For the experiment to be scientifically sound, one would need to recruit a large number of twins and conduct the experiment over a number of decades, perhaps 30 or 40 or even 50 years. If, during the course of the long experiment, it was observed that a few of the twin pairs diverged significantly in their lifestyles, one of them perhaps not physically exercising nearly as much as the other, or experiencing a lot more emotional stress than the other, then those twins would have to be excluded from the results.I don't think the above study is useful without more information about the lifestyles of the people included in the results, and details about how the information was collected. For example, what does a consumption of 355 kg of dairy products include. If person 'A' drinks one litre of milk per day, and takes no other dairy products, that still amounts to a yearly consumption of approximately 365 kg of dairy products. If person 'B' eats 1 kg of cheese day every day, and no other dairy products, then that represents a lot more energy than a litre of milk, but would still be described as a yearly consumption of 365 kg of dairy products.There is also a significant anomaly in the above results you've quoted. Sweden with an annual dairy consumption of 355 kg and 802 bone fractures, and Finland with a slightly higher consumption of dairy products, 361 kg, yet a very significantly lower number of bone fractures, only 440.That seems to me a very clear example that other significant factors are involved, which are not addressed in the study. Perhaps the major factor not addressed is the overweight and obesity problem.The following study shows there is a strong connection between obesity, or simply being overweight, and the need for hip or knee replacement.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2267551/If you were to check the overweight and obesity percentages in those countries listed in your study, which have low rates of hip replacement which seem to correlate with low consumption of dairy products, you'd probably find the obesity rates are significantly lower than they are in Western countries, although obesity seems to be on the rise everywhere.
That's wasted effort if we do not at the same time address the causes. There's little use in mopping while the tap is still running and flooding the floor.
I would eliminate the obesity factor from this example. From my travels in seventies, as I recollect, both Finns and Swedes seemed about equally proportionate (although that could have changed in the recent years). A more probable reason to explain this anomaly could be that Finns drink more than their neighbours in other Nordic countries. Alcohol breaks down milk proteins and binds calcium from milk. Just my early morning hypothesis.
I admire your way of trying to weasle out of this one, albeit unsuccessfull. It's really funny to see you cringe and try to be smart when you're caught on posting bullshit.You are right you didn't specifically mention anything about the magnitude of the subsidence, but logically the only conclusion from your words can be that you believe it's bigger than the water rise.
It was the second of these two links Russ. The second one was written in 2013Jim
Okay, Jim. Then it's pretty obvious that instead of temperatures not rising for fifteen years we have to conclude that they haven't risen for twenty years.
Cheers,BartP.S. I wouldn't recommend hiding under one's bed. Given the rising sea-levels, one might drown. I'd recommend:a.) start contributing to a solution that addresses the causes, and b.) seek higher ground or build better defenses against the predicted water levelsc.) do both of the above, and doing it sooner will be less costly than doing it later.
a.) Pretty hard to find a "solution" that addresses the causes when we don't know what the causes are. We're guessing the cause is CO2 but there's a ton of evidence that makes that assumption questionable at best.
Okay Andrew, I'll bite.
And that's the whole point. Nobody really knows anything about this subject.
I don't know whether or not it's true any more than the people posting links to BS from the other side of the argument do. Point is, it's as likely to be true as any of the other crap you see on here. And that's the whole point. Nobody really knows anything about this subject. You can be sure that any "confirmed" data comes from a political point of view. If it comes from a "scientist" it's coming from a politically biased "scientist," or at least a scientist hoping it's true so he can get his name in lights.
I'm not sure why you started this thread - especially as the linked article was from a tabloid news outlet (mostly click-bait) and four and a half years out of date anyway. Is it just to stir up some ill feeling between the so called Looney Liberal Left and the good old gun-toting righteous Right.Jim
Because there may be doubt about a theory - doesn't mean just plucking anything out of the air and stating it, carries just as much weight.Jim
“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it ...” Neil deGrasse Tyson
Not true only of science, of course. There's a story about a nuclear physicist - it has various attributions, one to Niels Bohr - who kept a horseshoe on his door. When a friend said "surely you don't believe in that nonsense about luck", the physicist replied, "Of course not! But I've heard that it works, even if you don't believe in it".Jeremy
