Climate models predicted temperature would go up more than it has.
"This is neither surprising nor particularly troubling to me as a climate scientist," Melanie Fitzpatrick, a climate scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists …
What complete nonsense.
Essentially all of the models are on the wrong side (114 out of 117).
This is not a little bit of bias. You could ask die-hard fans how the home team is going to do this week and not get that sort of result.
Statisticians teach that some bias may be OK, if your overall accuracy is better. But, of course, with climate models, no one has ever claimed (or reasonably expected) these these to be very accurate. Given that, unbiased estimates are critical to any claim that you know what’s going on.
My call is that this is a big sign that they don’t know what’s going on.
“Climate change has made it increasingly difficult to predict climate change,” … “We just happened to notice that the higher carbon dioxide concentrations climbed, the more we had to adjust the data to get the results we knew to be right, and the more we adjusted the data, the bigger the error in the models. It’s a very strong positive feedback.”
… The fact that climate models did not predict a lack of warming meant climate change had progressed much faster than previously thought …
… We can say with certainty what we in the climate research community [have] known all along, that the bigger the climate model errors, the more confident we can be that manmade climate change is happening.” …
… Given how well we can predict the past, the only thing that explains the difficulty of forecasting the future with equal success is the increasing concentration of greenhouse gasses. …
The study which is set to be published in every scientific journal is expected to open up new areas of unprecedented spending in the emerging field of climate research research.
If we’re all getting fat because or … well, whatever reason you like … why are lab animals on controlled diets getting fatter too?
Moral panic about the depravity of the heavy has seeped into many aspects of life …
… It is undoubtedly true that societies are spending vast amounts of time and money on this idea. It is also true that the masters of the universe in business and government seem attracted to it … What we don’t know is whether the theory is actually correct.
… Many researchers believe that personal gluttony and laziness cannot be the entire explanation for humanity’s global weight gain. … As Richard L Atkinson, Emeritus Professor of Medicine and Nutritional Sciences at the University of Wisconsin and editor of the International Journal of Obesity, put it in 2005: ‘The previous belief of many lay people and health professionals that obesity is simply the result of a lack of willpower and an inability to discipline eating habits is no longer defensible.’
Now, about those animals.
Consider, for example, this troublesome fact, reported in 2010 by the biostatistician David B Allison and his co-authors at the University of Alabama in Birmingham: over the past 20 years or more, as the American people were getting fatter, so were America’s marmosets. As were laboratory macaques, chimpanzees, vervet monkeys and mice…
… In fact, lab animals’ lives are so precisely watched and measured that the researchers can rule out accidental human influence: records show those creatures gained weight over decades without any significant change in their diet or activities.
Ah well, our diets are just a little too rich, right?
Such a global hidden factor (or factors) might help to explain why most people gain weight gradually … This slow increase in fat stores would suggest that they are eating only a tiny bit more each month than they use in fuel. But if that were so, as Jonathan C K Wells, professor of child nutrition at University College London, has pointed out, it would be easy to lose weight.
Well then what is the cause? No one is quite sure: too much light? heating and cooling that are too even? chemicals in our food? quasi-Marxist capitalism blaming? infection?
One weak point in the article: nowhere is the uncomfortable fact that heavy people live longer ever mentioned.
FWIW: This is a fair time to note that I am in my 7th year following Seth Roberts Shangri-La diet. I am still below my peak weight, and not having any trouble at all staying there (I exercise, but not much). Shangri-La is all about the thermodynamic explanation (a calorie is a calorie) being totally wrong.
“If the government came into these communities and installed Brita filters under their sinks, they’d drink water instead of Coke,” Lisa Powell, a professor of health policy and administration at the University of Illinois at Chicago’s Institute for Health Research and Policy, told me.
That isn’t satire. That’s a professor with a job for life, and an interest in how the money of other people is spent. On top of that, how deep do you think the control issues run of someone who can make that sort of statement?
I find sloppiness at this level not only stupid, not only time-wasting, but downright offensive. Couldn't anyone be bothered to look anything up? There are facts in this world, you know. Learn a few.
The issue? An article at BuzzFeed (you know … the site that gets like a million times more hits that this one) about toxic foods.
You see, Dr. Lowe is actually an organic chemist, and he knows a thing or two.
His trash job was so complete he had to add this:
Update: You'll notice in this post that I refer to some sites that the original BuzzFeed article I'm complaining out sends people to, often pointing out that these didn't actually support the wilder claims it's making. Well, the folks at BuzzFeed have dealt with this by taking down the links (!) The article now says: "Some studies linked in the original version of this article were concerning unrelated issues. They have been replaced with information directly from the book Rich Food, Poor Food". But as you'll see below, the studies weren't unrelated at all. So when you read about links to the American Cancer Association or NPR, well, all I can say is that they used to be there, until someone apparently realized how embarrassing they were.
So what are the 8 poisons that he dismisses:
Artificial dyes (eek, where’s the hemp dye)
Olestra (eek, potato chips alleged to make you poop your pants)
Brominated vegetable oil (eek, citrus drinks)
Potassium bromate (eek, bread)
Azodicarbonamide (eek, bread)
BHA and BHT (eek, everything, yet also sold in health food stores because it’s natural)
With the development of internet technology, work at home jobs are increasing in the market. Also setting up small business online with ones own bank savings can provide excellent work at home opportunities. Apart from savings, banks offer0 credit card to cater to short term finance needs. Partial tax payments like tax credits are also available to promote online businesses. Market now offers several alternatives to traditional credit card debt which are helpful to work at home businesses.