Actually there are number of different studies came out and none (or there might be some) were proven true. But in this age and time, we can no longer say which one is factual or not. I am not sure, does anybody know when will the world ends? Anyone can say when though but nobody will ever believe someone until things happen or will happen.
Here is the model that these evil people called environmentalists use.
Joseph Goebbels,
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Their whole science is based upon lying. Even when you catch them flat-footed they ignore you and just keep on spewing their garbage.
Now if you doubt me, just go to the 1990 IPCC report and on page 202 there are three charts. One will show you that there has been about 0.7 degrees C rise in the Earth's temperature since around 1650, or the bottoming of the Little Ice Age.
This correlates with this long ongoing temperature measurement.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/30/ho...
0.87 degrees in 353 years correlates with the UN-IPCC report.
Does that really constitute GLOBAL WARMING? Only a sick or crooked person would say so.
I am reminded of the Churchill quote about democracy being the worst system in the world, except for all the others.
Science isn't perfect, but can you suggest something *better* for us to trust?
Global Warming ended. Confirmed 11/28/2012. In my opinion there should'nt be any heading concerning Global Warming anymore. It makes people think its still going when its over with after 34 years. Mike
I think you’ll find that it’s the media and people trying to sell diets and dietary products that are the ones who relentlessly push the idea that particular foods are good or bad for you. Just look at the number of different diets that are being marketed, it’s nonsense being foisted on a gullible public.
If you look at the science what you’ll find is that positions get reassessed based on new data. The report your link mentions states that we now have more information about different types f fats. It doesn’t say that fats are good for you. What it says is that those we already knew about are still bad, the newly discovered ones are benign.
There’s no u-turn, just an advancement of food scientists understanding of things.
This happens in climate science as well, advances in our understanding are frequently made but the underlying principles haven’t changed the slightest in over 200 years. They have been shown to be correct innumerable times and can be proven in just about any science lab in any school or university.
There are of course many things we don’t know about climate science, we know that mistakes have been made in the past and almost certainly will be made in the future. In some areas our comprehension is severely lacking. None of which affects the basic principles of climate change, which, unlike the food we eat, is a consequence of universal and invariable laws of science.
On a separate issue and related to an earlier question – 100% of questions and answers that have been posted anonymously have come from the skeptics. Can’t imagine why.
Lol
The basic "model" of anthropogenic climate change was developed in the 19th century, and by the late 1980s was accepted by most scientists around the world. Why would they do this? Because they are part of the greatest conspiracy in the history of the known universe, or because it makes sense and in support by megatons of evidence in thousands of studies over many decades and from around the world?
Burning fossil fuels increases CO2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Greenhouse gases raise the global temperature. Raising the global temperature changes the global climate. Try reading some science and stop wasting time reading the liar-denier blogs of fossil fuel industry tool anti-scientists.
U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record...
“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpine...
“Choices made now about carbon dioxide emissions reductions will affect climate change impacts experienced not just over the next few decades but also in coming centuries and millennia…Because CO2 in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe.”
http://www.physics.fsu.edu/awards/NAS/
“The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes.
Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warm...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_...
http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/...
http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoi...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Revie...
http://nas-sites.org/climate-change/qand...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument...
They did the same thing with eggs come on tv one year to say they are bad and the next year change their minds . They will realize the errors in Climate science some year
Stop trolling the zombies, they want something to cry about now that communist Russia fell and were not all dead from an aids epidemic.
If people want to cry for mother earth. Tell them to do something about it. Tell yhem about earthships and permaculture. They'll think it's all save the polar bears, if there hopelessly urban, tell them if ron finley guerrilla gardener and urban explorers. Send them to Detroit if you can, they'll learn to love gun ownership without a word.
Really you're secretly hijacking them, they'll be off grid peppers, learn the value of hard work self sufficiency, they'll become patriots.
when scientists STILL can't agree on such simple things as 'Is butter bad for you' http://www.today.com/health/ending-war-butter-are-fatty-foods-really-ok-eat-2D79795749 or 'Is coffee harmful' http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-living/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/expert-answers/coffee-and-health/faq-20058339 Many things like this have at one time had the consensus of the majority of scientists and were accepted as true. Which is more complex, modeling the climate of an entire planet or modeling the effects of butter on your arteries? Consensus != Truth.
You are correct, food science is in a mess, starting from the Framingham cholesterol study http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrSbm_7_...
The USDA food pyramid is an example http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrSbm56A...
Many billions of $$ are spent on statins, studies show statins reduce cholesterol, however no studies show that statins reduce heart disease, its a multi billion dollars scam, just like climate change.
If you want agreement, move to one of the very conservative Islamic countries, operating under Sharia law. Stay away from science. One of the strengths of science is that it is constantly changing as we learn more.
Your claim that "many things like this have at one time had a consensus of the majority of scientists" is false. Scientists have known for a long time that we have very few scientific studies on nutrition that are large enough to answer some important questions. That hasn't stopped people from making claims, but don't confuse celebrities and diet peddlers with research scientists.
You want to make yourself feel smart by imagining that you know more than the scientists. You can do whatever you want.
