I did some google searches, but my lazy impressions are that it's a food standard imposed by the UN. Is there something more to it? On the issue of enforcing nutrient standards, I think it is as counterproductive as our FDA's food pyramid and other health policies they're pushing. The bueraucracy and pseudoscience behind their conclusions show a lack of understanding of our body's complex systems for digesting and metabolizing different foods. Heck, sometimes food lobbyists even write the government's nutrition books to peddle to us.. Codex Alimentus sounds like the secret ingredient to Soylent Green.
No I'm saying that you didn't really know what you're talking about here...now you googled and you know more, don't you? And let's see who this erstwhile meteorologist is: Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary, Canada Note - this gentlemen appears to have no affiliation with any scientific or academic institution (this is why I listed him, not because he is a meteorologist- but then every TV weatherman claims to be a meteorologist by the way) He appears to be an "air-quality" consultant. What in god's name does that mean? What is his PhD in? Remember - he is being offered as a prominent authority in the field of climate science, ostensibly by you. ...and googling reveals his associations: http://www.desmogblog.com/Douglas_Leahey He's not an academic. - he's a guy who is connected to a sham think tank apparently funded by oil companies and who has not published a single piece of research on human induced climate change, according to the link. Once again, part of the cottage industry of GW deniers Tell me why, Rocket River, you are impressed by this. ANyway what's your number? How many scientists does it take for you? 600 400 200 or 100?
http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/ --> Codex Crash Course This is a great site btw for health education. Codex basically allows your food to be legally contaminated and genetically altered at the benefit of corporate interests and much to the detriment of your body's health. There's so much crap and toxic material in our food and drinking water that I could really just start a thread about it.
MadMax - here is why I get frustrated when you post the "well hey I just don't know/there's some impressive people on THIS side too!" argument that you have posted for years, it's because we have done it so many times before for your threads or threads you were in: Here's one from back in March - where two scientists who post on this BBS explain to you 1. why this GW denier you cited is wrong and 2. that she (like many in the GW denial industry) is yet another person on the payroll of big bidness. Note this is one of the 650/400/200 scientists cited by Inhofe. http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?p=3566598&highlight=warming#post3566598 Here's a 17 page monster thread about the GW denier industry (that you participated in) about...guess who, the same oil industry shills cited by Inhofe. http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?p=3566598&highlight=warming#post3566598 Here's another thread with you citing the very same GW deniers as authority, again, where somebody explains to you that these are the same GW deniers with dubious credentials that you always cite and cited by Inhofe, again: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=114282&highlight=warming And here's you citing Ann Coulter of all people as authority.....Anyway, yeah this thread cites to the same Inhofe GW deniers with dubious credentials which are noted in this thread.* http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=58378&page=2&pp=20&highlight=warming I get frustrated with your posts on this because of the fact that we have done this before many times and you come back with the same kind of "Well BOTH sides have a good point....do you have ANY EVIDENCE these guys are on the payroll of Exxon or are professional GW Deniers....I just don't know!" type of line is foolish and makes me skeptical of whether or not you are being willfully blind. This is not really an "agree to disagree situation" - people give you info about these people repeatedly over the years and then you come back and start anew thread requesting the same info..... It's fine if you don't want to change your mind but the "i'm just a simple caveman - I don't know if these guys are biased" act is grating if you remember your past posts on this subject (which I do because I am a loser with a long memory). *But that's not the BEST PART of that thread. Actually the best part of that thread is HayesStreet....yes the very same one in this thread, skewering you for citing Ann Coulter, arguing in favor of global warming, and citing "1200 Nobel Laureates" who believe in Global Warmng as evidence that it is occurring...among other great posts of his in that thread. I guess he had a different agenda back in 2003....However I look forward to his future posts on the subject and to see a spirited debate between 2003 HayesStreet and 2008 Hayestreet.
Global Warming: The Great D&D Debate Ladies and gentlemen, children of all ages. Gather ye round for a feast of logical pugilism and verbal fisticuffs. In the red corner, in the black trunks, sponsored by ExxonMobil, I present to you HayesStreet 2008! In the blue corner, wearing the green trunks, sponsored by GreenPeace, I give you HayesStreet 2003! Gentlemen - I have spoken to you both in your dressing rooms...protect yourselves at all times, I expect a good clean fight and for you to obey my commands at all times. Punches below this level will be counted low. Any questions? No? Good...LET'S GET IT ON! Round 1 DING! ROUND 1 TO HAYES STREET 2003 - 1200 Nobel Laureates > 650 Non-Nobel Laureates most of whom were who were not on IPCC and some of whom are not scientists ROUND 2 DING! DOWN GOES HAYESSTREET 2008! DOWN GOES HAYESSTREET 2008! THE REFEREE IS STOPPING THE FIGHT! IT'S ALL OVER LADIES AND GENTLEMAN, THE WINNER....and STILL CHAMPION OF THE INTERWEBS, FIGHTING OUT OF THE BLUE CORNER HAYESSTREET 2003!
