Member this FAKE NEWS? I member. Do you member?

[ding]

I was responding to your comment "Your correlation is bullshit to say the least.". Thus, if someone is attempting to change the topic, it would be you.

Why did we enter the glacial-interglacial cycles when CO2 was 400 ppm?

 

[Crick]

That would be a change of topic. Are you really that hypocritical?

 

[jc456]

What I notice is that there's a whole section there where you can travel across the arctic ocean from the Atlantic to the Pacific... which is not a good thing.

why? isn't it water? Don't ships travel via water? Why is that not a good thing?

 

[Crick]

Because it clearly indicates the Arctic is shrinking and with the loss of that reflective ice, the world will get warmer that much quicker. The Arctic will, in particular, get warmer which may have a serious impact on the AMOC. Altering the AMOC could cause massive changes in marine life and seafood supplies.

 

[jc456]

Okay, guy, if 95% of doctors you see tell you that you are going to die if you don't change your lifestyle... do you really quibble whether or not he's giving you six months to live or two years to live?

Or do you say, "Holy, shit, Doc, I need to change my lifestyle!"

The problem with you deniers is that you don't want to change your lifestyle.. not that you understand the science or not.

My doctor has been telling me for at least a decade that he wants to start me on statin drugs for my cholesterol...and had I shopped around, I am sure that at least 95% off the doctors I talked to would have agreed with him...I, however, kept pointing out that I had seen no clear evidence, and neither had he that high cholesterol had anything whatsoever to do with heart disease....

Recently the largest, longest study ever done came back stating that cholesterol had no clear connection to heart disease...now he would have willingly put me on a drug that I would probably have had to take for the rest of my life...based on no clear evidence whatsoever...as would most of the other doctors in the world...recently he apologized and said that he would not be recommending statin drugs to his patients.

Science is about evidence...and there isn't the first shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the claim that mankind's CO2 is altering the global climate....

There are any number of long held consensus views which are tumbling in recent years...salt and high blood pressure, eggs and cholesterol, low fat milk and weight maintenance....etc...etc..etc....

Consensus science when there is no actual evidence in support of the consensus means nothing more than all who are part of the consensus are too damed lazy to research, or to damned scared to buck the consensus.

my mother in law was 96 and her cholesterol was at 399 and they wanted her to go on a statin. we said no thanks. a cholesterol of 399 is unheard of with my doctor. I take the statin, I have felt strange ever since I was on it. I also have build up in my arteries and it's hard for me to argue the point with him. even though my cholesterol was never higher than 225. I'm at 145 on statins. I even had to change the statin I was taking because of how I felt. I still feel different on the new drug. Not sure how to deal with the doctor, good guy and all. younger than me too. I just take them for now.

 

[jc456]

Because it clearly indicates the Arctic is shrinking and with the loss of that reflective ice, the world will get warmer that much quicker. The Arctic will, in particular, get warmer which may have a serious impact on the AMOC. Altering the AMOC could cause massive changes in marine life and seafood supplies.

why is warmer bad, you've never explained that. And so what on the loss of ice, it's been gone before.

 

[Crick]

You've had those questions answered a dozen times before. You're just asking them to say something. The problem, as you really shouldn't even pretend to not know, isn't the heat, it's the speed.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

What I notice is that there's a whole section there where you can travel across the arctic ocean from the Atlantic to the Pacific... which is not a good thing.

You do realize the arctic has been ice free several times each inter-glacial cycle over the past 100 million years or so don't you? This is a natural cycle..

Back to thrashing the fake news called AGW.. Did the earths climate change over the 4.5 billion years or was it stagnate at today's levels?

It was those damn dinosaurs and their monster pickup trucks!

 

[ding]

That would be a change of topic. Are you really that hypocritical?

No. It isn't. The topic is CO2 and rate of change of temperature. The data does not exist to make the comparison you and every other idiot is trying to make. What does exist are the facts that CO2 did not drive past climate changes. If CO2 did not drive past climate changes, then what makes you believe CO2 is driving today's temperature change, especially since we are still below the peak temperature of past interglacials?

 

[Crick]

Do you include calling me an idiot in your "civil conversations"?

The rate of temperature change seen in glacial interglacial cycles is a tiny fraction of the rate we're currently experiencing. The data do support that. The contention among deniers that because the chronological resolution of the data is several hundred years, we cannot rule out the occurrence of spikes like the current situation fails on several fronts. A mechanism would have to be identified that would not only produce the rapid warming we've experienced but undo it just as quickly and without leaving any other trace of what had to have been a very powerful and dynamic event. Have any suggestions for such a thing?

 

[ding]

Do you include calling me an idiot in your "civil conversations"?

The rate of temperature change seen in glacial interglacial cycles is a tiny fraction of the rate we're currently experiencing. The data do support that. The contention among deniers that because the chronological resolution of the data is several hundred years, we cannot rule out the occurrence of spikes like the current situation fails on several fronts. A mechanism would have to be identified that would not only produce the rapid warming we've experienced but undo it just as quickly and without leaving any other trace of what had to have been a very powerful and dynamic event. Have any suggestions for such a thing?

Then stop trying to make comparisons that cannot be made because the data does not exist to do so.

 

[Crick]

Your response is non sequitur to my comment. For an instance of temperature deviation analogous to the present's to take place would require an excursion up at least 2C and down 2C within the few hundred years of the chronological resolution of our proxy data and leave no other indication that it had taken place. That is not a simple requirement or one easy to meet. No one has ever conceived of a condition that would produce such a dynamic event. Until it is, the contention that we cannot rule such a thing out (much less that one actually took place) is unsupportable.

 

[SSDD]

What he admits is that the possibility exists that it could have happened as fast in the past - the chronological resolution is too wide to rule such a thing out. But what can be seen over and over and over again, are temperature deviation on the scale of 5-10 degrees that take tens of thousands of years or more to take place. That is the norm. Changes in CO2 levels, for instance, though larger in magnitude on several occasions, have always taken place far slower than we see today and the impact on ocean acidification was almost negligible due to the buffering produced by the weathering of limestone minerals on land. Such processes restrict rates of change for CO2 and temperature to values far, far slower than what we are seeing today.

So like you do with every thing else, you simply assume that AGW is true even though there isn't the first shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in support of the hypothesis...And in the best proxy we have...ice cores...we don't see temperature taking anything like 10,000 years to change...in some instances we see a few degrees in barely 200 years.

 

[SSDD]

www.ipcc.ch

Nothing there but correlation...in order to believe it supports AGW over natural variation, you must first ASSUME that AGW is the reason for the changing climate.

 

[SSDD]

Because it clearly indicates the Arctic is shrinking and with the loss of that reflective ice, the world will get warmer that much quicker. The Arctic will, in particular, get warmer which may have a serious impact on the AMOC. Altering the AMOC could cause massive changes in marine life and seafood supplies.

Here is an ice core record taken from a location above the Arctic circle...looking at it, what do you think the Arctic ice looked like for most of the past 10,000 years compared to what it looks like today? And how does this not plainly dispute and refute your claims that the loss of reflective ice will cause the world to get warmer and seriously affect marine life and sea food supplies? Prove to us that you can not, in fact, make heads nor tails of a graph...

 

[SSDD]

Okay, guy, if 95% of doctors you see tell you that you are going to die if you don't change your lifestyle... do you really quibble whether or not he's giving you six months to live or two years to live?

Or do you say, "Holy, shit, Doc, I need to change my lifestyle!"

The problem with you deniers is that you don't want to change your lifestyle.. not that you understand the science or not.

My doctor has been telling me for at least a decade that he wants to start me on statin drugs for my cholesterol...and had I shopped around, I am sure that at least 95% off the doctors I talked to would have agreed with him...I, however, kept pointing out that I had seen no clear evidence, and neither had he that high cholesterol had anything whatsoever to do with heart disease....

