you don't need 2000 caloriesespecially if you're trying to drop weight
You're right. But what grown man needs only 540 calories?
Plus I was thinking more around 1500 calories if you're trying to drop weight.
Food People should really watch Food Inc and Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution
- Thread starter dbzeag
- Start date
You're right. But what grown man needs only 540 calories?
Plus I was thinking more around 1500 calories if you're trying to drop weight.
Then so are you. Not every scientist believes it dude... And let me be clear. I'm not saying that it DOESNT exist, I'm saying there is no way we have enough data to know. There are quite possibly one or a thousand more feedback loops unknown to us that prevent it from happening...
Mean Mr. Mustard
Always shouts out something obscene
Mean Mr. Mustard
Always shouts out something obscene
Amstel
The Hoarse Whisperer
He said "Scientists."
"Scientists" were paid to come up with statistics. If they came up a certain way, they'd get more $$ for more research for more statistics, but don't you dare think that threw the results. They're scientists!
"Scientists" were paid to come up with statistics. If they came up a certain way, they'd get more $$ for more research for more statistics, but don't you dare think that threw the results. They're scientists!
dude
you posted the first paragraph of the wiki article...the only thing in that paragraph that has a reference is the notation that the current scientific opinion on climate change is that "the Earth has not durably cooled, but undergone global warming throughout the twentieth century.[1]"
The 1970 "Study of Critical Environmental Problems"[18] reported the possibility of warming from increased carbon dioxide, but no concerns about cooling, setting a lower bound on the beginning of interest in "global cooling".
The National Science Board's Patterns and Perspectives in Environmental Science report of 1972 discussed the cyclical behavior of climate, and the understanding at the time that the planet was entering a phase of cooling after a warm period. "Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end, to be followed by a long period of considerably colder temperatures leading into the next glacial age some 20,000 years from now."[19] But it also continued; "However, it is possible, or even likely, that human interference has already altered the environment so much that the climatic pattern of the near future will follow a different path."[19]
The 1975 NAS report titled "Understanding Climate Change: A Program for Action" did not make predictions, stating in fact that "we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate."
The "scare" was the result of the Newsweek article mentioned further down.
On October 23, 2006, Newsweek issued a correction, over 31 years after the original article, stating that it had been "so spectacularly wrong about the near-term future" (though editor Jerry Adler claimed that 'the story wasn't "wrong" in the journalistic sense of "inaccurate."').[26]