Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 78
Thanks Tree55Thanks

Thread: 7 bad science and health ideas that should die with 2016

  1. #41
    Senior Member bmanmcfly's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    11,829
    Thanks
    2028

    From
    C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    Yes, it also depends on how much energy the body expends digesting those calories. Some foods are actually negative calories, as it takes more energy to digest them than they contain.

    2,000 calories of carrots would be quite a strain in the human digestive system, particularly raw ones!
    Oh ya... the 2000 calories of carrots was more for illustration than advice.

    I've heard that raw celery is negative calories.

    Anyway, I mostly agree with you here either way, the point was more that it's not quite as straightforward as calories in < calories out.

  2. #42
    Master political analyst Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    10,081
    Thanks
    4474

    From
    The formerly great golden state
    Quote Originally Posted by bmanmcfly View Post
    Oh ya... the 2000 calories of carrots was more for illustration than advice.

    I've heard that raw celery is negative calories.

    Anyway, I mostly agree with you here either way, the point was more that it's not quite as straightforward as calories in < calories out.
    No, it's not really simple at all. There are a lot of factors determining how many calories a person can burn.

    I used to be able to eat virtually anything and not gain an ounce. Unfortunately, that was 50 years ago, and my body isn't quite the same as it once was.
    Thanks from bmanmcfly

  3. #43
    Senior Member bmanmcfly's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    11,829
    Thanks
    2028

    From
    C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
    Quote Originally Posted by RNG View Post
    Define accuracy. Other than abstract mathematics or things that are countable units, nothing is totally accurate.
    Accuracy would be where the data matches the hypothesis... the hypothesis being that increased atmospheric co2 causes increased global temperatures.

    So, in the past 20 years co2 has been steadily increasing, while temperatures have been almost flat...

  4. #44
    RNG
    RNG is offline
    Moderator RNG's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    6,440
    Thanks
    4126

    From
    Canada, West Coast
    Quote Originally Posted by bmanmcfly View Post
    Accuracy would be where the data matches the hypothesis... the hypothesis being that increased atmospheric co2 causes increased global temperatures.

    So, in the past 20 years co2 has been steadily increasing, while temperatures have been almost flat...
    The hypothesis says that with increasing CO2 there will be increasing temperature and the data shows that to be the case.

    Your claim that for the past 20 years the temperatures have been almost flat means you have a singular impression of what almost means.
    Thanks from BigLeRoy

  5. #45
    Senior Member bmanmcfly's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    11,829
    Thanks
    2028

    From
    C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
    Quote Originally Posted by RNG View Post
    The hypothesis says that with increasing CO2 there will be increasing temperature and the data shows that to be the case.

    Your claim that for the past 20 years the temperatures have been almost flat means you have a singular impression of what almost means.
    *shakes my head*

    So, you refute Michael Mann?

  6. #46
    RNG
    RNG is offline
    Moderator RNG's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    6,440
    Thanks
    4126

    From
    Canada, West Coast
    Quote Originally Posted by bmanmcfly View Post
    *shakes my head*

    So, you refute Michael Mann?
    I don't refute him. I refute many of the things that have been claimed about him and what his data and what his emails show.

    Other than Heartland Institute bullshit and Wattsupwiththat out and out lies, where do you get the data to show that there has been almost no atmospheric temperature increase in the past 20 years?

    NASA, the Goddard Institute (having nothing to do with the charlatan, Steve Goddard) and the satellite data all show global warming on an increasing rate, other than in the stratosphere, as the models predict.

    Most models do show a higher temp increase than is observed, but can't accurately factor in the heat absorption of the oceans, or more correctly the thermal mixing seen in the oceans. Yet.

    However, the ocean temp, which is increasing also, as well as temperature induced clathrate decomposition are added warming factors.

    Pretty well all scientists are afraid of there being a tipping point. Unfortunately, we don't know what that is, yet.

    Of interest to me is that less than two years ago when debating this in a different venue, I easily found funding sources for both Heartland Institute and Wattsupwiththat. That data is no longer available. Hmmmmm ...

  7. #47
    Senior Member bmanmcfly's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    11,829
    Thanks
    2028

    From
    C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
    Quote Originally Posted by RNG View Post
    I don't refute him. I refute many of the things that have been claimed about him and what his data and what his emails show.

    Other than Heartland Institute bullshit and Wattsupwiththat out and out lies, where do you get the data to show that there has been almost no atmospheric temperature increase in the past 20 years?

