This is exactly what I'm talking about. Campbell isn't ignoring any data, nor does Minger actually claim he did (although you could be forgiven if you were misled because what she writes is misleading).
Campbell clusters diseases into "diseases of poverty" and "diseases of affluence" in the obvious way. Myocardial infarction ends up in a disease cluster for affluence because it is associated with affluence. Now Minger's critique argues that myocardial infarction "does not naturally align with" diseases of affluence, but that argument isn't based upon disease prevalence but upon her understanding of associations of related diseases and "non-rice grain consumption". Minger can argue that Campbell really ought to have introduced a zip-a-dee-doo-dah third category to test her boutique nutritional philosophy, but then the study would be about Minger's hypotheses instead of about DISEASES OF POVERTY VS DISEASES OF AFFLUENCE which was the entire point of the study in the first place.
It's trivial to come along decades after the fact and criticize the author for not addressing some contingency or other. There are a massive number of ways to cluster the data. It's trivial to say "You really should have tested it out this way or that way". And if Minger had done the analysis to show her clustering makes more sense, then she could get her work peer reviewed and published and I would have to look at that. But she didn't. She gave no evidence whatsoever that her clustering is superior other than stating her own personal biases.
Maybe some of her other criticisms are more substantive, but when I see superfluous BS like this dressed up as some sort critique I'm not inclined to go digging through it.
Oh wait a minute. Apparently some random internet satirist wrote a blog post about the prospect of eating Bacon for a month? Well that settles that. Who needs more science than that? Why listen to the American Heart Association when you can just mouth ignorant Atkins bullshit after reading some idiotic blog post.
Just goes to show how fucking stupid people are. Creationism, Climate Denial, the belief that Bacon is a health food. Some people will literally believe any comforting lie no matter how idiotic when it justifies their self-destructive lifestyle.
Minger's critiques are a far cry from "ignoring data" and "exaggerating data". I'm looking through this critique and its plagued by a lot of petty annie gripes. Minger is upset because potentially conflating factors like Hepatitis-B were not investigated. This is, at most, a weakness to the study that should have been rectified 20 years ago when they were designing the study, but it doesn't make Campbell dishonest. Minger is upset because an outlier was included in a dataset that she thinks it should have been excluded from. It turns out that excluding this data point does not significantly weaken the result, but Minger wants to point it out anyway. These gripes may be valid (or they may not be), but that doesn't constitute tearing the China Study to pieces.
Actually, if you feed a sedentary *fat* person 3000 calories a day, comprised of bacon, beef and lard, they will lose weight. A sedentary skinny person simply won't *gain* weight.
Actually if you feed a sedentary fat person 3000 calories of bacon every day, what you will get is diabetes, depression, sleep apnea, atherosclerosis, congestive heart failure, and stroke.
fat and meat are fine, you can eat all you want because your body will stop you from eating too much of those.
Tell that to the folks at Old Country Buffet
Take the fattest meat, or even eat animal fat, add to that green vegetables, fleshy fruit, fatty fruits and vegetables, proper amount of complex carbs, a daily cup of yoghurt......people get very, very old without many problems (diabetes, obesity, colon cancer, heart disease, hemmoroids) on a diet like that.
You are aware that Dr. Atkins was an obese man who died of congestive heart failure, right?
No, the Chinese were not exposed to agriculture before the Egyptians. There is no genetic basis for race. There is no genetically Asian basis for "resistance to toxins". And there's plenty about the Asian diet that is special, namely fiber and antioxidants which are critical for transporting toxins out of the body and reducing the body's oxidatitive stress. If you're going to claim that Asians have some special genetic resistance to toxins then you need to present a study showing that Asians on a Western diet die of cancer at a lower rate than their Western peers.
Sugar is a major problem, but we need to be more intelligent than the conventional wisdom that attribute the Obesity epidemic to just one factor. It isn't just sugar. It isn't just lack of exercise. It's about a dozen different factors and when people exclusively focus on one thing, what they are really doing is consciously deciding to ignore everything else. If you decide sugar is the problem but fat isn't, then you're excusing yourself to eat as much fried chicken ad potato chips as possible. People need to step back and see the big picture.
The problem is sugar, fat, alcohol, processed foods, lack of exercise, convenience foods, lack of fruits and vegetables, sedentary activity, eating in front of the television, reliance on the automobile, the expense of healthy foods, people's ignorance on how to cook a balanced meal, the dearth of household meals, the accompanying physiological acclimatization to a high calorie lifestyle, depression, etc. There's dozens of factors.
If you were to name a single problem it is the fact that you can not live a "mainstream" lifestyle in the United States and still have a healthy lifestyle. Less than one-third of Americans have a healthy weight. So if you want to be healthy you need to exist on the fringe of American society, which takes a lot of effort that most people don't want give.
'James Hensen has been making predictions about climate change since the 1980s. When people are comparing what is happening now to those predictions, they can see they fail to match up.'"
Hansen's 1981 paper can be read here. Figure 6 contains future projections which estimated that we would experience about half a degree Celsius of warming by 2012. Compare to NASA's temperature record here. We have warmed about half a degree since Hansen's paper. In other words, Hansen couldn't have been more accurate.
So the real question is this: Why do climate 'skeptics' like Dr. Benny Peiser always make shit up? Peiser's objections aren't even legitimate unresolved scientific questions but just blatant falsehoods that anybody using google could disprove in 5 minutes. Answer: Peiser's only goal is to fool people who are too stupid or too lazy to look shit up for themselves.
The left has been extremely critical of the Obama administration. The left has been consistently critical of his attacks on civil liberties, his wars, his attacks on medical marijuana producers, his deportations, his attacks on whistle blowers, and his obsequiousness to corporate power and the security state. Everyone has heard of the Occupy Movement. The left has challenged Obama's power and leadership on a scale unimaginable of the right-wing during Bush's term.
Wow then you must really hate fossil fuels, what with all those public lands being opened to private entities who receive buckets of our cash for it. And in a decade when fossil fuels are made obsolete by better technologies, they're going hand us the bag.
Wind is already viable. I'm on the east coast and using 100% wind energy and marginal cost is a few bucks per month. It's a small price to pay for clean air. You can find a clean energy provider in your area from this useful page by the Department of Energy.
First, many people can afford a 100% electric vehicle right now and never pay another dime for gas to commute to work. The Zero XU has a removable battery that I can use to charge at work and at home. The range is sufficient for me to get to work on a single charge. It only costs $0.16 per charge and that's 16 cents that I won't even be paying since I'm going to charge it under my desk at work. The total cost for the bike is less than $8K and it is available for purchase right now.
if you're building a peaceful nuclear facility to provide electricity to a civilian population, you don't build the thing deep underground. The only time you build underground is when you have something that's of vital strategic importance.
Iran has a very simple reason why they need to build their nuclear facilities underground: Israel doesn't want Iran to have the ability to enrich uranium and is ready and willing to bomb them. Like they did in Operation Opera and Operation Orchard. And if you think Iran, a nation that has never attacked any of its neighbors in hundreds of years, is a threat to peace, then you must be shitting your pants about the United States and Israel, two nuclear-armed states that have attacked more nations than you count in just the last 50 years.
"Once a scientific truth has been discovered, that does not create a condition under which legislation is required to be made regarding the new understanding, but some people think that it does"
You are correct that once science identifies a previously unknown mechanism by which some person's acts may harm another, there is no intrinsic requirement to create a new law to address the harm per se. People could simply try to protect themselves under our existing legal system by suing others under existing statutes, many of which are quite broad in giving plaintiffs ground to seek damages, especially those of common law. We could, if we desired, simply let the courts deal with the issue. We could choose to saddle ourselves with a litigious nightmare and burden everybody with great uncertainty until the courts finally clear everything up.
Or we could make and enforce clear regulations to address the emergent issue.
Obviously the second way is far superior in terms of efficiently upholding justice, but you are right that we could choose to do the stupid way if we wanted to.
Commodities go up in value and then come back down. Now there are two ways of looking at that. The simple explanation is that this happens all the time with volatile assets like commodities in response to basic market forces. The other explanation is that they were precipitating massive inflation/hyperinflation but then they mysteriously stopped rising and then most of them started to decline. But hyperinflation is still just around the corner. Commodities are zigzagging, wages are stagnant, goods and services are going nowhere, but any minute now ninja inflation is going to strike. You can believe whatever you want, but you explanation is in contradiction with the price history of assets.
I'm not sure why you linked to that YouTube video since it's just several minutes of Ron Paul ranting about the Gold Standard with maybe 30 seconds of Bernanke reminding Paul that people can own whatever asset classes they want. And nowhere does Bernanke critique or hedge on the CPI.
