Global Warming is over.

[ForcedFirebird]

Yeah when its really just a luxury drink we overuse. It was marketed extremely heavy to be beneficial to our bones, teeth, etc, when the reality seems to be it just help us get fatter.

According to his paper back then, he argued that animal proteins actually robbed human bones of calcium, and that was the real reason milk was/is fortified with it. Amazing what Google does for research in modern day times.

[BraveUlysses]

I doubt it's really a significant driver to our obesity problem

I always drank milk when growing up but once I hit adulthood I can't stand the stuff unless it's in espresso

[nando]

the doctors still recommend kids drink it - the fat content helps brain development or something. my kids sometimes go through 3-4 gallons in a week.. yeesh.

[ForcedFirebird]

I don't drink milk anymore. Yuck. :p

I do eat cheese and dairy products though..

I don't think you'll find much to dispute that methane is worse than C02. I think the biggest risk to the climate is possibly methane thawing in the arctic/antarctica.

Landfills, mining etc. Human methane production:



Seeing methane makes up ~10-15% of the greenhouse gasses, but being 20-30x more potent, not sure why everyone gets so hung up on co2. Sure, it's less by volume, but also more dangerous.

[ForcedFirebird]

the doctors still recommend kids drink it - the fat content helps brain development or something. my kids sometimes go through 3-4 gallons in a week.. yeesh.

I still have 3 kids at home (four including my live-in nephew, but he drinks soy), I feel your pain.

[BraveUlysses]

From that link i posted:

While methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, there is over 200 times more CO2 in the atmosphere. Hence the amount of warming methane contributes is 28% of the warming CO2 contributes.

Also the amount emitted has apparently leveled off since 2004? but that's where the data ended

[z31maniac]

Haha ok so because humans might be able to survive a mass extinction event, it's NBD?

lolz, poor herby. IZ OK.

I'm saying it would be a blessing to the planet if we were wiped off of it.

Maybe Trump and Putin will end their bromance and press the button.

[ForcedFirebird]

From that link i posted:

While methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, there is over 200 times more CO2 in the atmosphere. Hence the amount of warming methane contributes is 28% of the warming CO2 contributes.

Also the amount emitted has apparently leveled off since 2004? but that's where the data ended

I noticed this comment dating the link:

1. TonyW at 17:35 PM on 10 August, 2013
   Methane levels started to increase again, about 6 or 7 years ago, so this explanation needs updating.
   

[estoguy]

Raw Goat milk, especially Nigerian Dwarf Goat milk, is the best. Just saying.

[gwb72tii]

From that link i posted:

While methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, there is over 200 times more CO2 in the atmosphere. Hence the amount of warming methane contributes is 28% of the warming CO2 contributes.

Also the amount emitted has apparently leveled off since 2004? but that's where the data ended

there is no smoking gun, no proof of any kind co2 is responsible for the moderate warming that has occurred over the last 200 years

the AGW hypothesis is rooted in models with no empirical data to support their many hypotheses

correlation is not causation

[BraveUlysses]

stop posting george

[gwb72tii]

so brave, you do know the IPCC which started all this was formed to study the effects man is having on global warming. It was not set up to try and find what the cause is.

And low and behold we have study upon study supporting the IPCC's initial bias that man is responsible for global warming (see confirmation bias).

20 years later global warming is a multi hundred billion dollar business. Scientists who disagree with the hypothesis cannot get peer reviewed, cannot get published and cannot get tenure. Any debate is stifled. You may agree with all this but then you cannot describe it as science. its a circle jerk.

and to further my point, here is another example, in diet

i found this article in the reading i do daily. it's about a couple of your generation that cares about science and is a really interesting read about someone that has the means and money trying to do good.

https://www.wired.com/2017/01/john-arnold-waging-war-on-bad-science/

towards the end of the article is a reference to a book written by Gary Taubes (Good Calories, Bad Calories) about replicating studies in diet

here is a synopsis on the work done by Taubes
file:///C:/Users/user/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/INetCache/Content.Outlook/8FHWGNUS/notes-to-good-calories-bad-calories.pdf

the problems in the studies on fat and carbohydrates in our diet are an exact description of what passes for government funded climate science. there is no science involved.

so your side of the argument that has cried "wolf" for 20 years gets to reap what it has sewed, Trump, and the defunding of climate science by the government. no more grants.

it could not have happened soon enough.

[Wschnitz]

so brave, you do know the IPCC which started all this was formed to study the effects man is having on global warming. It was not set up to try and find what the cause is.

And low and behold we have study upon study supporting the IPCC's initial bias that man is responsible for global warming (see confirmation bias).

20 years later global warming is a multi hundred billion dollar business. Scientists who disagree with the hypothesis cannot get peer reviewed, cannot get published and cannot get tenure. Any debate is stifled. You may agree with all this but then you cannot describe it as science. its a circle jerk.

and to further my point, here is another example, in diet

i found this article in the reading i do daily. it's about a couple of your generation that cares about science and is a really interesting read about someone that has the means and money trying to do good.

https://www.wired.com/2017/01/john-arnold-waging-war-on-bad-science/

towards the end of the article is a reference to a book written by Gary Taubes (Good Calories, Bad Calories) about replicating studies in diet

here is a synopsis on the work done by Taubes
file:///C:/Users/user/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/INetCache/Content.Outlook/8FHWGNUS/notes-to-good-calories-bad-calories.pdf

the problems in the studies on fat and carbohydrates in our diet are an exact description of what passes for government funded climate science. there is no science involved.

so your side of the argument that has cried "wolf" for 20 years gets to reap what it has sewed, Trump, and the defunding of climate science by the government. no more grants.

it could not have happened soon enough.

Lmao did george just try linking a pdf from his C drive lolll.

[BraveUlysses]

Lmao did george just try linking a pdf from his C drive lolll.

:rofl:
what part of 'stop posting' is unclear for lyin george to understand?

[gwb72tii]

im not in IT