• Privacy Policy
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
Climate Change Dispatch
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us
No Result
View All Result
Climate Change Dispatch
No Result
View All Result

Another Settled Scientific Consensus Debunked — Red Meat

by JOHN NOLTE
5 years ago
in News and Opinion
Reading Time: 3 mins read
A A
8

steak red meat beefAnother day, another settled scientific consensus debunked — this one about the dangers of red meat.

Surprise, surprise, turns out red meat is not so dangerous after all.

But-but-but Settled scientific consensus!

Wake up, y’all — it’s all bullshit.

Remember how salt and fat and coffee were poison … and now aren’t?

Anyway, before we get to my favorite part, here’s the news from the far-left New York Times:

[O]n Monday, in a remarkable turnabout, an international collaboration of researchers produced a series of analyses concluding that the advice, a bedrock of almost all dietary guidelines, is not backed by good scientific evidence.

If there are health benefits from eating less beef and pork, they are small, the researchers concluded. Indeed, the advantages are so faint that they can be discerned only when looking at large populations, the scientists said, and are not sufficient to tell individuals to change their meat-eating habits.

Raise your hand if you are surprised by this…

I’m not.

My approach to everything — except TV and coffee and Coca Cola and Blu-rays — has always been moderation.

Here is what I think is the key to this latest finding (emphasis mine):

The new reports are based on three years of work by a group of 14 researchers in seven countries, along with three community representatives, directed by Dr. Johnston. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest and did the studies without outside funding.

In three reviews, the group looked at studies asking whether eating red meat or processed meats affected the risk of cardiovascular disease or cancer.

To assess deaths from any cause, the group reviewed 61 articles reporting on 55 populations, with more than 4 million participants. The researchers also looked at randomized trials linking red meat to cancer and heart disease (there are very few), as well as 73 articles that examined links between red meat and cancer incidence and mortality.

In each study, the scientists concluded that the links between eating red meat and disease and death were small, and the quality of the evidence was low to very low.

“Without outside funding.”

Let me repeat that… “Without outside funding.”

See what happens to scientists when the funding doesn’t come from an interested party, from someone with skin in the game…

But I did promise I would get to my favorite part, and here it is… A look at just how unscientific the scientific community is — and once again the emphasis is mine:

Some called for the journal’s editors to delay publication altogether. In a statement, scientists at Harvard warned that the conclusions “harm the credibility of nutrition science and erode public trust in scientific research.”

Yes, by all means, let’s withhold information from a scientific study out of the fear this science will erode public trust in science because withholding science to protect science will increase our trust in science because hiding science is The New Science.

Look at that! So-called scientists are openly calling for a cover-up!

I am totally fine with scientists disputing this new red meat study, arguing against it, declaring it flawed, calling for more studies. That kind of debate and challenge is exactly what you want in a community of scientists.

But to ask for the report to be blacklisted tells you everything you need to know about the state of our so-called scientific community.

Which brings me to Global Cooling Global Warming Climate Change…

If the so-called scientific community is willing to blacklist a report that says it’s okay to enjoy a good ole American cheeseburger now and again, imagine the efforts involved to cover up anything that disproves the religion of Climate Change.

These idiots are already 0-41 with their climate doomsday predictions, they already got salt, red meat, fat, and coffee wrong, but let’s completely destroy the most successful economic system in history and give up all our freedoms because the global temperature might have increased by one degree.

Read more at Breitbart

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Truth
  • LinkedIn
  • Gettr
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Mastodon
  • Buffer
  • Telegram
  • Email
  • Copy Link
  • Share Using More Networks…
Share via
  • Facebook
  • Like
  • Twitter
  • Pinterest
  • LinkedIn
  • Digg
  • Del
  • Tumblr
  • VKontakte
  • Print
  • Email
  • Reddit
  • Buffer
  • Love This
  • Weibo
  • Pocket
  • Xing
  • Odnoklassniki iconOdnoklassniki
  • WhatsApp
  • Meneame
  • Blogger
  • Amazon
  • Yahoo Mail
  • Gmail
  • AOL
  • Newsvine
  • HackerNews
  • Evernote
  • MySpace
  • Mail.ru
  • Viadeo
  • Line
  • Flipboard
  • Comments
  • Yummly
  • SMS
  • Viber
  • Telegram
  • Subscribe
  • Skype
  • Facebook Messenger
  • Kakao
  • LiveJournal
  • Yammer
  • Edgar
  • Fintel
  • Mix
  • Instapaper
  • Copy Link
  • Truth
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Gettr
  • Baidu
  • Mastodon

Join our list

Subscribe to our mailing list and get interesting stuff and updates to your email inbox.

Thank you for subscribing.

Something went wrong.

We respect your privacy and take protecting it seriously

Related

Next Post

Oops! Arctic Ice Death Spiral Postponed Again

Comments 8

  1. anothermaninthemirror says:
    5 years ago

    ….. Ha! Ha! We should only call these —- “Nutritional STUDIES” as it is not science….. likewise we all should call all claims by the Alarmist Catastrophic Climate Cult —-“Climate STUDIES” as they are not science….. keep up the good work…. we Skeptics are getting some traction with this information you hard working skeptics are producing…. thanks.

  2. Randy Verret says:
    5 years ago

    Quit it! Your advocating dangerous concepts like common sense, the scientific method and rational thought. I guess your next stop will be some form of “re-education camp”…

    • Dave O says:
      5 years ago

      They already have “re-education camps” … they are called universities.