Agricultural commodities are down over the last year. Base metals are down. Just google commodity etfs (dba, dbb) and you can verify this real quick. And if you're going to be tossing around inflammatory rhetoric like calling people "devoid of critical thinking" and "blind" then maybe you should at least bother examining recent data. Just so you don't look like a ignorant blowhard. Just a suggestion.
Look at your own graphs. Your graph of commodities is showing an increase between 2009 to 2010. That was two years ago. So if that was a harbinger of inflation then where is the inflation? Still not showing up in any aggregate statistics, ie: still invisible.
Gold is up, but just plunged an incredible 4% because its a volatile commodity. Oil is up because we are going to war with Iran. Nothing to complicated about it. And if you want to bother with fringy sources like "shadowstats.com" or "truthistreason.net" go for it, but there's no way I'm wasting my time critiquing conspiratorial crap.
No, inflation is not in the stores. If it was in the stores then we would see it in the aggregate statistics. And pricing things out in terms of a singular arbitrary volatile commodity isn't "thinking deeply", especially when you deliberately ignore reasons that commodity is spiking.
There is no such thing as "science necessitating legislation". Scientific truth doesn't need anybody's legal imprimatur.
Also, public safety is one of the central reasons we have laws. If you disagree with the legal protection of public safety, fine, but then argue that honestly. Don't mask your argument with extraneous BS about "science necessitating legislation".
Oh I get it. When a scientist isn't held criminally liable for conducting scientific research, then we are in a "technocracy". If this were a "democracy" then Michael Mann would be arrested because he made a graph that, while broadly accurate, got some people upset.
Indeed, the wealthy of brought themselves many mini-series. Often times they wealthy even get their own regular series. Dynasty, 90210, Paris Hilton's The Simple Life, Gossip Girl.
I see. In your view the magic mystery inflation is hiding and it only shows up in select highly volatile commodities like oil. We can't see inflation in "government statistics" like CPI. We can't see large inflation in independent metrics like the BPP. We can't see inflation in agricultural commodities or base metals, both of which are cheaper than they were a year ago. But in the minds of some those facts don't "reflect reality" anymore than those "fake 'uprisings' in the middle east".
Might I suggest that perhaps your limited understanding of the global economy and the Federal Reserve fractional lending system could have a few blindspots? Seems a bit more likely that your "invisible inflation" theory.
Slashdot Mirror
This is exactly what I'm talking about. Campbell isn't ignoring any data, nor does Minger actually claim he did (although you could be forgiven if you were misled because what she writes is misleading).
Campbell clusters diseases into "diseases of poverty" and "diseases of affluence" in the obvious way. Myocardial infarction ends up in a disease cluster for affluence because it is associated with affluence. Now Minger's critique argues that myocardial infarction "does not naturally align with" diseases of affluence, but that argument isn't based upon disease prevalence but upon her understanding of associations of related diseases and "non-rice grain consumption". Minger can argue that Campbell really ought to have introduced a zip-a-dee-doo-dah third category to test her boutique nutritional philosophy, but then the study would be about Minger's hypotheses instead of about DISEASES OF POVERTY VS DISEASES OF AFFLUENCE which was the entire point of the study in the first place.
It's trivial to come along decades after the fact and criticize the author for not addressing some contingency or other. There are a massive number of ways to cluster the data. It's trivial to say "You really should have tested it out this way or that way". And if Minger had done the analysis to show her clustering makes more sense, then she could get her work peer reviewed and published and I would have to look at that. But she didn't. She gave no evidence whatsoever that her clustering is superior other than stating her own personal biases.
Maybe some of her other criticisms are more substantive, but when I see superfluous BS like this dressed up as some sort critique I'm not inclined to go digging through it.
Oh wait a minute. Apparently some random internet satirist wrote a blog post about the prospect of eating Bacon for a month? Well that settles that. Who needs more science than that? Why listen to the American Heart Association when you can just mouth ignorant Atkins bullshit after reading some idiotic blog post.
Just goes to show how fucking stupid people are. Creationism, Climate Denial, the belief that Bacon is a health food. Some people will literally believe any comforting lie no matter how idiotic when it justifies their self-destructive lifestyle.
Minger's critiques are a far cry from "ignoring data" and "exaggerating data". I'm looking through this critique and its plagued by a lot of petty annie gripes. Minger is upset because potentially conflating factors like Hepatitis-B were not investigated. This is, at most, a weakness to the study that should have been rectified 20 years ago when they were designing the study, but it doesn't make Campbell dishonest. Minger is upset because an outlier was included in a dataset that she thinks it should have been excluded from. It turns out that excluding this data point does not significantly weaken the result, but Minger wants to point it out anyway. These gripes may be valid (or they may not be), but that doesn't constitute tearing the China Study to pieces.
Actually if you feed a sedentary fat person 3000 calories of bacon every day, what you will get is diabetes, depression, sleep apnea, atherosclerosis, congestive heart failure, and stroke.
Tell that to the folks at Old Country Buffet
You are aware that Dr. Atkins was an obese man who died of congestive heart failure, right?
No, the Chinese were not exposed to agriculture before the Egyptians. There is no genetic basis for race. There is no genetically Asian basis for "resistance to toxins". And there's plenty about the Asian diet that is special, namely fiber and antioxidants which are critical for transporting toxins out of the body and reducing the body's oxidatitive stress. If you're going to claim that Asians have some special genetic resistance to toxins then you need to present a study showing that Asians on a Western diet die of cancer at a lower rate than their Western peers.
Sugar is a major problem, but we need to be more intelligent than the conventional wisdom that attribute the Obesity epidemic to just one factor. It isn't just sugar. It isn't just lack of exercise. It's about a dozen different factors and when people exclusively focus on one thing, what they are really doing is consciously deciding to ignore everything else. If you decide sugar is the problem but fat isn't, then you're excusing yourself to eat as much fried chicken ad potato chips as possible. People need to step back and see the big picture.
The problem is sugar, fat, alcohol, processed foods, lack of exercise, convenience foods, lack of fruits and vegetables, sedentary activity, eating in front of the television, reliance on the automobile, the expense of healthy foods, people's ignorance on how to cook a balanced meal, the dearth of household meals, the accompanying physiological acclimatization to a high calorie lifestyle, depression, etc. There's dozens of factors.
If you were to name a single problem it is the fact that you can not live a "mainstream" lifestyle in the United States and still have a healthy lifestyle. Less than one-third of Americans have a healthy weight. So if you want to be healthy you need to exist on the fringe of American society, which takes a lot of effort that most people don't want give.
Hansen's 1981 paper can be read here. Figure 6 contains future projections which estimated that we would experience about half a degree Celsius of warming by 2012. Compare to NASA's temperature record here. We have warmed about half a degree since Hansen's paper. In other words, Hansen couldn't have been more accurate.
So the real question is this: Why do climate 'skeptics' like Dr. Benny Peiser always make shit up? Peiser's objections aren't even legitimate unresolved scientific questions but just blatant falsehoods that anybody using google could disprove in 5 minutes. Answer: Peiser's only goal is to fool people who are too stupid or too lazy to look shit up for themselves.
And all governments are incapable of breaking the law.
The left has been extremely critical of the Obama administration. The left has been consistently critical of his attacks on civil liberties, his wars, his attacks on medical marijuana producers, his deportations, his attacks on whistle blowers, and his obsequiousness to corporate power and the security state. Everyone has heard of the Occupy Movement. The left has challenged Obama's power and leadership on a scale unimaginable of the right-wing during Bush's term.
Wow then you must really hate fossil fuels, what with all those public lands being opened to private entities who receive buckets of our cash for it. And in a decade when fossil fuels are made obsolete by better technologies, they're going hand us the bag.
Wind is already viable. I'm on the east coast and using 100% wind energy and marginal cost is a few bucks per month. It's a small price to pay for clean air. You can find a clean energy provider in your area from this useful page by the Department of Energy.
First, many people can afford a 100% electric vehicle right now and never pay another dime for gas to commute to work. The Zero XU has a removable battery that I can use to charge at work and at home. The range is sufficient for me to get to work on a single charge. It only costs $0.16 per charge and that's 16 cents that I won't even be paying since I'm going to charge it under my desk at work. The total cost for the bike is less than $8K and it is available for purchase right now.
Second, the ARPA-e independently validated Lithium Ion breakthrough is going to be commercialized in a few years and then Electric cars are going to really be into play for all classes of vehicles including trucks.
Or just sell your car and use robotaxis which should have precipitously dropped in price, be much more available, and rarely require parking.
No he got it right because their claiming that their LED is more than 100% efficient. Thus the more energetic the output the more the implied cooling.
Iran has a very simple reason why they need to build their nuclear facilities underground: Israel doesn't want Iran to have the ability to enrich uranium and is ready and willing to bomb them. Like they did in Operation Opera and Operation Orchard. And if you think Iran, a nation that has never attacked any of its neighbors in hundreds of years, is a threat to peace, then you must be shitting your pants about the United States and Israel, two nuclear-armed states that have attacked more nations than you count in just the last 50 years.
You are correct that once science identifies a previously unknown mechanism by which some person's acts may harm another, there is no intrinsic requirement to create a new law to address the harm per se. People could simply try to protect themselves under our existing legal system by suing others under existing statutes, many of which are quite broad in giving plaintiffs ground to seek damages, especially those of common law. We could, if we desired, simply let the courts deal with the issue. We could choose to saddle ourselves with a litigious nightmare and burden everybody with great uncertainty until the courts finally clear everything up.
Or we could make and enforce clear regulations to address the emergent issue.
Obviously the second way is far superior in terms of efficiently upholding justice, but you are right that we could choose to do the stupid way if we wanted to.
Commodities go up in value and then come back down. Now there are two ways of looking at that. The simple explanation is that this happens all the time with volatile assets like commodities in response to basic market forces. The other explanation is that they were precipitating massive inflation/hyperinflation but then they mysteriously stopped rising and then most of them started to decline. But hyperinflation is still just around the corner. Commodities are zigzagging, wages are stagnant, goods and services are going nowhere, but any minute now ninja inflation is going to strike. You can believe whatever you want, but you explanation is in contradiction with the price history of assets.
I'm not sure why you linked to that YouTube video since it's just several minutes of Ron Paul ranting about the Gold Standard with maybe 30 seconds of Bernanke reminding Paul that people can own whatever asset classes they want. And nowhere does Bernanke critique or hedge on the CPI.
Agricultural commodities are down over the last year. Base metals are down. Just google commodity etfs (dba, dbb) and you can verify this real quick. And if you're going to be tossing around inflammatory rhetoric like calling people "devoid of critical thinking" and "blind" then maybe you should at least bother examining recent data. Just so you don't look like a ignorant blowhard. Just a suggestion.
Look at your own graphs. Your graph of commodities is showing an increase between 2009 to 2010. That was two years ago. So if that was a harbinger of inflation then where is the inflation? Still not showing up in any aggregate statistics, ie: still invisible.
Gold is up, but just plunged an incredible 4% because its a volatile commodity. Oil is up because we are going to war with Iran. Nothing to complicated about it. And if you want to bother with fringy sources like "shadowstats.com" or "truthistreason.net" go for it, but there's no way I'm wasting my time critiquing conspiratorial crap.
No, inflation is not in the stores. If it was in the stores then we would see it in the aggregate statistics. And pricing things out in terms of a singular arbitrary volatile commodity isn't "thinking deeply", especially when you deliberately ignore reasons that commodity is spiking.
There is no such thing as "science necessitating legislation". Scientific truth doesn't need anybody's legal imprimatur.
Also, public safety is one of the central reasons we have laws. If you disagree with the legal protection of public safety, fine, but then argue that honestly. Don't mask your argument with extraneous BS about "science necessitating legislation".
Oh I get it. When a scientist isn't held criminally liable for conducting scientific research, then we are in a "technocracy". If this were a "democracy" then Michael Mann would be arrested because he made a graph that, while broadly accurate, got some people upset.
Like totally dude. Legislation based upon physical reality is what the man wants. Question the paradigm.
Indeed, the wealthy of brought themselves many mini-series. Often times they wealthy even get their own regular series. Dynasty, 90210, Paris Hilton's The Simple Life, Gossip Girl.
I see. In your view the magic mystery inflation is hiding and it only shows up in select highly volatile commodities like oil. We can't see inflation in "government statistics" like CPI. We can't see large inflation in independent metrics like the BPP. We can't see inflation in agricultural commodities or base metals, both of which are cheaper than they were a year ago. But in the minds of some those facts don't "reflect reality" anymore than those "fake 'uprisings' in the middle east".
Might I suggest that perhaps your limited understanding of the global economy and the Federal Reserve fractional lending system could have a few blindspots? Seems a bit more likely that your "invisible inflation" theory.