I'll just make one note on Doctor's knowledge -> a lot of medicine is simply faith, and misplaced faith at that. For example, the "common wisdom" on diet and nutrition tells us that calories in, calories out determines weight gain, and that a low-fat/high-carb/low-calorie diet is the proper treatment for obesity. We've got the USDA pushing a food pyramid that contains mostly blood sugar raising cereals and grains, and demonizes healthy saturated fats. Despite study after study falsifying the hypothesis "a low-fat diet is a healthy diet", the medical establishment is still mostly held in thrall to the ideas of Ancel Keys promoted during McGovern's nutrition committee in 1978. (google "gary taubes berkeley" for the definitive lecture on the topic)
Now, the truth is out there, and the science is quite clear, but establishments we tend to believe are "scientific" are in fact more concerned with their credibility than finding the truth. The government can't simply give nutrition recommendations then five years later say, "Oops! Sorry! That advice we gave you before, that'll give you cancer!" -> they've got to protect their mantle of authority, and ignore data that would falsify their beliefs.
So, let's be very very explicit here: there is a lot of Faith masquerading as Science in the world.
Maybe what was meant by "doubt" in terms of science is not the same thing you mean by "doubt" in terms of religion.
That is to say, in religion, not accepting doubt (facing it and not succumbing to it), is important. In science, accepting doubt (facing it and succumbing to it), is important.
The question for you then is this: can the hypothesis of "you will be better off if you forgive those who wrong you" exist separately from your faith, or vice versa?
It may very well be that the theory of "you will be better off if you forgive those who wrong you" is in fact, true (and arguably falsifiable, though more on a statistical level than an absolute one), but just because that particular theory is scientific, does not make the rest of your Faith true, scientific or useful.
There's no doubt that Faith serves a purpose for some people (arguably, in the days of witch doctors and shamans, it was belief and faith that activated the placebo effect and gave a survival advantage to those people with Belief), but let's not blithely assume that because on facet of a specific Faith may be scientific, useful and true, that all of the other facets are as well.
Interesting points, but ultimately, regardless if you have used "logical reasoning", the difference between faith and science is that with faith, there is no method of falsification, whereas with science, there is in fact encouragement to attempt to falsify one's "logical reasoning". Two people can (and often do), make the same observations, but using different logical reasoning (that cannot be differentiated because neither is falsifiable), come to completely different beliefs and faiths. Take any two major religions as a case example.
Put another way, you may believe things based on your observation and "logical thinking", but if nowhere in your logic is the explicit statement "and if I observed this, I would be wrong", then you're not doing science. So maybe we have two different routes:
Observation -> Falsifiable Hypothesis -> Attempts to falsify hypothesis -> Belief -> Back to Observation
That all being said, I'm more than open to the notion that there are some things that are beyond the bounds of human comprehension, at which point all one can have is an arbitrary faith. While some people may live under the impression that a true scientist believes that anything is subject to the scientific method, I think this is a caricature, and the truth is that in the search of ultimate truths, we often get a clearer understanding of just how little it is possible for us to know.
Actually, that's a *really* good point in general AC, but I'm not sure that wormholes are the best example. You cannot posit god-like technology as a defense of a hypothesis being falsifiable:)
Now, a lot of "scientific" navel gazing ends up living on the "faith" side, be it imagining wormholes, or time travel, or any number of science fiction tropes, but at its heart, the scientific method is about saying "this is my best guess at how things work, and if you see *this* or *that*, I'm wrong".
Science gains its power from a ruthless skepticism of ones' own ideas, and faith gains its power from a ruthless belief in ones' own ideas.
"No, I am not going to watch the Gary Taube lecture."
Then you're really missing out on something important. If your doctoral dissertation was on nutrition, then it should be required viewing for you, period, and his book should be required reading. As much as you agree with some of what I'm saying, his work will challenge you to examine some of the very basic preconceptions I think you still have.
"That means that even an all protein diet eventually creates glucose somewhere. When glucose is introduced through the diet, it requires insulin to be released because the amount introduced far exceeds the body's current need. When your body produces it, it only produces the exact amounts it needs and there is not an appreciable rise in blood sugar."