  3. Bruce says:
    5 years ago

    From the National Post article (https://nationalpost.com/health/diet-fitness/no-beef-isnt-bad-for-you-scientists-conclude-there-is-no-need-to-eat-less-red-or-processed-meat?video_autoplay=true)
    While “excellent scientists,” Dr. David Jenkins disagreed with the panel’s conclusions. “They should not be making recommendations on this highly connected and sensitive issue, namely, meat consumption, linked as it is to GHGE (greenhouse gas emissions), climate change, our whole attitude to other life forms — in short, connected to existential issues for life on this planet,” said Jenkins, a University of Toronto nutrition scientist and staff physician at St. Michael’s Hospital.

    Science is now the New Science

    • Raining Sky says:
      5 years ago

      I don’t know why this subject is so radioactive. The original announcement of this paper at https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/09/190930215122.htm included a link to the Harvard rebuttal. I’ve never seen an article on any research include an argument against it. Usually the opposition would have to write and publish their own peer-reviewed journal article.

      The Harvard criticism asks why a prestigious medical journal (Annals of Internal Medicine) would “publish dietary guideline recommendations by a self-appointed panel?” as if scientists don’t decide for themselves what subjects they will study and write on. It also points out that only 2 of the 14 authors are nutritional scientists. So, like in climate, these aren’t the right kind of scientists.

  4. David Lewis says:
    5 years ago

    Not publishing the result because of “harm the credibility of nutrition science and erode public trust in scientific research.” It is way too late. Decades ago after one reversal after another on the dangers of various foods, I started ignoring these studies. Obviously eating too much sugar or eating in such away to cause being over weight isn’t good, but these studies can’t be trusted.

    The studies concluding that meat is bad have to have some influence to the link to green house gasses. This part is real. Cattle produce as much green house gasses as all transportation. Since anthropological climate change is a fraud, that isn’t a problem. There are also those who believe in being vegetarian or vegan for motives that have nothing to do with climate change.

  5. Spurwing Plover says:
    5 years ago

    Screw PETA the World Recourse Institute,the UN and all you vegan idiots here is a study that blows your mindless nonsense out of the water go out and have a Cheese Burger and tell those Nit-Wits munching their Carrot sticks to Take a hike

  6. Graham McDonald says:
    5 years ago

    “…scientists at Harvard warned that the conclusions “harm the credibility of nutrition science and erode public trust in scientific research.”

    That is probably the “Bloomberg School of Medicine”. Yes, that Bloomberg – ex-mayor of New York City. “No more 24oz sodas – bad for you.”

    He will probably buy his way into the Democratic nomination process somewhere along the line.

Stay Connected On Social Media

gab-logo

Donate Today

Beating back the alarmist narrative takes time and money. Please donate today to help!

Recent Posts

  • Media Ignorantly Blame Climate Change For Heat-Related Deaths During Hajj Pilgrimage
    Jun 28, 2024
    The deaths of more than 1,300 people at this year’s Hajj attributed to heat is tragic, but historically not uncommon. […]
  • UN secretary general antonio guterresThe UN Emperor Has No Science (Just Mangled Metaphors To Pitch Extreme Climate Alarmism)
    Jun 28, 2024
    History will record that the United Nations and its emperor as the greatest organizational perpetrators of junk science in modern times. […]
  • Fayette power plantSupreme Court Strikes Down EPA Rule Targeting Downwind Power Plant Pollution
    Jun 27, 2024
    The Supreme Court blocked an Environmental Protection Agency rule cracking down on power plant pollution. […]
  • protest climate justice riotClimate Lawfare: Using The Courts To Dictate And Enforce Green Energy Policies
    Jun 27, 2024
    Lawfare is becoming a key tactic of the climate cult because they can’t get their wish list enacted through the democratic process. […]
  • cattle cows livestockDenmark Rolls Out ‘Flatulence Tax’ For Livestock To Ostensibly Slash Methane Emissions
    Jun 27, 2024
    Starting in 2030, Danish livestock farmers will have to pay for the greenhouse gases their cows, sheep and pigs produce. […]
  • beach summer heatAn Expert’s Forecast Of Central Europe’s ‘Summer Of Hell’ Already Off-Track
    Jun 27, 2024
    A suspect biologist had predicted a 'summer of hell with almost complete certainty.' It hasn’t materialized yet. […]
  • harris eco adGreenwashing Kamala Harris: How The Veep Casts Herself As An Eco-Justice Crusader
    Jun 27, 2024
    Kamala Harris has long cast herself as a fearless pioneer of social and environmental justice. Her record shows something far different. […]
  • biden solar farmSolar Execs Who Gave Millions To Dems And Lobbied For Subsidies Are Swimming In Cash
    Jun 26, 2024
    Execs and investors in a solar company who donated heavily to Dems and lobbied for Biden’s big climate tax bill ended up as major winners when it passed. […]
  • power plant refineryWhat the Media Won’t Tell You About Fossil Fuels And The Green Energy Transition
    Jun 26, 2024
    Trillions of taxpayer dollars have been spent on a supposed 'green transition' that isn’t occurring at all. In fact, the opposite is happening. […]
  • jennifer granholmBiden DOE Farming Out Home Appliance Rules To Left-Wing Climate Activist Groups
    Jun 26, 2024
    Climate activist groups and far-left green groups helped craft the DOE's aggressive regulations targeting popular household appliances. […]

Get Instant Email Notifications

Enter your email address to receive notifications of new posts by email either instantly or daily. Check your Junk folder for any verification emails upon subscribing.

Submit a tip

Please enter your email, so we know you're human.

Books We Like

Have a suggestion? Let us know! We swap out books based on your input. We participate in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program. See here.

  • Privacy Policy
  • About Us
  • Contact Us

Portions © 2024 Climate Change Dispatch

Share via
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Mastodon
  • Buffer
  • Telegram
  • Email
  • Copy Link
  • Share Using More Networks…
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us

© 2024 Climate Change Dispatch