Veganuary: have you gone vegan for January?

There’s no reason not to eat chocolate since many are vegan. The Coop’s own-brand orange-flavoured is my favourite, even better than Ritter Sport Halbbitter, which is no longer available in the UK.
Just read the label and watch out for butterfat as well as milk.
There’s also Booja Booja & Plamil ……

[Sorry, your comment has been removed to align with our community guidelines. As a quick reminder, we do not allow promotional content https://conversation.which.co.uk/commenting-guidelines/. Thanks, mods.]

I baked some aubergines with miso the day before yesterday which was a new one for me as I was deliberately trying a vegan recipe. Miso I’ve never used before and it is very salty and I put too much on – probably my fault! I hate recipes that don’t measure small amounts with spoons as who wants to drag the weighing scales out for 200g when you are tired and hungry so I tried to wing it looking at the amount in a full jar and estimating. However the completed recipe was really easy and I’ll try it again. What was great was that aubergine is one of those vegetables that soak up oil and this avoided nearly any of that. Not sure where to find the protein in that meal though!

Miso is best used in soups and stews – then it’s delicious. I mix it with water to make it more liquid before adding a couple of spoonfuls to the soup.

I don’t think that the reports mentioned eating meat once a day, but I don’t think there is a problem with that – or in fact – several times a day. With reference to the two reports I mentioned, I would just like to add that all epidemiological studies can only act as pointers – I not sure why you believe that these very recent and extremely large ones suffer more than others – but I would be happy to hear if you have found specific problems with them.
Neither do I see that there is a problem environmentally. In nature, grasslands are common and help to feed herds of herbivores since their modified stomach or enlarged colon possess the structures and microorganisms that convert the plant cellulose etc into fatty acids – the actual major food for the herbivore itself. Please note humans possess neither the gut structure nor microorganisms to carry out this feat. We simply breakdown the readily digestible starches to glucose leading to spikes of blood glucose that in turn leads to spikes of the storage hormone, insulin. This hormone then tells the adipose tissue to take up and hold onto any available fat and instructs the liver to convert excess glucose to even more fat which is excreted into the blood stream and again stored in the adipose tissue.
So prairies/savanna/grassland provides the food for herbivores and they in turn provide food for their predators.
Compare this with the totally unnatural ploughing up of the soil surface over vast acreages – then adding man-made fertilisers by the ton and then toxic man-made pesticides by the ton. I don’t find that very environmentally friendly, since many animals are killed by ploughing, tilling and harvesting; and the soil is being depleted of micronutrients that are vital for the working of our enzymes and thus metabolism, and the soil’s organic matter is also being depleted. There are only so many cycles of repeated cropping that can occur before the land becomes a dust bowl. In addition, the rapid run off of the water soluble fertilisers can be a danger to nearby water courses. Also there is the consideration of all the fuel that is needed to carry out all the agricultural operations and generate and transport the fertilisers and pesticides.
So I will stick to the natural way – the way that we have evolved over the last 5 million years. Over this period we separated from our more vegetarian fellow apes and lost the enlarged colon and microorganisms and became a meat eater – consuming a concentrated food source in order to fuel our fuel-hungry large brain – 3 times larger (w/w) than a great ape and around 10 times large than other animals.
So from my point of view, we have evolved to eat fatty meat and it is the inclusion of plant materials, for example, grains that have led to the recent explosion in obesity, type 2 diabetes, CHD, cancer etc. You could say that the problem started with the ability to grow grains around 10,000 years ago and then the untested revision of our dietary recommendations in the 1980s was the last straw.

Alfa

I’m so pleased to hear that your husband is controlling his type 2 diabetes with diet and that 15 years ago you obtained a glucose monitor that allowed you to see the spikes that occurred when he ate carbohydrate and so take avoiding action. I think that everyone should buy a monitor and test themselves 1 hour after a meal and hope that their reading is below 7.5 – if it is not then I personally would use carb restriction.

I think until very recently, the “official advice” was still to take 60% of calories in the form of carbohydrate. It was a bit like going in to see the medic with lead poisoning and (s)he saying – keep on taking the poison and we will give you something that will hopefully lead to its excretion – madness.

However, with people thinking for themselves and visiting the unofficial but extremely useful sites like Diabetes.co.uk, it has force the hand of the establishment so that even Diabetes.org.uk indicate that the low carb diet is effective in controlling type 2 diabetes/ and reducing weight and heart disease. However, instead of making this centre stage it is quite well hidden and spoiled by saying it is not suitable for everyone and people should reduce red meat consumption and replace saturated with unsaturated fat – again where is the evidence for this nonsense.

However, no apologies are given for all their absolutely stupid advice that has caused so much suffering post the change in dietary recommendations.

If you have not come across the book by Joseph Kraft, please read it. On the front cover it says – “Should Everyone be Tested? ABSOLUTELY NOT! Only those concerned about their future!”

Wavechange

Sorry, but I think you can link our present predicament with our evolutionary past. If you evolve over millions of years so that your principle food is animal meat/offal then the biochemical/hormonal mechanisms are attuned to give greatest efficiency. If then after this period of adaption, you introduce grains – as was the case 10,000 years ago with the introduction of arable farming – there will be a response – and that can be seen by anthropologists with the reduction of bone size and strength, and the introduction of the western diseases (again not seen in those peoples who maintained their hunter gather life style). If you then stipulate, as occurred in the 1980s, that our diet should be made up of even larger amounts of carbohydrate – constituting 60% of energy needs – you might again expect an immediate response. And there was an immediate response in all of the countries that introduced the food pyramid/plate. I gave the official figures for the USA but I will repeat them because they are so staggering –

In 1985, most states reported that the level of obesity was between 0 to 10% with the highest states going over 10% yet by 2014, the lowest state registered above 20% and the highest above 35%. In step with this the number of type 2 diabetics also has risen alarmingly.

Now I believe that the Americans possessed fridges and freezers before 1980 and I think they were also wealthy enough to buy whatever food they wanted (well obviously within reason) – so I would exclude wealth and I believe that this is supported by fact that the poorest in the population are the most likely to be obese – not the wealthiest.

I would agree with you that often portion sizes have increased. I won’t go into the research that shows that carbohydrates are addictive, but I will mention that lots of people have studied weight loss and compared diets and they have always found that people following the Low Carbohydrate/High Fat (LC/HF) diet lost more weight than those following the High Carbohydrate/Low Fat (HC/LF) diet. Two interesting points – firstly in many of these trials the people on the LC/HF diet were allowed to eat as much as they liked whilst the people on the HC/LF were calorie restricted; and secondly, the weight loss was much more likely to be maintained on the LC/HF diet that the HC/LF diet – presumably because it is hard to resist hunger. On the other hand people on the LC/HF diet, with its emphasis on fat and protein find that they feel fuller and can go without snacks etc between meals. The crash in blood sugar after a carb meal ensures that carb snacks are needed frequently.

We tend to think of plants as benign entities, lovely garden flowers and beautiful forest trees. Whilst plants can certainly be beautiful, it must be remembered that any successful plant species must have developed formidable protective weapons. Since, plants are static they must evolve mechanisms other than flight and fight to prevent their destruction by grazers, insects, fungi and microorganisms etc. And one of the major defense mechanisms is chemical warfare through the production of a whole battery of unpleasant compounds. Well known ones are usually the most potent, like strychnine and atropine, give rise to acute toxicity that is so severe that death in humans can be induced within hours. But there are many, many more that possess the ability to bring about long-term chronic toxicity.
The upshot is that humans can only tolerate about 2% of plant species yet we are constantly told – if its plant based, it must be healthy. Yet even common food plants like wheat are packed full of harmful chemicals which may not kill you instantly but give rise to chronic autoimmune diseases. We know from the work of Alessio Fasano that the protein gluten, through it action on the hormone, zonulin, in the intestine forms a leaky gut, through which partially degraded proteins enter the blood stream. The body’s response is to form antibodies against them but unfortunately, some of these antibodies in some people are able to interact specifically with one their normal body proteins which may be situated in any of their tissues. This, of course, leads to a variety of diseases – for example – if the gut cells are attacked then one of the related bowel diseases (coeliac, Crohn’s, ulcerative colitis) results, if the joints – rheumatoid arthritis, if the skin – psoriasis, if the liver – autoimmune liver disease, if the hair follicles – alopecia, if the spine – ankylosing spondylitis, if the myelin sheath of nerve cells in the brain or spinal cord – MS, if the actual neurons in the brain or spinal column – a motor neuron disease eg amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) or Parkinson’s disease with loss of movement and memory (with the destruction of cells responsible for the secretion of the neurotransmitter – dopamine), if the thyroid – autoimmune thyroid disease etc. And there are other problems that may go away or decrease on a gluten free diet, such as, lupus, migraine, chronic fatigue, attention deficit etc, etc.
The accumulative effect of these autoimmune diseases has been calculated and they are now thought to be the third largest killer of humans.
In a recent book by Tom O’Bryan MD (Autoimmune Fix), he provides the names of the 159 separate autoimmune diseases listed by the American Autoimmune Related Diseases Association; and points out that the American National Institutes of Health now states that although some of the 159 diseases are rare, collectively they affect around 8% of the population – ie around 24 million Americans – and that is only the number who have been diagnosed!
Again with the recommendation to eat more grains the occurrence of these diseases has risen, for example, coeliac disease has risen 4 fold over the last 40 years and all Italian children are now tested for the disease.
You can go on and on about plant products, for example, plant oils that contain a preponderance of omega 6 double bonds over omega 3 that makes them inflammatory and the number of double bonds makes them much more liable to be attacked by heat and free radicals.
Plants are not cuddly, fuzzy creatures – they protect themselves – otherwise they do not survive.

Beryl
I totally respect your desire not eat animals if you so wish – what I object to is the pressure put on individuals by vegetarians that they should not eat meat – not to mention their misplaced virtue signalling. I cannot see the distinction between killing animals for food and killing animals by ploughing, tilling and harvesting food. Nor the fact that environmentally, the continued ploughing and tilling of land for crop production is unsustainable. In addition, there is no way around eating the toxic residues that persist in these commercially grown crops.

There is now no question about the safety of saturated fats and although they may raise cholesterol many studies have shown that cholesterol is protective especial for the over 60s – this was even known in the 1980s in the Framingham study but its release was suppressed until quite recently. I would be really scared if my total went below 5 and terrified if it went below 4 since the WHO figures show that the death rate rises very, very steeply from cancer and infections.

For most people, the calories in vs calories out explanation of obesity is simply incorrect we have very sophisticated hormone mechanisms that maintain weight – if – the consumption of carbohydrates is kept in check. If it is not restrained then the only other way is starvation – which is difficult to maintain and leads to yo-yo dieting.

When you keep hearing these – sorry to say it but worn out theories – it reminds me of the 1960s when the tobacco industry continued to say that their products were safe – even when all the evidence was stacked up against them. It suits the mighty food corporations who sponsor various professional societies around the world to get consumers to believe that they are at fault and if only they could control themselves they would look like Twiggy.

I don’t want to get into costs because that could soon become personal – but I sometimes look into trolleys in the supermarket and wonder what could be purchased instead of the loads of biscuits, crisps, cakes, sweets, fizzy drinks, bread etc. Also when I look at the price of one take away, I often think I could buy a chicken for that price and feed four to six people. I agree it would be very expensive to eat fillet steak for every meal, but I’m sure that you will know that there are many much cheaper cuts of meat that are tastier and just as nutritious. And of course there is liver and kidney which is cheap and provides an abundance of vitamins and minerals. I also eat lots of eggs and fish and again, fish can cost a fortune or modest amount. So, in fact, I would turn your argument around and say that because we no longer have a desire to consume snacks, cakes, biscuits, sweets, crisps, desserts and fizzy drinks (lager excepted of course) our weekly food bill is very modest.

Beryl

I’m not sure that you meant to but you seem to be backing me up by saying that glutens are detrimental to health and have become much more potent in stimulating autoimmune diseases over the last century.

I was only using glutens as an example to show that plants because they are trying to protect themselves from predation have a battery of chemicals that are detrimental to our health. And I was only using toxic plant products as an example of the many problems that should be considered by anyone thinking of switching to a vegan diet.

There seems to be a concerted effort to push people towards vegetarianism/veganism using the message that anything derived from plants is healthy, for example, use polyunsaturated vegetable oils for cooking when it is known that these omega 6 fats are unhealthy for several reasons.

I obviously do not know in detail what you consider a balance diet to be but from what you have previously said it not a vegan diet; and equally obviously, you have a background in science. Many other people joining or following the conversation must be in the same position – yet no one else has said – hold on a minute, there are downsides to the vegan diet.

I realise that readers of Which wish to be considerate, but there are also downsides to this position. You may have read in yesterday’s paper that farmers were receiving death threats from vegan activists and that meat industry representatives were holding meetings with the anti-terrorism police. We all know what happens when bully boys get their way – tofu anyone (sorry not a clue what tofu is – so hope it’s appropriate).

By the way, I’m not a spring chicken either!

Beryl
Sorry to take so long to reply but your comments took some time to digest and respond to. I’ll break up my response into two parts – the first relating to climate change and the second relating to diet.

I used to believe in catastrophic man-made climate change – CMCC – until about 10 years ago. However, climategate opened many people’s eyes and give them a desire to find out what was going on. So, when I did some research for myself, I found, like the current nutritional advice, that the research backing up the proposals was just not there – in fact – it was worse than that since the scientists who actually go out there and measured things had produced evidence that completely destroyed the arguments put forward by the UN and its satellite the IPCC – please remember that these two bodies are made up of politicians, not scientists and the final reports of the IPCC are reviewed and “corrected” by politicians/political nominees before release.

When I looked I could find absolutely no evidence to support catastrophic man-made climate change. However, what you do find is that the Earth’s temperate has been in flux particularly over the last 3 million years as indicated below.

Firstly, even in our present interglacial period, the temperatures have fluctuated – producing warm periods every 1,000 years or so and so we have the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) around 1,000 years ago; the Roman WP around 2000 years ago; and Minoan WP around 3,000 years ago. In between, came the cooler periods like the Little Ice Age(LIA). The LIA lasted from about 1600 to 1800 when ice-fairs where held on the ice of the Thames and coaches and horses could be safely driven across it. The continental climate on the Continent ensured that they had even more severe cold – birds fell from trees, animals died in stables, unwary travellers died at the road side, the warm seasons were curtailed and crops failed, and because it had to be the fault of humans, around 500/1,000 witches were sacrificed. On the other hand, in the MWP, grapes were grown in England and Greenland was settled.

So it is known that temperatures do vary, and a depiction of the temperature changes over the last 1000 years was given in the first IPCC report, and it showed the temperature during the MWP to be warmer than today – needless to say this figure was never included or referred to again.

Also expunged from history is the term used to depict a time of about 6,000 years ago (about half way through our current interglacial – assuming it will last the average length of time of about 12/14000 years) – it was called the Holocene Maximum, in other words, the maximum temperature that occurred during the current interglacial occurred around 6,000 years ago – again this term was removed to save embarrassing questions.
If you go back farther, the last two interglacials (occurring around 100,000 and 200.000 years ago) were both warmer than the current interglacial.

If you go back further still, you find that the ice ages began about 3 million years ago, when the temperature of the Earth dropped about 2/3 degrees C. In other words, the interglacials are 2/3 degrees C below the previous temperature (which again lasted for around 3 million years) and the glacials are about 10/12 degrees below the previous temperature.

So we live in the time of the ice ages, when our current temperature is below that reached earlier in our current interglacial period – the Holocene Maximum, and the Holocene Maximum is below that reached in recent interglacials, and the temperature of these interglacials is 2/3 degrees below that reached prior to the period of the ice-ages. In other words the temperature of the Earth has gone down – not up.

Yet we are told that the current temperatures are unique and we are at a tipping point!
If you look at the concentration of CO2, 500 million years ago the atmospheric levels were above 5,000 ppm. They have slowly fallen over the intervening time down to around 300 ppm and now stand at around 400 ppm.

So for most of the last 500 million years the atmospheric CO2 has been far, far above the current level. But, yet again we are told we are at a tipping point!