The amount of insulin released to maintain blood sugar levels on a low-carb diet is phenomenally less than the amount of insulin required to maintain blood sugar levels with carbohydrate intake. Assuming that protein calories act in a similar way to carbohydrate calories because some protein will be converted to glucose via gluconeogenesis, is glossing over an important difference. Put bluntly, gluconeogenesis will *not* trigger excessive releases of insulin, no matter how much protein you're consuming. It happens as needed, not simply because you've eaten protein.
The "calories in, calories out" trope is the one you need to remedy. Overcoming that basic misconception is going to greatly improve your understanding, and Taubes does a great job of laying the case out, especially to people who have higher degrees in nutrition.
I think you've got a real misunderstanding of the Kreb's cycle, and glycemic index.
I use a low carb/high fat/high protein diet to control my weight, and to maintain my health. I'm particularly insulin resistant, and even the slightest amount of carbs can cause my fat cells to accumulate fat under the influence of insulin.
My doctor, like most doctors, don't know crap about proper diet. He told me for three years to eat low-calorie, low-fat, and to exercise, which I did, religiously. Every year, my weight got worse, my cholesterol got worse, and my blood pressure got worse. When I stopped listening to him, and cut the carbs out, I lost 50 lbs., my cholesterol improved, and my blood pressure improved. "Moderation" is a weasel word that means nothing -> imaging a "moderate" amount of cocaine for a 5 year old.
Asserting that "carb+fat" is the problem is missing the point -> there are essential fatty acids, and essential proteins, but no essential carbohydrates. Blaming the fat for being stored in fat cells because it happens to be there (when in fact, it *has* to be there), is ignoring the real problem -> the carbohydrate. It's like saying our problem is "murderers+victims", and using that as an argument against victims The problem *isn't* the victim, it's the murderer.
"Protein and fats are broken down into glucose just like carbs."
Wrong. Gluconeogenesis is *very* different than the digestion of carbohydrates.
" if all you eat is protein or all you eat is fat, you will starve to death,"
Wrong. See the Masai and Inuit.
"With regards to fats, saturated fat is not "good" for you"
Yes, it is. Of course, this is mostly because wherever you see saturated fat, you actually see a combination of saturated and unsaturated fat, but to imagine it as "bad" is a misconception.
"The average American diet is very high in fat."
But the fat isn't the problem. It's the carbs.
"Carbs are not bad for you. Protein is not bad for you. Fat is not bad for you. Excess of any one of them is bad for you."
The problem is that "excess" is different for all three, and the worst one is carbs.
Seriously, did you watch the Gary Taubes lecture? More importantly, are you going to?
I can eat a 40 oz steak, and not drive my blood sugar up, not raise my insulin levels, and not accumulate fat. I can eat half a potato, and drive my blood sugar up, raise my insulin levels, and have my insulin resistant body accumulate fat. The portion size and calorie amount isn't what is important here -> the effect on insulin levels *is*.
Seriously, google "gary taubes berkeley", watch his lecture, then get back to me with what you've learned.
You know, i've heard the "you cannot stay on a low carb diet forever", but my experience has been quite the opposite. Becoming a born again carnivore for the past 4 years, losing 50 pounds and keeping it off effortlessly, has been an incredibly *easy* experience. The withdrawal symptoms from the carbohydrates hurt for a while, but as a long term diet strategy, minimizing carbohydrates is very sustainable.
The secret to weight loss, and keeping it off, is understanding what drives fat accumulation -> insulin. Ignoring the hormonal drivers here, and reflexively believing in "portion control" is what keeps fat people fat.
That's correct, nutritionists who are taught the "a calorie is a calorie is a calorie" trope have no idea what they're talking about. Fat accumulation is not driven by calories, it's driven by insulin. Not all calories stimulate the production of insulin.
If "The Biggest Loser" wanted to be most efficient, they'd zip everyone down to zero carbs, and give them a heap of exercise at the same time. With the caloric restriction they do use, they're actually decreasing their carbs considerably, which is what is stopping the abnormal fat accumulation.
Google "gary taubes berkeley". Listen to his lecture on the science behind the fat-hypothesis, and the carbohydrate-hypothesis. Reply to this comment with what you've learned from him.
"It is misleading to state proteins and fat have nearly zero effect on blood sugar levels. That is only true in the absence of carbs."
How can you possibly say that? Do proteins and fat suddenly gain a glycemic index value simply because you ate some sugar with them, or had sugar the day before? Of course not.
"However, because of the high fat/high calorie content (ie high energy) you can't eat a lot of it."
How high in fat something is, or its calorie content, doesn't determine how much you can eat of something. Glycemic index does.
"Just like carbs, there are good fats (mono saturated) and bad fats."
Saturated fat is just fine for you. Calling it a "bad fat" is a misnomer (that should be saved for transfats, which are completely unnatural).
BTW, did you listen to Taubes' lecture? What did you learn from it?
It's extremely tired, because it's extremely untrue. Let's take your physics argument for a moment:
A stick of celery has "zero" calories. Now, put that in a calorimeter. Burn it. Did you measure zero calories release?
Of course not.
Why? Well, we count it as "zero" because we can't digest fiber. Even though celery does have a *physical* caloric value, those calories behave differently in our body than other calories. Ruminants can extract energy from them, but we can't.
So, if we can accept that the whole "calories" thing is an imperfect trope regarding how our bodies process food, why is it so hard to accept that our bodies react to calories that raise blood sugar differently than calories that don't? Even more tired is the fact that "calories out" isn't just a matter of exercise, it's also a matter of excreting calories that have not been used (like the fiber, or in ketone bodies).
Fat accumulation, simply put, is driven by insulin, *not* caloric intake. Assuming that caloric restriction is going to outweigh the hormonal issue here is like prescribing a low-calorie diet for someone with an overactive pituitary causing them to grow uncontrollably tall. No doubt, the body requires energy in order to accomplish the growth being stimulated by the HGH that's coursing through the body, but *it's not growing because you put the energy in*.
Actually, the tired old trope of "calories in, calories out" has been thoroughly refuted by a number of studies, detailed in Gary Taubes' "Good Calories, Bad Calories". Google for "gary taubes berkeley", watch his lecture, then get back to me.
A few more corrections:
1) proteins and fats have nearly zero effect on blood sugar levels. google "glycemic index"
2) there is no such thing as an essential carbs -> you can, and people have, lived very well without carbs. google "masai" and "inuit"
3) poor cholesterol levels (as measured by high triglycerides and low HDL) has been shown to be a result of high-carb/low fat diet. Putting people on low-fat diets after heart attacks should be considered malpractice.
Type 1 diabetes is a completely different beastie, but you've made a couple of important mistakes:
1) insulin doesn't "breakdown" sugar. It tells fat cells to hold onto fat, and forces the body to burn the sugar in the blood for energy. It's not some sort of solvent.
2) HFCS is simply a different ratio of fructose and glucose (55/45, instead of 50/50 in common table sugar). The fructose and glucose in HFCS are metabolized exactly the same way the fructose and glucose in common table sugar is.
Super duper easy. The chronic diseases of civilization that cost us the most money (obesity, diabetes, cancer, heart disease, etc), all have their source in the effect of the hormone insulin. Insulin levels are raised by high blood sugar levels, and blood sugar levels are raised by carbohydrate intake.
Now, you probably won't find that data in people's medical records, but if they started tracking that, I think they'd have an excellent predictor of future problems.
Obligatory mention of abiogenic petroleum. It may or may not be the majority of petroleum product found on this planet, but it didn't take any plants to create methane (natural gas) atmospheres on various moons in our solar system.
Probably a better way to say it is, "as oil becomes more and more expensive to recover from the earth, we'll have plenty of motivation to examine alternatives that as of today are too expensive -> one can only hope that we actually find a replacement that is *cheaper*, because cheap energy has provided more improvement in humanity's well being than any other factor."
"Climate science is an evolving area of study, and doesn't boil down to clear "Right" or "Wrong" options."
Actually, there are definitely "wrong" options in climate science -> those statements which cannot be posed as falsifiable hypotheses. For example, the hypothesis, "If there are more snowstorms in ten years, and if there are less snowstorms in ten years, and if there are exactly the same number of snowstorms in ten years, CO2 causes snowstorms" is clearly a *wrong* scientific hypothesis - if there is no observation which will falsify your hypothesis, we call this "religion".
"These things may be right or wrong in your opinion or mine, but until they are determined by the processes built into our government's laws, neither of us is actually correct."
I'll certainly grant you that, and I'll certainly admit that because of the changing nature of government, it is likely that we'll both be wrong and right at arbitrary time lines, but I'll happily assert that my opinion is better than everyone else's:)
Multiple investigations meticulously avoided any investigation into scientific fraud in Climategate. The whitewashes actually do a greater disservice by impeaching the credibility of the organizations who were supposed to do real investigations.
It is as if to say, after Nixon's order to break into the DNC, and the exposure of the "enemies list", and after the review of the recordings, that the GOP put forth three investigations clearing Nixon and his cronies of any wrongdoing. Would you have believed that?
"Clearly science should be performed by incorporeal angels."
I'll settle for people who are ruthlessly trying to prove themselves wrong, rather than government authorities who must protect their credibility to the last, rather than admit error. Government wants to be obeyed, and so when they suggest that we eat a low-fat diet, even though the increased carbohydrates are found to cause heart disease, obesity, cancer diabetes and other chronic diseases, the must continue talking about how we should eat a low-fat diet. If they were to reverse themselves, the next time they told us to do something, we might have some doubt. Doubt is the death knell of governments, and unless you realize what the motivations are there, you cannot possibly understand how bad of an idea it is to relegate science, a practice which by its very definition must be skeptical, introspective and ruthlessly honest, to an institution which has a diametrically opposed view.
BTW, did you *read* any of the whitewashes? Here's a decent guide to the detailed problems with them - feel free to expound on any details you happen to disagree with:
If they wrote the book on the government dime, than yes, it should be in the public domain. Same thing with government sponsored research that leads to crazy patents -> if you're using public money, it should be public domain.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll just make one note on Doctor's knowledge -> a lot of medicine is simply faith, and misplaced faith at that. For example, the "common wisdom" on diet and nutrition tells us that calories in, calories out determines weight gain, and that a low-fat/high-carb/low-calorie diet is the proper treatment for obesity. We've got the USDA pushing a food pyramid that contains mostly blood sugar raising cereals and grains, and demonizes healthy saturated fats. Despite study after study falsifying the hypothesis "a low-fat diet is a healthy diet", the medical establishment is still mostly held in thrall to the ideas of Ancel Keys promoted during McGovern's nutrition committee in 1978. (google "gary taubes berkeley" for the definitive lecture on the topic)
Now, the truth is out there, and the science is quite clear, but establishments we tend to believe are "scientific" are in fact more concerned with their credibility than finding the truth. The government can't simply give nutrition recommendations then five years later say, "Oops! Sorry! That advice we gave you before, that'll give you cancer!" -> they've got to protect their mantle of authority, and ignore data that would falsify their beliefs.
So, let's be very very explicit here: there is a lot of Faith masquerading as Science in the world.
Maybe what was meant by "doubt" in terms of science is not the same thing you mean by "doubt" in terms of religion.
That is to say, in religion, not accepting doubt (facing it and not succumbing to it), is important. In science, accepting doubt (facing it and succumbing to it), is important.
The question for you then is this: can the hypothesis of "you will be better off if you forgive those who wrong you" exist separately from your faith, or vice versa?
It may very well be that the theory of "you will be better off if you forgive those who wrong you" is in fact, true (and arguably falsifiable, though more on a statistical level than an absolute one), but just because that particular theory is scientific, does not make the rest of your Faith true, scientific or useful.
There's no doubt that Faith serves a purpose for some people (arguably, in the days of witch doctors and shamans, it was belief and faith that activated the placebo effect and gave a survival advantage to those people with Belief), but let's not blithely assume that because on facet of a specific Faith may be scientific, useful and true, that all of the other facets are as well.
Interesting points, but ultimately, regardless if you have used "logical reasoning", the difference between faith and science is that with faith, there is no method of falsification, whereas with science, there is in fact encouragement to attempt to falsify one's "logical reasoning". Two people can (and often do), make the same observations, but using different logical reasoning (that cannot be differentiated because neither is falsifiable), come to completely different beliefs and faiths. Take any two major religions as a case example.
Put another way, you may believe things based on your observation and "logical thinking", but if nowhere in your logic is the explicit statement "and if I observed this, I would be wrong", then you're not doing science. So maybe we have two different routes:
Observation -> Arbitrary Analysis -> Belief -> Faith
Observation -> Falsifiable Hypothesis -> Attempts to falsify hypothesis -> Belief -> Back to Observation
That all being said, I'm more than open to the notion that there are some things that are beyond the bounds of human comprehension, at which point all one can have is an arbitrary faith. While some people may live under the impression that a true scientist believes that anything is subject to the scientific method, I think this is a caricature, and the truth is that in the search of ultimate truths, we often get a clearer understanding of just how little it is possible for us to know.
Actually, that's a *really* good point in general AC, but I'm not sure that wormholes are the best example. You cannot posit god-like technology as a defense of a hypothesis being falsifiable :)
...faith is about non-falsifiable hypotheses.
Now, a lot of "scientific" navel gazing ends up living on the "faith" side, be it imagining wormholes, or time travel, or any number of science fiction tropes, but at its heart, the scientific method is about saying "this is my best guess at how things work, and if you see *this* or *that*, I'm wrong".
Science gains its power from a ruthless skepticism of ones' own ideas, and faith gains its power from a ruthless belief in ones' own ideas.
"No, I am not going to watch the Gary Taube lecture."
Then you're really missing out on something important. If your doctoral dissertation was on nutrition, then it should be required viewing for you, period, and his book should be required reading. As much as you agree with some of what I'm saying, his work will challenge you to examine some of the very basic preconceptions I think you still have.
"That means that even an all protein diet eventually creates glucose somewhere. When glucose is introduced through the diet, it requires insulin to be released because the amount introduced far exceeds the body's current need. When your body produces it, it only produces the exact amounts it needs and there is not an appreciable rise in blood sugar."
The amount of insulin released to maintain blood sugar levels on a low-carb diet is phenomenally less than the amount of insulin required to maintain blood sugar levels with carbohydrate intake. Assuming that protein calories act in a similar way to carbohydrate calories because some protein will be converted to glucose via gluconeogenesis, is glossing over an important difference. Put bluntly, gluconeogenesis will *not* trigger excessive releases of insulin, no matter how much protein you're consuming. It happens as needed, not simply because you've eaten protein.
The "calories in, calories out" trope is the one you need to remedy. Overcoming that basic misconception is going to greatly improve your understanding, and Taubes does a great job of laying the case out, especially to people who have higher degrees in nutrition.
I think you've got a real misunderstanding of the Kreb's cycle, and glycemic index.
I use a low carb/high fat/high protein diet to control my weight, and to maintain my health. I'm particularly insulin resistant, and even the slightest amount of carbs can cause my fat cells to accumulate fat under the influence of insulin.
My doctor, like most doctors, don't know crap about proper diet. He told me for three years to eat low-calorie, low-fat, and to exercise, which I did, religiously. Every year, my weight got worse, my cholesterol got worse, and my blood pressure got worse. When I stopped listening to him, and cut the carbs out, I lost 50 lbs., my cholesterol improved, and my blood pressure improved. "Moderation" is a weasel word that means nothing -> imaging a "moderate" amount of cocaine for a 5 year old.
Asserting that "carb+fat" is the problem is missing the point -> there are essential fatty acids, and essential proteins, but no essential carbohydrates. Blaming the fat for being stored in fat cells because it happens to be there (when in fact, it *has* to be there), is ignoring the real problem -> the carbohydrate. It's like saying our problem is "murderers+victims", and using that as an argument against victims The problem *isn't* the victim, it's the murderer.
I keep it under 40g a day. Not doing any specific diet plan like Atkins or South Beach, just avoiding carbs.
I can do this indefinitely, and the Masai and Inuit did this indefinitely for generations.
Seriously, go watch the Gary Taubes lecture, *then* reply to comments.
"Protein and fats are broken down into glucose just like carbs."
Wrong. Gluconeogenesis is *very* different than the digestion of carbohydrates.
" if all you eat is protein or all you eat is fat, you will starve to death,"
Wrong. See the Masai and Inuit.
"With regards to fats, saturated fat is not "good" for you"
Yes, it is. Of course, this is mostly because wherever you see saturated fat, you actually see a combination of saturated and unsaturated fat, but to imagine it as "bad" is a misconception.
"The average American diet is very high in fat."
But the fat isn't the problem. It's the carbs.
"Carbs are not bad for you. Protein is not bad for you. Fat is not bad for you. Excess of any one of them is bad for you."
The problem is that "excess" is different for all three, and the worst one is carbs.
Seriously, did you watch the Gary Taubes lecture? More importantly, are you going to?
I can eat a 40 oz steak, and not drive my blood sugar up, not raise my insulin levels, and not accumulate fat. I can eat half a potato, and drive my blood sugar up, raise my insulin levels, and have my insulin resistant body accumulate fat. The portion size and calorie amount isn't what is important here -> the effect on insulin levels *is*.
Seriously, google "gary taubes berkeley", watch his lecture, then get back to me with what you've learned.
You know, i've heard the "you cannot stay on a low carb diet forever", but my experience has been quite the opposite. Becoming a born again carnivore for the past 4 years, losing 50 pounds and keeping it off effortlessly, has been an incredibly *easy* experience. The withdrawal symptoms from the carbohydrates hurt for a while, but as a long term diet strategy, minimizing carbohydrates is very sustainable.
The secret to weight loss, and keeping it off, is understanding what drives fat accumulation -> insulin. Ignoring the hormonal drivers here, and reflexively believing in "portion control" is what keeps fat people fat.
That's correct, nutritionists who are taught the "a calorie is a calorie is a calorie" trope have no idea what they're talking about. Fat accumulation is not driven by calories, it's driven by insulin. Not all calories stimulate the production of insulin.
If "The Biggest Loser" wanted to be most efficient, they'd zip everyone down to zero carbs, and give them a heap of exercise at the same time. With the caloric restriction they do use, they're actually decreasing their carbs considerably, which is what is stopping the abnormal fat accumulation.
Google "gary taubes berkeley". Listen to his lecture on the science behind the fat-hypothesis, and the carbohydrate-hypothesis. Reply to this comment with what you've learned from him.
"It is misleading to state proteins and fat have nearly zero effect on blood sugar levels. That is only true in the absence of carbs."
How can you possibly say that? Do proteins and fat suddenly gain a glycemic index value simply because you ate some sugar with them, or had sugar the day before? Of course not.
"However, because of the high fat/high calorie content (ie high energy) you can't eat a lot of it."
How high in fat something is, or its calorie content, doesn't determine how much you can eat of something. Glycemic index does.
"Just like carbs, there are good fats (mono saturated) and bad fats."
Saturated fat is just fine for you. Calling it a "bad fat" is a misnomer (that should be saved for transfats, which are completely unnatural).
BTW, did you listen to Taubes' lecture? What did you learn from it?
It's extremely tired, because it's extremely untrue. Let's take your physics argument for a moment:
A stick of celery has "zero" calories. Now, put that in a calorimeter. Burn it. Did you measure zero calories release?
Of course not.
Why? Well, we count it as "zero" because we can't digest fiber. Even though celery does have a *physical* caloric value, those calories behave differently in our body than other calories. Ruminants can extract energy from them, but we can't.
So, if we can accept that the whole "calories" thing is an imperfect trope regarding how our bodies process food, why is it so hard to accept that our bodies react to calories that raise blood sugar differently than calories that don't? Even more tired is the fact that "calories out" isn't just a matter of exercise, it's also a matter of excreting calories that have not been used (like the fiber, or in ketone bodies).
Fat accumulation, simply put, is driven by insulin, *not* caloric intake. Assuming that caloric restriction is going to outweigh the hormonal issue here is like prescribing a low-calorie diet for someone with an overactive pituitary causing them to grow uncontrollably tall. No doubt, the body requires energy in order to accomplish the growth being stimulated by the HGH that's coursing through the body, but *it's not growing because you put the energy in*.
Actually, the tired old trope of "calories in, calories out" has been thoroughly refuted by a number of studies, detailed in Gary Taubes' "Good Calories, Bad Calories". Google for "gary taubes berkeley", watch his lecture, then get back to me.
