And how it isn’t, when it comes to climate science.
BTW, there are a lot of reasons to avoid bread besides gluten.
And how it isn’t, when it comes to climate science.
BTW, there are a lot of reasons to avoid bread besides gluten.
One reason we consume so many refined carbohydrates today is because they have been added to processed foods in place of fats — which have been the main target of calorie reduction efforts since the 1970s. Fat has about twice the calories of carbohydrates, but low-fat diets are the least effective of comparable interventions, according to several analyses, including one presented at a meeting of the American Heart Association this year. A recent study by one of us, Dr. Ludwig, and his colleagues published in JAMA examined 21 overweight and obese young adults after they had lost 10 to 15 percent of their body weight, on diets ranging from low fat to low carbohydrate. Despite consuming the same number of calories on each diet, subjects burned about 325 more calories per day on the low carbohydrate than on the low fat diet — amounting to the energy expended in an hour of moderately intense physical activity. . . . If this hypothesis turns out to be correct, it will have immediate implications for public health.
Actually, it’s only “new” thinking for people who’ve been paying no attention.
I think mine is, but other people keep it under control for me. Thank you, ladies!
Mark Steyn says I didn’t write the half of it in that blog post that Mann’s suing me over.
No dissent will be tolerated:
I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expect[ed] such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc.
I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expect[ed] anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.
This isn’t science, and hasn’t been for quite a while.
More thoughts from Anthony Watts. And Judith Curry:
I deeply regret that any scientist, particularly such a distinguished scientist as Bengsston, has had to put up with these attacks. This past week, we have seen numerous important and enlightening statements made by Bengtsson about the state of climate science and policy, and science and society is richer for this. We have also seen a disgraceful display of Climate McCarthyism by climate scientists, which has the potential to do as much harm to climate science as did the Climategate emails. And we have seen the GWPF handle this situation with maturity and dignity.
By their fruits shall ye know them. As Cato noted, this just shows that they realized after the Climategate emails, and no one was sanctioned, that they could do this with impunity.
Ancel Benjamin Keys may be responsible for more premature death and suffering of Americans than anyone in history.
As someone said on Twitter:
@DrEades Saturated fat was the CO2 of the 70s-80s.
— Daniel Kirsner (@Gelf_Sara) May 15, 2014
[Update a few minutes later]
Here’s probably the ultimate review, from Michael Eades:
I want to write a review so good it inspires everyone to buy the book immediately and read it. Why? Because I think it is one of the most important books on nutrition ever written. Maybe the most important. And I feel a responsibility to inspire as many people as I can to get their hands on it.
…this book is so brimming with valuable information that I was almost paralyzed in trying to figure out which parts to excerpt. A book review always comes with excerpts, and this book presented me with such a bounty of choices, it took me forever to decide which to use.
Considering the source, that’s pretty high praise.
I’d missed this, but apparently Louise Riofrio’s book project met its funding goal. I’ll look forward to seeing it.
Boy, Mark Steyn is really asking for it:
So Mann’s work “did not fall within the remit” of Lord Oxburgh’s investigation …but somehow it “exonerated” him anyway. Mann lies easily, smoothly, glibly, using small, sly lies to support bigger, bolder ones. But his entire career is a pile-up of contradictions like these.
Mann might sue him for this.
Oh, wait.
The federal government has excluded only one fresh vegetable from the WIC program: the fresh white potato. This makes no sense and, in fact, ignores the latest nutritional science.
Because some people don’t differentiate between french fries and baked potatoes, the potato has gotten a bad rap. We believe a balance can be found that preserves the integrity of programs such as WIC while also ensuring that the most updated facts are being used to determine the best nutrients for Americans — including from the potato.
Sorry, senators, but this is nonsense. The problem with french fries isn’t the fat (particularly if it’s saturated fat, though unfortunately McDonalds got mau maued into ending the use of tallow decades ago): It’s the potatoes themselves, which are high glycemic.
OK, there seems to be a Twitter panic going on, so I went and read Alan Boyle’s story about it. That was the first time I heard that (even if the models are valid) the problem is two hundred years off.
Isn’t there anyone out there who understands discount rates?
[Update a while later]
Here’s more detail from John Timmer:
Even in the short term, the new findings should increase our estimates for sea level rise by the end of the century, the scientists suggest. But the ongoing process of retreat and destabilization will mean that the area will contribute to rising oceans for centuries.
Sorry, but I’m not going to worry about “rising oceans for centuries” today. Even the end of the century is effectively discounted to zero. It’s economically insane to reduce economic growth now to prevent something that won’t happen for decades.
[Late afternoon update]
As I noted on Twitter earlier:
Not sure that the warm-mongers realize that the ice-sheet story completely obliterates their argument for CO2 reduction. #Inevitable
— Rand Simberg (@Rand_Simberg) May 12, 2014
If the sea rise is really inevitable, then it makes no sense to mitigate carbon to prevent it, when we'll need the future wealth to deal.
— Rand Simberg (@Rand_Simberg) May 12, 2014