Of course, but in order for science to be objective and credible it must adhere to strict unbiased, scientific protocol: the scientific method.
Peer review isn't science, it's kangaroo court.
Opinion ("scientists say/think/believe") isn't science.
AGW isn't science, it's pseudo-science driven by ideology, power and money...lots and lots of power and money.
That is too generic a statement to answer.
For example, what did "science" tell us about the effects of salt intake on the human body 20 years ago?
What does it say today?
What about coffee?
I could bog this server down with examples of science being spectacularly wrong about subject much, much less complex than global climate.
While you are at it, what are the effects of salt intake on the body? What is different from 20 years ago? Usually though science continually search for the answers, they know more about subjects as technology improves. Just like the human brain, maybe someday they will know how the other 90% of it work? What science says today may change 20 years from now again.
"Usually"
LMFAO
A new study published in theAmerican Journal of Hypertension analyzed data from 8,670 French adults and found that salt consumption wasn’t associated with systolic blood pressure in either men or women after controlling for factors like age.
...
The CDC firmly believes that salt directly influences blood pressure. “We consider the totality of the evidence,” said Janelle Gunn of the CDC’s Division of Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention at a press conference. “A vast majority of scientific research confirms that as sodium is reduced, so is blood pressure.”
http://time.com/3313332/salt-and-blood-pressure/
This is a great analogy for the Global warming bullshit
For decades, policy makers have tried and failed to get Americans to eat less salt. In April 2010 the Institute of Medicine urged the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to regulate the amount of salt that food manufacturers put into products; New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has already convinced 16 companies to do so voluntarily. But if the U.S. does conquer salt, what will we gain? Bland french fries, for sure. But a healthy nation? Not necessarily.
This week a meta-analysis of seven studies involving a total of 6,250 subjects in theAmerican Journal of Hypertension found no strong evidence that cutting salt intake reduces the risk for heart attacks, strokes or death in people with normal or high blood pressure. In May European researchers publishing in the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that the less sodium that study subjects excreted in their urine—an excellent measure of prior consumption—the greater their risk was of dying from heart disease. These findings call into question the common wisdom that excess salt is bad for you, but the evidence linking salt to heart disease has always been tenuous.
For decades, policy makers have tried and failed to get Americans to eat less salt. In April 2010 the Institute of Medicine urged the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to regulate the amount of salt that food manufacturers put into products; New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has already convinced 16 companies to do so voluntarily. But if the U.S. does conquer salt, what will we gain? Bland french fries, for sure. But a healthy nation? Not necessarily.
This week a meta-analysis of seven studies involving a total of 6,250 subjects in theAmerican Journal of Hypertension found no strong evidence that cutting salt intake reduces the risk for heart attacks, strokes or death in people with normal or high blood pressure. In May European researchers publishing in the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that the less sodium that study subjects excreted in their urine—an excellent measure of prior consumption—the greater their risk was of dying from heart disease. These findings call into question the common wisdom that excess salt is bad for you, but the evidence linking salt to heart disease has always been tenuous.
‘NOBODY IS SMART ENOUGH TO PREDICT THE WEATHER, YOU CAN’T PREDICT THE WEATHER!’ – CHRIS MATTHEWS
Posted on Jan 27, 2015 at 7:40 PM in Politics | 19 Comments
By soopermexican
Liberals were horrified today when they discovered that their one and only god, the government, was wrong in shutting down New York City because “science” told them Global Warming was going to destroy the city with an enormous blizzard. In order to protect the holiness of their false god, they’re turning on science.
Watch below:
Wait what? Isn’t MSNBC the Global Warming Alarmist Channel? Now all of a sudden you can’t predict the weather?
Read more: http://therightscoop.com/nobody-is-...ict-the-weather-chris-matthews/#ixzz3Q4y308QV
:hahahahah
Posted on Jan 27, 2015 at 7:40 PM in Politics | 19 Comments
By soopermexican
Liberals were horrified today when they discovered that their one and only god, the government, was wrong in shutting down New York City because “science” told them Global Warming was going to destroy the city with an enormous blizzard. In order to protect the holiness of their false god, they’re turning on science.
Watch below:
Read more: http://therightscoop.com/nobody-is-...ict-the-weather-chris-matthews/#ixzz3Q4y308QV
:hahahahah
A large factor in your health is genetics. Some families are just more prone to diabetes, heart disease, cancer, etc. The only thing you can do is play the hand you're dealt and live accordingly. Just because too much salt is bad for you doesn't necessarily mean its bad for everyone. How else can you explain 300-lb people who don't have diabetes or seeing athletes who are in prime shape dropping dead of a heart attack?
Every few years, we seem to go through cycles of what's considered "bad." Low-calorie food was a fad in the 80s, but it turns out you can easily rack up a high caloric intake and still lose weight. The 90s were all about low fat/cholesterol...although a doctor recently wrote a book called "Fat makes you thin," which pretty much says it all. Today, low-carb is the craze. I'm wondering whether "science" will suddenly rule out carbs and find something else to make as a health scapegoat in the next decade or so...and whether dimocraps like Moochelle will be leading the crusade to ban whatever it is they don't like.
To the point of Ace's article...it seems to me that much like our global warming scientists, doctors still have a lot to learn about the human body.
LOL, that is exactly the point.
Just think about this. Scientists have been studying human salt intake at a very granular (heh) level for over 40 years. They are able to capture and use data at a level that is not available regarding the "global climate." Yet they have flip flopped on the effects of salt on the human body and the conclusions of such effects several times.
Which is why pretending that these scientists discussing global warming have any idea what is going on or anything is "confirmed" is laughable. And I'm not saying you hold such a view but the author of this thread certainly does.
I firmly believe that the day you are born, a blue print or road map if you will, is filed in a mythical warehouse.
It has all the twists and turns of your life written down. And no matter what you do it doesn’t really matter.
Why does one person survive a plane crash while 250 don’t.
When it comes to health, genetics is the blue print. It allows some people to eat like a pig and never get fat while others struggle with obesity their entire life.
And when your time is up, that’s it. I don’t care if your in a room with best doctors in the world, they won’t make a damn bit of difference.
Which leads me to the question I struggle with the most. What happens when you die? Is there an after life? Or do you just die, caput, your dead. Nothing more nothing less.
One thing I know for sure, sooner or later I’ll find out.