A few more corrections:
1) proteins and fats have nearly zero effect on blood sugar levels. google "glycemic index"
2) there is no such thing as an essential carbs -> you can, and people have, lived very well without carbs. google "masai" and "inuit"
3) poor cholesterol levels (as measured by high triglycerides and low HDL) has been shown to be a result of high-carb/low fat diet. Putting people on low-fat diets after heart attacks should be considered malpractice.
Type 1 diabetes is a completely different beastie, but you've made a couple of important mistakes:
1) insulin doesn't "breakdown" sugar. It tells fat cells to hold onto fat, and forces the body to burn the sugar in the blood for energy. It's not some sort of solvent.
2) HFCS is simply a different ratio of fructose and glucose (55/45, instead of 50/50 in common table sugar). The fructose and glucose in HFCS are metabolized exactly the same way the fructose and glucose in common table sugar is.
Super duper easy. The chronic diseases of civilization that cost us the most money (obesity, diabetes, cancer, heart disease, etc), all have their source in the effect of the hormone insulin. Insulin levels are raised by high blood sugar levels, and blood sugar levels are raised by carbohydrate intake.
Now, you probably won't find that data in people's medical records, but if they started tracking that, I think they'd have an excellent predictor of future problems.
Obligatory mention of abiogenic petroleum. It may or may not be the majority of petroleum product found on this planet, but it didn't take any plants to create methane (natural gas) atmospheres on various moons in our solar system.
Probably a better way to say it is, "as oil becomes more and more expensive to recover from the earth, we'll have plenty of motivation to examine alternatives that as of today are too expensive -> one can only hope that we actually find a replacement that is *cheaper*, because cheap energy has provided more improvement in humanity's well being than any other factor."
"Climate science is an evolving area of study, and doesn't boil down to clear "Right" or "Wrong" options."
Actually, there are definitely "wrong" options in climate science -> those statements which cannot be posed as falsifiable hypotheses. For example, the hypothesis, "If there are more snowstorms in ten years, and if there are less snowstorms in ten years, and if there are exactly the same number of snowstorms in ten years, CO2 causes snowstorms" is clearly a *wrong* scientific hypothesis - if there is no observation which will falsify your hypothesis, we call this "religion".
"These things may be right or wrong in your opinion or mine, but until they are determined by the processes built into our government's laws, neither of us is actually correct."
I'll certainly grant you that, and I'll certainly admit that because of the changing nature of government, it is likely that we'll both be wrong and right at arbitrary time lines, but I'll happily assert that my opinion is better than everyone else's :)
Multiple investigations meticulously avoided any investigation into scientific fraud in Climategate. The whitewashes actually do a greater disservice by impeaching the credibility of the organizations who were supposed to do real investigations.
It is as if to say, after Nixon's order to break into the DNC, and the exposure of the "enemies list", and after the review of the recordings, that the GOP put forth three investigations clearing Nixon and his cronies of any wrongdoing. Would you have believed that?
"Clearly science should be performed by incorporeal angels."
I'll settle for people who are ruthlessly trying to prove themselves wrong, rather than government authorities who must protect their credibility to the last, rather than admit error. Government wants to be obeyed, and so when they suggest that we eat a low-fat diet, even though the increased carbohydrates are found to cause heart disease, obesity, cancer diabetes and other chronic diseases, the must continue talking about how we should eat a low-fat diet. If they were to reverse themselves, the next time they told us to do something, we might have some doubt. Doubt is the death knell of governments, and unless you realize what the motivations are there, you cannot possibly understand how bad of an idea it is to relegate science, a practice which by its very definition must be skeptical, introspective and ruthlessly honest, to an institution which has a diametrically opposed view.
Climategate was a global phenomenon...you have heard of Michael Mann and the University of Virginia, haven't you? :)
Actually, it did make headlines in conservative circles ->
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100043200/third-climategate-report-imminent-expect-a-shortage-of-whitewash-in-stores-this-weekend/
BTW, did you *read* any of the whitewashes? Here's a decent guide to the detailed problems with them - feel free to expound on any details you happen to disagree with:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/15/mckitrick-understanding-the-climategate-inquiries/
If they wrote the book on the government dime, than yes, it should be in the public domain. Same thing with government sponsored research that leads to crazy patents -> if you're using public money, it should be public domain.