Recently the largest, longest study ever done came back stating that cholesterol had no clear connection to heart disease...now he would have willingly put me on a drug that I would probably have had to take for the rest of my life...based on no clear evidence whatsoever...as would most of the other doctors in the world...recently he apologized and said that he would not be recommending statin drugs to his patients.

Science is about evidence...and there isn't the first shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the claim that mankind's CO2 is altering the global climate....

There are any number of long held consensus views which are tumbling in recent years...salt and high blood pressure, eggs and cholesterol, low fat milk and weight maintenance....etc...etc..etc....

Consensus science when there is no actual evidence in support of the consensus means nothing more than all who are part of the consensus are too damed lazy to research, or to damned scared to buck the consensus.

my mother in law was 96 and her cholesterol was at 399 and they wanted her to go on a statin. we said no thanks. a cholesterol of 399 is unheard of with my doctor. I take the statin, I have felt strange ever since I was on it. I also have build up in my arteries and it's hard for me to argue the point with him. even though my cholesterol was never higher than 225. I'm at 145 on statins. I even had to change the statin I was taking because of how I felt. I still feel different on the new drug. Not sure how to deal with the doctor, good guy and all. younger than me too. I just take them for now.

I am afraid that it is very difficult to get off statins once you go on them...Cholesterol is to us animals as chlorophyll is to plants..Cholesterol is vital to our ability to move..and our nervous systems...so it should come as no surprise that the side effects of statin drugs primarily show up in our muscles and nervous systems...and most importantly, your heart, the hardest working muscle in your body isn't immune to statin toxicity. There is a steady rise in the incidence of heart failure with the use of statin drugs...so much so that heart failure has replaced cardiovascular disease as the number one killer.

It also is doing your liver no favors...and your liver is the main back up supply of cholesterol to your tissues when your intake of cholesterol is reduced... Your liver converts fructose to fat and if your cholesterol intake is reduced, the fat can't be transported out via LDL. The liver's response is to quit converting fructose to fat and as a result the fructose starts building up in your blood which will cause "glycation" damage to your the proteins in your blood..which has a negative effect on your blood's ability to deliver essential fats, vitamins A, D, E, and K, and antioxidants....it renders those antioxidant enriched vitamins everyone takes impotent because your blood can't deliver them to your tissues.

The hysterical handwaving over getting out in the sun has played a large part in the rise of cholesterol in our bodies...you want to lower your LDL...get out in the sun....it is no coincidence that mine is higher during the winter than it is during the summer..I spend a great deal of time out in the sun in the spring summer and fall fishing...


You want to avoid cardiovascular disease....modify your diet to include foods that are rich in cholesterol and saturated fat, to avoid empty carbohydrates, especially high fructose corn syrup, eat foods that are good sources of sulfur, and, most importantly, spend plenty of time outdoors in the sun. Of course, you can't really do that on statin drugs and you can't just stop taking them...they put you in a nasty catch 22 situation.

This is just one more bit of evidence of how very wrong...and how much actual damage consensus science can do....

 

[SSDD]

Do you include calling me an idiot in your "civil conversations"?

The rate of temperature change seen in glacial interglacial cycles is a tiny fraction of the rate we're currently experiencing. The data do support that. The contention among deniers that because the chronological resolution of the data is several hundred years, we cannot rule out the occurrence of spikes like the current situation fails on several fronts. A mechanism would have to be identified that would not only produce the rapid warming we've experienced but undo it just as quickly and without leaving any other trace of what had to have been a very powerful and dynamic event. Have any suggestions for such a thing?

Once more...there isn't the first bit of data that supports that claim..and the gold standard ice core proxys directly contradict the claim. You are all assumptions and believe all the time...

That is another bit of warmer dogma that is going to fall pretty quickly when they are asked in public for evidence to support the claim...

 

[jon_berzerk]

Okay, guy, if 95% of doctors you see tell you that you are going to die if you don't change your lifestyle... do you really quibble whether or not he's giving you six months to live or two years to live?