    NASA, the Goddard Institute (having nothing to do with the charlatan, Steve Goddard) and the satellite data all show global warming on an increasing rate, other than in the stratosphere, as the models predict.

    Most models do show a higher temp increase than is observed, but can't accurately factor in the heat absorption of the oceans, or more correctly the thermal mixing seen in the oceans. Yet.

    However, the ocean temp, which is increasing also, as well as temperature induced clathrate decomposition are added warming factors.

    Pretty well all scientists are afraid of there being a tipping point. Unfortunately, we don't know what that is, yet.

    Of interest to me is that less than two years ago when debating this in a different venue, I easily found funding sources for both Heartland Institute and Wattsupwiththat. That data is no longer available. Hmmmmm ...
    Ok, either you refuted Michael Mann, or you are refuting your post 44.

    Which is it? You can't hold two incompatible beliefs at the same time and hold a discussion about it honestly.

  8. #48
    Member tnbskts's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    3,306
    Thanks
    4305

    From
    British expat in USA
    Quote Originally Posted by bmanmcfly View Post
    Accuracy would be where the data matches the hypothesis... the hypothesis being that increased atmospheric co2 causes increased global temperatures.

    So, in the past 20 years co2 has been steadily increasing, while temperatures have been almost flat...
    You're mixing things up. Your original post about accuracy was a post about models, not about hypotheses and data.

    As for the hypothesis that atmospheric CO2 causes the temperature to increase, that hypothesis has been confirmed again and again, and the mechanism that causes the phenomenon is well known. However, we're all aware that there's a lot more going on with the climate, in terms of what affects temperature, than simply CO2 levels. So the idea that we need to see a constant one-to-one correlation between CO2 levels and temperature, before we acknowledge that the two have anything to do with each other, is woefully na´ve.

    As for models not being accurate, in thread after thread after thread it's been explained, often in considerable detail, that they are accurate and are improving their predictive power over time as more data become available to use to firm up the models.
    Thanks from BigLeRoy

  9. #49
    Member tnbskts's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    3,306
    Thanks
    4305

    From
    British expat in USA
    I think the problem with the GMO thing is not so much GMO technology itself as the way companies like Monsanto have behaved in their implementation of it. Deliberately engineering plants to be sterile so that people are locked into buying their seeds for ever and are losing their family farms and committing suicide in droves because of it, and suing farmers for growing their seeds when the seeds arrived there unwanted and sometimes caused those farmers to lose their organic-farming status, isn't a way to endear yourself to the public when these stories get out.

    Plus the explanations of "this is exactly the same as selective breeding only speeded up and done more efficiently" don't really hold water unless someone wants to explain how you get jellyfish genes into an onion by selective breeding.

  10. #50
    Senior Member bmanmcfly's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    11,829
    Thanks
    2028

    From
    C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
    Quote Originally Posted by tnbskts View Post
    You're mixing things up. Your original post about accuracy was a post about models, not about hypotheses and data.

    As for the hypothesis that atmospheric CO2 causes the temperature to increase, that hypothesis has been confirmed again and again, and the mechanism that causes the phenomenon is well known. However, we're all aware that there's a lot more going on with the climate, in terms of what affects temperature, than simply CO2 levels. So the idea that we need to see a constant one-to-one correlation between CO2 levels and temperature, before we acknowledge that the two have anything to do with each other, is woefully na´ve.

    As for models not being accurate, in thread after thread after thread it's been explained, often in considerable detail, that they are accurate and are improving their predictive power over time as more data become available to use to firm up the models.
    the models are built to reflect that hypothesis, my point stands.

    Yes, in isolation that has been proven, they've modelled that effect to confirm the hypothesis and consistently the increases in co2 have been in the upper mid range of the projections, and the actual temperature increases has been less than the best case co2 models...

    I know, I'm well aware of all the games involved in trying to make the models seem accurate, it's mostly by selling package deals, where There is the mix and match of the objectively proven with the speculative aspects of the science. Yes, co2 has a warming effect on the climate, but the degree of that impact has been overestimated consistently.

Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 291
    Last Post: 29th June 2016, 09:48 PM
  2. Replies: 92
    Last Post: 6th July 2015, 10:26 AM
  3. Another anti-science Republican on the House science committee..
    By teamosil in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 8th October 2012, 03:48 AM
  4. Obama backs 4 GOP health care ideas
    By Winn in forum Healthcare
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 8th March 2010, 11:46 AM
  5. Global Warming Science isn't Science
    By conservative in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 2nd December 2007, 01:50 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed