6 ms·

The egg-yolks-are-bad-for-you crowd said the same thing for decades. And now we know that the consensus was wrong. It always matters when minority scientific

The egg-yolks-are-bad-for-you crowd said the same thing for decades. And now we know that the consensus was wrong. It always matters when minority scientific opinion is ignored, or worse, silenced. If medical science gets it wrong, how much greater is the possibility of being wrong when trying to find tenths-of-a-degree difference over decades with a margin of error at least as great?

jolux 11y ago
Here you go, conflating sciences again and making false equivalences. First of all, do you have evidence that there was scientific consensus on the idea that egg yolks are "bad" for you? Because there's been quite an upheaval in dietary science recently, in particular the idea that there is "bad" cholesterol and "good" cholesterol. Google torcetrapib if you're interested. And with this argument, you're shifting the goalposts to validating medical science that is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. These aren't "scientific opinions" we're talking about here. These are the conclusions that knowledgeable, educated professionals in the field have come to after peer-reviewing the data of others and frequently doing their own research into the subject as well. Global warming has very little to do with opinion and nothing to do whatsoever with egg yolks and medical science. In closing, I'll make an appeal to a different argument here: even if global warming is a hoax or conspiracy or whatever you think it really is, isn't a renewable future still something we should strive for as a country that can achieve it? Imagine what New York City would be like without air pollution. You'd be able to see the stars at night! Regardless of whether or not global warming is an existential threat to humanity, (and it is) a future where we no longer pump clouds of sooty black ash and oily smoke into the skies above us is surely a future we can all agree is better than the situation we have now.

jolux 11y ago

Here you go, conflating sciences again and making false equivalences. First of all, do you have evidence that there was scientific consensus on the idea that egg yolks are "bad" for you? Because there's been quite an upheaval in dietary science recently, in particular the idea that there is "bad" cholesterol and "good" cholesterol. Google torcetrapib if you're interested. And with this argument, you're shifting the goalposts to validating medical science that is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. These aren't "scientific opinions" we're talking about here. These are the conclusions that knowledgeable, educated professionals in the field have come to after peer-reviewing the data of others and frequently doing their own research into the subject as well. Global warming has very little to do with opinion and nothing to do whatsoever with egg yolks and medical science. In closing, I'll make an appeal to a different argument here: even if global warming is a hoax or conspiracy or whatever you think it really is, isn't a renewable future still something we should strive for as a country that can achieve it? Imagine what New York City would be like without air pollution. You'd be able to see the stars at night! Regardless of whether or not global warming is an existential threat to humanity, (and it is) a future where we no longer pump clouds of sooty black ash and oily smoke into the skies above us is surely a future we can all agree is better than the situation we have now.