How’s that cholesterol working out for ya?

I have been appalled that every time one challenges a moron to discuss anthropogenic global warming, all you get is

  • It’s not global warming, its climate change, and
  •  97% of scientists agree with it

I have been thinking of doing a 97% list for some time, such as

  • 97% of Roman Cardinals accepted a geocentric universe in 1630;
  • 97% of chemists considered absence of  phlogiston to be the source combustion before Lavoisier and Priestley discovered the role of oxygen;
  • 97% of cardiac specialists are still peddling good and bad cholesterol, despite its being disproved for twenty years;
  • 97% of physicists believed that matter was not influenced by the mind or choice of the experimenter before the double slit experiments.
  • 97% of doctors believed that ulcers were caused by stress, before it was discovered they were caused by bacteria.

In this regard I read the comments linking AGW hysteria to cholesterol at Manhattan Contrarian, a blog I commend to your attention.

He writes:

A strong body of evidence indicates that higher intake of most dietary saturated fatty acids is associated with higher levels of blood total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol. Higher total and LDL cholesterol levels are risk factors for cardiovascular disease.

And what “evidence” was that exactly?  I would say the whole thing was based on myth from the get-go, but it gets worse.  This was/is one of those myths that was just so intuitively obvious and had such a strong consensus backing it that it became literally impossible to destroy.  Study after study completely contradicted the hypothesis that dietary fat increased the risk of heart disease, but the consensus went on undisturbed for decades.  To take just one of the largest and most definitive studies among many, in the 90s the government commissioned a gigantic randomized study of 50,000 women called the Women’s Health Initiative Diet Modification Trial.  After a full eight years of following the women, in 2006 the Harvard School of Public Health came out with a report summarizing the results:

The results . . . showed no benefits for a low-fat diet. Women assigned to this eating strategy did not appear to gain protection against breast cancer, colorectal cancer, or cardiovascular disease. And after eight years, their weights were generally the same as those of women following their usual diets.

And so forth.

Bookmark and Share
Jack Kent

The first rule of thumb is this: facts are not matters that are established by consensus. And, once people ask you if you believe in anything, they have abandoned scientific analysis and switched into the realm of theology.

Blair Atholl

It is important to remind people that the 97% figure (which Mr. Mair repeats with a name, rank and serial number discipline) comes from a survey done for a MSc thesis that contacted more than 10,000 scientists, got about 3,700 replies, whittled that down to 77 people and found 75 agreed that there was a likelihood human activity had was influencing warming temperatures. From there, its all hyperbolic spin.

SM

If you want to see a good movie demonstrating why we shouldn’t put the faith we do in “credentialed” scientists check out the documentary on The Amazing Randi called “An Honest Liar”.

JohnTyler

What caused the ice ages?
What caused the ice ages to end?
How can the earth go FROM a warm climate (having high levels of CO2) to flip into an ice age? What happened to all the “warming” CO2?
How does an ice age (with low CO2 levels) end and flip into a warm period with high levels of CO2 ? If cold climate means low CO2 , then from where did all that CO2 come from that produced warming?

Frankly, the AGW hypothesis is the biggest scientific scam in world history and many of these “scientists” should be prosecuted for fraud; after all, they use taxpayer money in creating and maintaining this scam.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *