Climate change EXPERT Akphi....

Search

Rx Normal
Joined
Oct 23, 2013
Messages
52,314
Tokens
Because you guys use nonstop logical fallacies. And it's not a fact at all that computer models have been proven 97% wrong. You just made that up. That's how embarrassing you guys are, lol. Saying scientists have disagreed on something like chocolate as an argument that global warming isn't real is a logical fallacy... lol. It's as blatant of one as there is.

We use facts - you use talking points ("logical fallacy", "peer review", bogus internet surveys) when the facts and data don't fit into your narrow radical ideology.

The broken window fallacy is a perfect example. It has been explained to you millions of times. And yet you still cling to this ridiculous ideology that printing money creates wealth and that 'stimulus' spending works (without creating artificial bubbles which eventually pop).

article-2294560-18B8846F000005DC-184_634x427.jpg


It's official - you belong to the 95% Wrong cult.

"I believe in academia!" - fratfraud (where BAD ideas NEVER die, unlike the REAL WORLD)

You're a hopeless L-O-O-N!

Loser!@#0
 

New member
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
35,366
Tokens
2 articles out of 10,885 peer reviewed research papers in 2013 on global warming and climate change denied AGW. Otherwise this is pretty spot on. The bloggers and vocal deniers won't provide evidence to their claims and submit them to peer review journals because they simply know they can't prove what they are saying with actual data. It's embarrassing that people choose .com bloggers over real peer reviewed science. But I guess your masters tell you how to think. Gas Man thinks because he sells stuff and employs couple people that he knows more about global warming than scientists. I couldn't make this kind of crazy shit up, lol.

----------------------------------------------

I had previously reviewed peer-reviewed scientific articles from 2013 with the topics, or keyword phrases, "global warming" and "global climate change," [see here]. They numbered 1,911. I have now also reviewed articles from 2013 with the keyword phrase "climate change," finding 8,974. Combining the searches, 2013 saw 10,885 articles under one or more of the three phrases. Only two articles [see here and here] in my judgment rejected anthropogenic global warming. Download the chart above here or from Wikipedia Commons here.

Combining this result with my earlier studies (see here and here), over several years I have reviewed 25,182 scientific articles in peer-reviewed journals. Only 26, about 1 in 1,000, in my judgment reject anthropogenic global warming. I describe my methodology here.

Instead of coalescing around a rival theory to anthropogenic global warming, the rejecting articles offer a hodgepodge of alternatives, none of which has caught on. The dissenting articles are rarely cited, even by other dissenters. A groundswell this is not. The 26 rejecting articles have had no discernible influence on science.

Very few of the most vocal global warming deniers, those who write op-eds and blogs and testify to congressional committees, have ever written a peer-reviewed article in which they say explicitly that anthropogenic global warming is false. Why? Because then they would have to provide the evidence and, evidently, they don't have it.

What can we conclude?

1. There a mountain of scientific evidence in favor of anthropogenic global warming and no convincing evidence against it.

2. Those who deny anthropogenic global warming have no alternative theory to explain the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 and global temperature.

These two facts together mean that the so-called debate over global warming is an illusion, a hoax conjured up by a handful of apostate scientists and a misguided and sometimes colluding media, aided and abetted by funding from fossil fuel companies and right wing foundations.

On the one side, we have a mountain of scientific evidence, on the other, ideology and arm-waving. On that basis, we are endangering our grandchildren’s future and pushing humanity toward the destruction of civilization.

http://www.jamespowell.org/
 

New member
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
35,366
Tokens
We use facts - you use talking points ("logical fallacy", "peer review", bogus internet surveys) when the facts and data don't fit into your narrow radical ideology.

The broken window fallacy is a perfect example. It has been explained to you millions of times. And yet you still cling to this ridiculous ideology that printing money creates wealth and that 'stimulus' spending works (without creating artificial bubbles which eventually pop).

You can't quantify a "broken window fallacy". It's simply an unprovable talking point that conservatives use to try to sound smart. It really means nothing in terms of real economics and you can print money and create economic growth. The data definitely is not on your side...

fredgraph.png


It's official - you belong to the 95% Wrong cult.

"I believe in academia!" - fratfraud (where BAD ideas NEVER die, unlike the REAL WORLD)

You're a hopeless L-O-O-N!

Loser!@#0

Once again the data is definitely not on your side. That's why smart people think differently than you.

sksnewescalator.gif
 

New member
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
35,366
Tokens
The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.

"Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal."
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.1

Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. Studying these climate data collected over many years reveal the signals of a changing climate.


Certain facts about Earth's climate are not in dispute:

  • The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. Increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.
  • Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in solar output, in the Earth’s orbit, and in greenhouse gas levels. They also show that in the past, large changes in climate have happened very quickly, geologically-speaking: in tens of years, not in millions or even thousands.3

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
 

Rx Normal
Joined
Oct 23, 2013
Messages
52,314
Tokens
VostokTemp0-420000%20BP.gif


5000years.png


There is no 'warming'

Your back-fitted computer models measuring a few decades are a bad joke.

"peer review" face)(*^%

90-climate-temperature-models-v-observatons-628x353.jpg


Wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong again.

fratfraud: but, but, but...this time they'll be right! I know it! Why? Because I believe in academia! Obama is the epitome of perfection!

:):):):):):):):)
 

New member
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
35,366
Tokens
Posting graphs showing hotter temperatures in the past has nothing to do with the AGW argument, lol.

And posting models of predicting weather patterns that are wrong also has nothing to do with the AGW argument.

The data is overwhelming that the earth is warming at a rapid rate. Especially the oceans.
 

Rx Normal
Joined
Oct 23, 2013
Messages
52,314
Tokens
Once again the data is definitely not on your side. That's why smart people think differently than you.

sksnewescalator.gif

42 years worth of data on a planet that's 4.5 billion years old! Only in academia! lmfao

Funny how they always backfit the models to fit their agenda. There's been no warming over the last 10 years, so can't use that...no sirree!

"I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline." -- Climategate emails

“Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden, “I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.” - Climategate emails

"I believe in academia!" - fratfraud
:nohead:
 

New member
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
35,366
Tokens
42 years worth of data on a planet that's 4.5 billion years old! Only in academia! lmfao

Funny how they always backfit the models to fit their agenda. There's been no warming over the last 10 years, so can't use that...no sirree!

"I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline." -- Climategate emails

“Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden, “I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.” - Climategate emails

"I believe in academia!" - fratfraud
:nohead:

It's funny how you jump from accusing me of only using 42 years worth of data, then you talk about 10 years worth of data because there hasn't been any "warming"... even though that is completely false. Oceans have been warming rapidly...

heat_content2000m.png
 

New member
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
35,366
Tokens
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

co2Graph11-cropped.jpg


[h=3]The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling:[/h]
  • maldives_250.jpeg
    Republic of Maldives: Vulnerable to sea level rise

    [h=3]Sea level rise[/h] Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.4



  • heat-250.jpeg

    [h=3]Global temperature rise[/h] All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880.5 Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years.6 Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase.7


  • ocean_temperature-250.jpeg

    [h=3]Warming oceans[/h] The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969.8


  • greenland_meltwater-250.jpeg
    Flowing meltwater from the Greenland ice sheet

    [h=3]Shrinking ice sheets[/h] The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005.


  • arctic_sea_ice2007-250.jpeg
    Visualization of the 2007 Arctic sea ice minimum

    [h=3]Declining Arctic sea ice[/h] Both the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice has declined rapidly over the last several decades.9


  • kilimanjaro-250.jpeg
    The disappearing snowcap of Mount Kilimanjaro, from space.

    [h=3]Glacial retreat[/h] Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world — including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa.10


  • Extreme_events-250.jpeg

    [h=3]Extreme events[/h] The number of record high temperature events in the United States has been increasing, while the number of record low temperature events has been decreasing, since 1950. The U.S. has also witnessed increasing numbers of intense rainfall events.11


  • ocean_precip1-250.jpeg

    [h=3]Ocean acidification[/h] Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30 percent.12,13 This increase is the result of humans emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and hence more being absorbed into the oceans. The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the upper layer of the oceans is increasing by about 2 billion tons per year.14,15

 

New member
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
35,366
Tokens
So let's see, since the massive increase in CO2 levels starting around 50-60 years ago... we have seen...

- Increase in surface temperatures
- Increase in ocean temperatures
- Increase in sea level
- Declining mass in the poles due to loss of glacial ice

But... I guess global warming isn't real. Because some dude on a .com blog said so. Lol.
 

New member
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
35,366
Tokens
Pretty much not a single scientific organization throughout the world dealing with climate hold a position against AGW. You have to go to the Heartland Institute or Dailycaller.com to get that position, lol. It's not even a debate in the academic world. Only the retard bar like Sheriff Joe still does not believe the overwhelming evidence that scientists have found over the last 40-50 years.

[h=1]List of Worldwide Scientific Organizations[/h] (Scientific Organizations That Hold the Position That Climate Change Has Been Caused by Human Action)


  1. Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile
  2. Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal
  3. Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
  4. Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
  5. Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala
  6. Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico
  7. Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia
  8. Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
  9. Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
  10. Académie des Sciences, France
  11. Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
  12. Academy of Athens
  13. Academy of Science of Mozambique
  14. Academy of Science of South Africa
  15. Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
  16. Academy of Sciences Malaysia
  17. Academy of Sciences of Moldova
  18. Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
  19. Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
  20. Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
  21. Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand
  22. Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
  23. Africa Centre for Climate and Earth Systems Science
  24. African Academy of Sciences
  25. Albanian Academy of Sciences
  26. Amazon Environmental Research Institute
  27. American Academy of Pediatrics
  28. American Anthropological Association
  29. American Association for the Advancement of Science
  30. American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)
  31. American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
  32. American Astronomical Society
  33. American Chemical Society
  34. American College of Preventive Medicine
  35. American Fisheries Society
  36. American Geophysical Union
  37. American Institute of Biological Sciences
  38. American Institute of Physics
  39. American Meteorological Society
  40. American Physical Society
  41. American Public Health Association
  42. American Quaternary Association
  43. American Society for Microbiology
  44. American Society of Agronomy
  45. American Society of Civil Engineers
  46. American Society of Plant Biologists
  47. American Statistical Association
  48. Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
  49. Australian Academy of Science
  50. Australian Bureau of Meteorology
  51. Australian Coral Reef Society
  52. Australian Institute of Marine Science
  53. Australian Institute of Physics
  54. Australian Marine Sciences Association
  55. Australian Medical Association
  56. Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
  57. Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
  58. Botanical Society of America
  59. Brazilian Academy of Sciences
  60. British Antarctic Survey
  61. Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
  62. California Academy of Sciences
  63. Cameroon Academy of Sciences
  64. Canadian Association of Physicists
  65. Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
  66. Canadian Geophysical Union
  67. Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
  68. Canadian Society of Soil Science
  69. Canadian Society of Zoologists
  70. Caribbean Academy of Sciences views
  71. Center for International Forestry Research
  72. Chinese Academy of Sciences
  73. Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
  74. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) (Australia)
  75. Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
  76. Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
  77. Crop Science Society of America
  78. Cuban Academy of Sciences
  79. Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters
  80. Ecological Society of America
  81. Ecological Society of Australia
  82. Environmental Protection Agency
  83. European Academy of Sciences and Arts
  84. European Federation of Geologists
  85. European Geosciences Union
  86. European Physical Society
  87. European Science Foundation
  88. Federation of American Scientists
  89. French Academy of Sciences
  90. Geological Society of America
  91. Geological Society of Australia
  92. Geological Society of London
  93. Georgian Academy of Sciences
  94. German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina
  95. Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
  96. Indian National Science Academy
  97. Indonesian Academy of Sciences
  98. Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management
  99. Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology
  100. Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
  101. Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK
  102. InterAcademy Council
  103. International Alliance of Research Universities
  104. International Arctic Science Committee
  105. International Association for Great Lakes Research
  106. International Council for Science
  107. International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
  108. International Research Institute for Climate and Society
  109. International Union for Quaternary Research
  110. International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
  111. International Union of Pure and Applied Physics
  112. Islamic World Academy of Sciences
  113. Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
  114. Kenya National Academy of Sciences
  115. Korean Academy of Science and Technology
  116. Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts
  117. l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
  118. Latin American Academy of Sciences
  119. Latvian Academy of Sciences
  120. Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
  121. Madagascar National Academy of Arts, Letters, and Sciences
  122. Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology
  123. Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts
  124. National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
  125. National Academy of Sciences of Armenia
  126. National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
  127. National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
  128. National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
  129. National Aeronautics and Space Administration
  130. National Association of Geoscience Teachers
  131. National Association of State Foresters
  132. National Center for Atmospheric Research
  133. National Council of Engineers Australia
  134. National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, New Zealand
  135. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
  136. National Research Council
  137. National Science Foundation
  138. Natural England
  139. Natural Environment Research Council, UK
  140. Natural Science Collections Alliance
  141. Network of African Science Academies
  142. New York Academy of Sciences
  143. Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences
  144. Nigerian Academy of Sciences
  145. Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters
  146. Oklahoma Climatological Survey
  147. Organization of Biological Field Stations
  148. Pakistan Academy of Sciences
  149. Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
  150. Pew Center on Global Climate Change
  151. Polish Academy of Sciences
  152. Romanian Academy
  153. Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
  154. Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
  155. Royal Astronomical Society, UK
  156. Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
  157. Royal Irish Academy
  158. Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
  159. Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
  160. Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research
  161. Royal Scientific Society of Jordan
  162. Royal Society of Canada
  163. Royal Society of Chemistry, UK
  164. Royal Society of the United Kingdom
  165. Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
  166. Russian Academy of Sciences
  167. Science and Technology, Australia
  168. Science Council of Japan
  169. Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
  170. Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics
  171. Scripps Institution of Oceanography
  172. Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
  173. Slovak Academy of Sciences
  174. Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
  175. Society for Ecological Restoration International
  176. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
  177. Society of American Foresters
  178. Society of Biology (UK)
  179. Society of Systematic Biologists
  180. Soil Science Society of America
  181. Sudan Academy of Sciences
  182. Sudanese National Academy of Science
  183. Tanzania Academy of Sciences
  184. The Wildlife Society (international)
  185. Turkish Academy of Sciences
  186. Uganda National Academy of Sciences
  187. Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
  188. United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
  189. University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
  190. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
  191. World Association of Zoos and Aquariums
  192. World Federation of Public Health Associations
  193. World Forestry Congress
  194. World Health Organization
  195. World Meteorological Organization
  196. Zambia Academy of Sciences
  197. Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
 

Rx Normal
Joined
Oct 23, 2013
Messages
52,314
Tokens

Obama single-handedly redefined NASA's mission as "global warming" (and Muslim outreach) so this shouldn't surprise anyone.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Top NASA Scientists: ‘Global Warming’ Is A Hoax


Read more at http://patdollard.com/2014/03/the-m...safe-from-global-warming/#KV37JwPVIcXOwdQ2.99

"Doiron was one of 40 ex NASA employees – including seven astronauts - who wrote in April 2012 to NASA administrator Charles Bolden protesting about the organization’s promotion of climate change alarmism, notably via its resident environmental activist James Hansen.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What 'Obama' is doing to a once great country ain't pretty folks. :>(

 

New member
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
35,366
Tokens
Obama single-handedly redefined NASA's mission as "global warming" (and Muslim outreach) so this shouldn't surprise anyone.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Top NASA Scientists: ‘Global Warming’ Is A Hoax


Read more at http://patdollard.com/2014/03/the-m...safe-from-global-warming/#KV37JwPVIcXOwdQ2.99

"Doiron was one of 40 ex NASA employees – including seven astronauts - who wrote in April 2012 to NASA administrator Charles Bolden protesting about the organization’s promotion of climate change alarmism, notably via its resident environmental activist James Hansen.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What 'Obama' is doing to a once great country ain't pretty folks. :>(


Ahhhh yes... now NASA is part of the conspiracy... lol!! Put the tin foil hats on boys, the entire world is trying to trick you. But the Dailycaller and the Heartland Institute are not trying to deceive you at all, lol. You guys are fools.
 

Rx Normal
Joined
Oct 23, 2013
Messages
52,314
Tokens
So let's see, since the massive increase in CO2 levels starting around 50-60 years ago... we have seen...

- Increase in surface temperatures
- Increase in ocean temperatures
- Increase in sea level
- Declining mass in the poles due to loss of glacial ice

But... I guess global warming isn't real. Because some dude on a .com blog said so. Lol.

OOPS!

Where did the "warming" go? lol

peter.png
 

Life's a bitch, then you die!
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
28,910
Tokens
Pretty much not a single scientific organization throughout the world dealing with climate hold a position against AGW. You have to go to the Heartland Institute or Dailycaller.com to get that position, lol. It's not even a debate in the academic world. Only the retard bar like Sheriff Joe still does not believe the overwhelming evidence that scientists have found over the last 40-50 years.

List of Worldwide Scientific Organizations

(Scientific Organizations That Hold the Position That Climate Change Has Been Caused by Human Action)

0


yawn.jpg
 

Rx Normal
Joined
Oct 23, 2013
Messages
52,314
Tokens
Ahhhh yes... now NASA is part of the conspiracy... lol!! Put the tin foil hats on boys, the entire world is trying to trick you. But the Dailycaller and the Heartland Institute are not trying to deceive you at all, lol. You guys are fools.

Logical fallacy.

NASA under sane Democrats:

John_F_Kennedy_NASA_Space.jpg


NASA under Obama radicals:


nasamuslims-vi.jpg
 

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2006
Messages
26,039
Tokens
Cherry picking data and logical fallacies is all you have. There are tens thousands of scientists across the world that research and gather data on climate change and only a handful of them deny that it's man made. It's not even a debate in the academic community. The only people arguing are people with a political agenda like you.


Lol, is this really your argument Gas Man? That scientists have disagreed before... come on now! You are better than this.



Lmao!! What does "generating wealth" have to do with global warming? You are really dumb.

God you are an idiot. Oh, in other, newer news, did you know that sunscreen is now bad for you? WHAT?? HOW CAN THAT BE?? WEREN'T THEY THE ONES THAT TOLD US TO USE SUNSCREEN LIBERALLY?? WTF?? Must not have been peer reviewed.
Fucking bozo you are.

Scientists Blow The Lid on Cancer & Sunscreen Myth

Jul 5 • Health • 11130 Views • 288 Comments by PAUL FASSA

According to a June 2014 article featured in The Independent (UK), a major study conducted by researchers at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden found that women who avoid sunbathing during the summer are twice as likely to die as those who sunbathe every day.

The epidemiological study followed 30,000 women for over 20 years and “showed that mortality was about double in women who avoided sun exposure compared to the highest exposure group.”

Researchers concluded that the conventional dogma, which advises avoiding the sun at all costs and slathering on sunscreen to minimize sun exposure, is doing more harm than actual good.

That’s because overall sun avoidance combined with wearing sunscreen effectively blocks the body’s ability to produce vitamin D3 from the sun’s UVB rays, which is by far the best form of vitamin D.

In the USA, vitamin D deficiency is at epidemic levels. Ironically, vitamin D deficiency can lead to aggressive forms of skin cancer. A ground-breaking 2011 study published in Cancer Prevention Research suggests that optimal blood levels of vitamin D offers protection against sunburn and skin cancer.

Additionally, vitamin D protects the body from diseases like multiple sclerosis, rickets (in the young), tuberculosis, inflammatory bowel disease, type 1 diabetes, inflammatory bowel disease, rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus and Sjogren’s syndrome.


According to the Vitamin D Council, researchers at the University of Alabama at Birmingham recently reported that “lack of sun exposure may lead to cognitive decline over time.”

A dissident dermatologist

Bernard Ackerman, MD, (deceased 2008) was one of the world’s foremost authorities on the subject of skin cancer and the sun, sunscreens and melanoma skin cancer risks.

Below are Ackerman’s views excerpted from an article in The New York Times (July 20, 2004), titled “I BEG TO DIFFER; A Dermatologist Who’s Not Afraid to Sit on the Beach”:

The link between melanoma and sun exposure (dermatology’s dogma) is unproven.There’s no conclusive evidence that sunburns lead to cancer.There is no real proof that sunscreens protect against melanoma.There’s no proof that increased exposure to the sun increases the risk of melanoma.

A 2000 Swedish study concluded that higher rates of melanoma occurred in those who used sunscreen versus those who did not.


Sunscreens: Cancer-Causing Biohazards

Elizabeth Plourde, PhD, is a California-based scientist who authored the book Sunscreens – Biohazard: Treat as Hazardous Waste, which extensively documents the serious life-threatening dangers of sunscreens not only to people but to the environment as well.

Dr. Plourde provides proof that malignant melanoma and all other skin cancers increased significantly with ubiquitous sunscreen use over a 30-year period. She emphasizes that many sunscreens contain chemicals that are known carcinogens and endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDC).

Environmentally, she notes: “In areas where there has been much exposure to ED [endocrine disrupting] chemicals, coral and other sea populations have died off and the prevalence of dual-sexed fish has risen.”

Dr. Plourde’s research on mice and sunscreen exposure also showed increases in both pup and maternal mortality as well as reproductive issues in subsequent generations.

Additionally, the book documents how sunscreen chemicals have polluted our water sources including oceans, rivers and municipal drinking water. Worse yet, testing revealed that 97% of Americans have sunscreen chemicals in their blood!

Dr. Plourde’s book also has a chapter on the importance of vitamin D3 to health, and she posits that the widespread vitamin D3 deficiency is linked to overuse of sunscreen combined with sun avoidance in general.

Sources for this article:
http://www.independent.co.uk
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org
http://www.nytimes.com

 

New member
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
35,366
Tokens
God you are an idiot. Oh, in other, newer news, did you know that sunscreen is now bad for you? WHAT?? HOW CAN THAT BE?? WEREN'T THEY THE ONES THAT TOLD US TO USE SUNSCREEN LIBERALLY?? WTF?? Must not have been peer reviewed.
Fucking bozo you are.

Scientists Blow The Lid on Cancer & Sunscreen Myth

Jul 5 • Health • 11130 Views • 288 Comments by PAUL FASSA

According to a June 2014 article featured in The Independent (UK), a major study conducted by researchers at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden found that women who avoid sunbathing during the summer are twice as likely to die as those who sunbathe every day.

The epidemiological study followed 30,000 women for over 20 years and “showed that mortality was about double in women who avoided sun exposure compared to the highest exposure group.”

Researchers concluded that the conventional dogma, which advises avoiding the sun at all costs and slathering on sunscreen to minimize sun exposure, is doing more harm than actual good.

That’s because overall sun avoidance combined with wearing sunscreen effectively blocks the body’s ability to produce vitamin D3 from the sun’s UVB rays, which is by far the best form of vitamin D.

In the USA, vitamin D deficiency is at epidemic levels. Ironically, vitamin D deficiency can lead to aggressive forms of skin cancer. A ground-breaking 2011 study published in Cancer Prevention Research suggests that optimal blood levels of vitamin D offers protection against sunburn and skin cancer.

Additionally, vitamin D protects the body from diseases like multiple sclerosis, rickets (in the young), tuberculosis, inflammatory bowel disease, type 1 diabetes, inflammatory bowel disease, rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus and Sjogren’s syndrome.


According to the Vitamin D Council, researchers at the University of Alabama at Birmingham recently reported that “lack of sun exposure may lead to cognitive decline over time.”

A dissident dermatologist

Bernard Ackerman, MD, (deceased 2008) was one of the world’s foremost authorities on the subject of skin cancer and the sun, sunscreens and melanoma skin cancer risks.

Below are Ackerman’s views excerpted from an article in The New York Times (July 20, 2004), titled “I BEG TO DIFFER; A Dermatologist Who’s Not Afraid to Sit on the Beach”:

The link between melanoma and sun exposure (dermatology’s dogma) is unproven.There’s no conclusive evidence that sunburns lead to cancer.There is no real proof that sunscreens protect against melanoma.There’s no proof that increased exposure to the sun increases the risk of melanoma.

A 2000 Swedish study concluded that higher rates of melanoma occurred in those who used sunscreen versus those who did not.


Sunscreens: Cancer-Causing Biohazards

Elizabeth Plourde, PhD, is a California-based scientist who authored the book Sunscreens – Biohazard: Treat as Hazardous Waste, which extensively documents the serious life-threatening dangers of sunscreens not only to people but to the environment as well.

Dr. Plourde provides proof that malignant melanoma and all other skin cancers increased significantly with ubiquitous sunscreen use over a 30-year period. She emphasizes that many sunscreens contain chemicals that are known carcinogens and endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDC).

Environmentally, she notes: “In areas where there has been much exposure to ED [endocrine disrupting] chemicals, coral and other sea populations have died off and the prevalence of dual-sexed fish has risen.”

Dr. Plourde’s research on mice and sunscreen exposure also showed increases in both pup and maternal mortality as well as reproductive issues in subsequent generations.

Additionally, the book documents how sunscreen chemicals have polluted our water sources including oceans, rivers and municipal drinking water. Worse yet, testing revealed that 97% of Americans have sunscreen chemicals in their blood!

Dr. Plourde’s book also has a chapter on the importance of vitamin D3 to health, and she posits that the widespread vitamin D3 deficiency is linked to overuse of sunscreen combined with sun avoidance in general.

Sources for this article:
http://www.independent.co.uk
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org
http://www.nytimes.com


LMFAO!!! Damn you are a fucking retard Gas Man. I thought you were much smarter than this.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,788
Messages
13,573,002
Members
100,865
Latest member
dinnnadna
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com