Well kudos for the hard work, Sam. Going back to 2003 is quite impressive. Sorry for being so irritating to you. I had no idea you cared. I realize I should dismiss anyone who isn't part of the "establishment"...the only problem is, I don't really know who the establishment is. I see that back in March we established that one of the 600 or so scientists who were involved with this most recent report was labelled as in the pocket of big business. I don't know about all the others. Here's a tip though...if you see a MadMax post or thread about GW, you might just want to ignore it. It seems to get your dander up, what with my evil agenda and all.
Every single one of those threads contains an example of a scientist (on your list) that you or somebody else has cited as an authority against GW.....and somebody further on in the thread showing how that person faces serious questions of credibility.
What I don't understand is how there is so much awareness about Global Warming and living "green" using recycled products etc, but not much out there on the enormous negative effects of the meat industry. When it takes over 5,000 gallons of fresh water to produce one pound of beef, and the water supply and amount of top soil are shrinking at an alarming rate, you'd think there would be more awareness. It's amazing how much the demand for and consumption of animal products are destroying the earth in so many ways, shapes and forms. Not to mention causing the astronomical rates of heart disease and cancer in this country. This book has made me so much more aware of the drain on the environment: http://www.amazon.com/Food-Revolution-Your-Diet-World/dp/1573247022
Every single one?? All 4??? Only 596 new threads to start!!!!!!! Sam, you have redefined "the internetz is serious bizness" with your efforts.
Not really quite that many. As previously discussed, the number is fabricated given that lots of people on that list have/had no idea they were on it, and many of them are not scientists to begin with. Read the 17-page monster thread if you are actually interested in what the agenda of a lot of people you cite to is (or read the posts of HayesStreet 2003 - one of the BBS' most knowledgeable posters in this area). Or don't...just don't say that nobody has provided you with the evidence to do so. Good, maybe it will cause you to take it more srsly.
More because they disagree with HayesStreet 2008 than the fact they agree with me. There are many more knowledgeable posters than either of the two (three?) of us on this area though on the BBS.
I can try my best. I have done much research/studying on the subject, but I would not claim to be an expert by any means. I think SamFisher, for all his flippant arrogance, has nailed what I was attempting to convey regarding the never-ending saga of "X number of scientists dispute global warming". Some of it may be interesting and legitimate, but the vast majority is just plain malarky. Much of it is intentionally misleading to the point that one wonders how much influence certain agendas are having.
I think there is a basic problem here we are missing which is the difference between scientific debate versus policy. I believe man made global warming is happening and that the consequences of leaving it unabated might be dire but I will agree that it still isn't totally understood and given the inherent complexity of climate models it is impossible to predict exactly what the effects are going to be. I also strongly believe that the basis of science must be skepticism and have no problem with scientist challenging the prevailing view of man made global warming, provided they are using sound science as the basis to challenge. There should be a vigorous scientific debate on the issue but the problem is that global warming could have a very profound affect on our development, and possibly survival as a civilization and given that this is an ongoing process we need to address this with policy. Now given that there is a scientific consensus out there on the basis of making policy doesn't it make sense that the consensus viewpoint should be given more weight than a minority viewpoint? The problem I see is that we have essentially been running a big experiment on the global climate with no clear understanding of what that is going to do in the long run. It seems to me logical that if a majority of scientists are saying that this could have dire consequences it would make sense that we should start shaping our policy to address those issues rather than listen to a much much smaller minority viewpoint. It is very possible that the consensus on global warming is wrong and the minority view is right that man made effects on global climate are miniscule. Well considering that the efforts to fight man made global warming have many side benefits such as developing renewable energy sources and increasing energy efficiency then what is wrong with that? In my opinion while there is and should be a debate regarding global warming the risks are so and also the benefits, even if the consensus view is wrong, are so great that it makes sense to deal with man made global warming now.
Also to whoever the poster was who didn't think that CO2 was a pollutant I suggest you try this simple experiment. Get a CO2 tank. Go into a closed and relatively airtight room. Turn on the tank and empty the CO2 tank. Let me know after a minute if you think C02 isn't a pollutant.
and.....even if we're wrong, isn't it worth cleaning up the place, anyway? there are all sorts of benefits of consuming less and living smarter whether the sky is falling or not. more important to me are issues of environmental justice. how is the way i'm living impacting other people? my trash/pollution has to go somewhere....where? and who is affected by that?