Or do you say, "Holy, shit, Doc, I need to change my lifestyle!"

The problem with you deniers is that you don't want to change your lifestyle.. not that you understand the science or not.

My doctor has been telling me for at least a decade that he wants to start me on statin drugs for my cholesterol...and had I shopped around, I am sure that at least 95% off the doctors I talked to would have agreed with him...I, however, kept pointing out that I had seen no clear evidence, and neither had he that high cholesterol had anything whatsoever to do with heart disease....

Recently the largest, longest study ever done came back stating that cholesterol had no clear connection to heart disease...now he would have willingly put me on a drug that I would probably have had to take for the rest of my life...based on no clear evidence whatsoever...as would most of the other doctors in the world...recently he apologized and said that he would not be recommending statin drugs to his patients.

Science is about evidence...and there isn't the first shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the claim that mankind's CO2 is altering the global climate....

There are any number of long held consensus views which are tumbling in recent years...salt and high blood pressure, eggs and cholesterol, low fat milk and weight maintenance....etc...etc..etc....

Consensus science when there is no actual evidence in support of the consensus means nothing more than all who are part of the consensus are too damed lazy to research, or to damned scared to buck the consensus.

my mother in law was 96 and her cholesterol was at 399 and they wanted her to go on a statin. we said no thanks. a cholesterol of 399 is unheard of with my doctor. I take the statin, I have felt strange ever since I was on it. I also have build up in my arteries and it's hard for me to argue the point with him. even though my cholesterol was never higher than 225. I'm at 145 on statins. I even had to change the statin I was taking because of how I felt. I still feel different on the new drug. Not sure how to deal with the doctor, good guy and all. younger than me too. I just take them for now.

I am afraid that it is very difficult to get off statins once you go on them...Cholesterol is to us animals as chlorophyll is to plants..Cholesterol is vital to our ability to move..and our nervous systems...so it should come as no surprise that the side effects of statin drugs primarily show up in our muscles and nervous systems...and most importantly, your heart, the hardest working muscle in your body isn't immune to statin toxicity. There is a steady rise in the incidence of heart failure with the use of statin drugs...so much so that heart failure has replaced cardiovascular disease as the number one killer.

It also is doing your liver no favors...and your liver is the main back up supply of cholesterol to your tissues when your intake of cholesterol is reduced... Your liver converts fructose to fat and if your cholesterol intake is reduced, the fat can't be transported out via LDL. The liver's response is to quit converting fructose to fat and as a result the fructose starts building up in your blood which will cause "glycation" damage to your the proteins in your blood..which has a negative effect on your blood's ability to deliver essential fats, vitamins A, D, E, and K, and antioxidants....it renders those antioxidant enriched vitamins everyone takes impotent because your blood can't deliver them to your tissues.

The hysterical handwaving over getting out in the sun has played a large part in the rise of cholesterol in our bodies...you want to lower your LDL...get out in the sun....it is no coincidence that mine is higher during the winter than it is during the summer..I spend a great deal of time out in the sun in the spring summer and fall fishing...


You want to avoid cardiovascular disease....modify your diet to include foods that are rich in cholesterol and saturated fat, to avoid empty carbohydrates, especially high fructose corn syrup, eat foods that are good sources of sulfur, and, most importantly, spend plenty of time outdoors in the sun. Of course, you can't really do that on statin drugs and you can't just stop taking them...they put you in a nasty catch 22 situation.

This is just one more bit of evidence of how very wrong...and how much actual damage consensus science can do....

i was on statin drugs for a time


my cholesterol is now well within the norms

had to switch meds

the first ones caused much pain in the legs

 

[SSDD]

i was on statin drugs for a time


my cholesterol is now well within the norms

had to switch meds

the first ones caused much pain in the legs

Muscle pain? Cramps?

 

[jon_berzerk]

i was on statin drugs for a time


my cholesterol is now well within the norms

had to switch meds

the first ones caused much pain in the legs

Muscle pain? Cramps?

both

severe had to stop the meds and have blood tests taken