to show as it affects atmosphere humidity - as the co2 people readily admits water vapour is a part of it, and it drives wind systems, water circulation, humidity, and even huge phenomona like the monzoons. I have never heard anyone have any argument against that well know fact and even disregarding the burden of proof it is a simple oghams razor. I can also recomend the cloud chamber research done at CERN that a couple of years ago settled quite firmly that cloudformation is indeed driven by solar radiation. And thus is the largest influence on global weather and temperature. I should also add that its interesting that from a geological point of view the level of co2 has not been as low as this for the entirety of advanced life on earth. It is actually falling so low that if it wasnt for the addition of human activity the co2 levels would be dangerously low - so low as to aproach what is in biology know as the "death zone" where co2 saturation gets so low that plant life and thus life as we know it collapses....

It is important to add though that this is not an argument for pollution . Only saying that CO2 might need some reconsideration. Wo DO have problems with deforestation, pollutants, hormone disruptors, overtaxation of resoures, loss of habitats, loss of species and biodiversity, radiation (ionic and non-ionic) etc etc .