4 ms·
Would you kindly provide evidence to the contrary and not just to what Bjorn has done but also the USDA? And no, it is nothing like Fisher's contrarianism to t
by anarchimedes 7y ago
Would you kindly provide evidence to the contrary and not just to what Bjorn has done but also the USDA?
And no, it is nothing like Fisher's contrarianism to the smoking issue. Both links acknowledged that the current global diet has an impact on CI, but tries to find the most likely size of the effect.
I ask because the science and evidence behind this stuff is complicated, and much of what is being said has a huge element of alarmism. I don't doubt that our current diets have impacts on CI, but I would like to see thoughtful analysis determining the effects. I'm sincerely asking this in good faith
- epistasis 7y ago> much of what is being said has a huge element of alarmism. Could you kindly provide any evidence for this sort of claim? And could you provide any sort of evidence that we should even use effort to examine Lomborg's claims, much less try to use it as what we compare the USDA to? He has a history of being wrong, and ignoring that history in order to "stop alarmism" seems like an equal sin to any potential alarmism. Outlier analyses that have a history of producing incorrect analyses should not be taken as a gold standard of anything.
- anarchimedes 7y agoI provided links to the USDA report and it's findings. I provided the link to Lomborgs tweet and in it the referenced links to the findings. In it, he addresses the 10% reduction in emissions argument and show that it is cherry picking the available data. That to me has an element of alarmism in it. "He has a history of being wrong" - if he does, I have not seen it. and I am open to changing my mind if there is evidence to the contrary - which I have asked you in good faith to provide.