So on what does the IPCC put its faith – on man-made computer models – even worse on averaging the results of wildly different climate models run in many countries? Each model is based on the factors favoured by the modeller and the weight placed on each of their selected factors. Since there is dispute about which factors to use and their weigh – it is not surprising that each model gives a different result and the average shows no relation to reality – since it shows a rising trend that is much faster than the actual temperature records.

On the other hand, when we do know all the factors and how they interact, then when the computer people put the data into their computers – one answer should come out and it should mimic the actual temperature changes as they occur; and if the programme is put into reverse it should give an accurate plot of the temperatures over the last couple of centuries.

You could come back and say yes that is all very well but the Earth’s temperature is rising – however, that is what you would expect ie after the recent warm periods there was a cooling followed by a warming – so after the MWP came the cooling of the LIA and then the warming to near the that of the MWP. After which it will again tip towards the next little ice age or since it is about time – a proper ice age when Scotland will again be covered in a 1 kilometer thick ice sheet which may extend so far down the UK that, as previously, it changed the course of the Thames. The Inuit would live along the south coast of England and – oh irony – Britons would be demanding refuge on the Continent.

We have had 18 ice ages in the last 2.5 million years and if a more recent pattern is repeated yet again, after 85,000 years of glaciation the Earth will warm up, and the ice sheets will melt sufficiently to flood the land bridge joining us to the Continent. So 87018 AD could be a significant year for the UK when it reappears from under the ice.

One final point, if you believe that the UN/IPCC is some form of scientific, impartial body, please read the recent book by Donna Lafranboise – “The Delinquent Teenager – Who Was Taken For The World’s Top Climate Expert”. It really is quite shocking and you think – why do they not sue her if it is not all true. But the answer is that they do not want any discussion, particularly in a court, for the same reason that the so called climate experts for CMCC will not debate with those who challenge their unproven theory – people would hear the actual truth about the climate. As a scientist, I’ve never known of a case where another scientist has refused to an open debate if they believe that they have got the necessary factual evidence.

Beryl – Part 2

I agree with you that animals should be treated with respect and I would be absolutely against the feedlot system– not only is it unnatural, but artificial feed affects the ultimate product and changes the composition of the essential fats – important since our ability to biosynthesise them is either limited or non-existent.

But again I will ask –
how is it possible to feed a population in a vegan way, since you can neither kill animals for food, nor use large farm machinery to plough, till or harvest the monocrops; and
since the repeated growth of these monocrops leads to the destruction of soils, how can this totally unnatural method be sustained?

It is often said that raising livestock is unsustainable, yet animals grazing on grasslands has been occurring for millions of years – it is the natural way and soil structure remains intact.

Returning to matters biological. You mention your relative nearly dying from anaemia etc. I wonder if that was caused by another well-known class of plant lectins – the phytohaemaglutinins. These toxins are known to be present in about a third of legume species. They work by causing red blood cells to clump together and can cause acute toxicity and death.

On the other hand, B12 deficiency is known to be a serious problem affecting the vegetarian/vegan population. I will copy below most of the abstract of a 2014 paper by Kocoaglu et al relating to the effect of low B12 on infants –

In developed countries, vitamin B12 (cobalamin) deficiency usually occurs in children, exclusively breastfed ones whose mothers are vegetarian, causing low body stores of vitamin B12. The haematologic manifestation of vitamin B12 deficiency is pernicious anaemia. It is a megaloblastic anaemia with high mean corpuscular volume and typical morphological features, such as hyperlobulation of the nuclei of the granulocytes. In advanced cases, neutropaenia and thrombocytopaenia can occur, simulating aplastic anaemia or leukaemia. In addition to haematological symptoms, infants may experience weakness, fatigue, failure to thrive, and irritability. Other common findings include pallor, glossitis, vomiting, diarrhoea, and cterus.
Neurological symptoms may affect the central nervous system and, in severe cases, rarely cause brain atrophy.

Brain volume loss is not restricted to the new born – work by Vogiatzoglou et al showed that B12 status was also related to brain volume loss in the elderly.

Studies have also shown that depression is more rife amongst vegetarians, for example, a Bristol University study found twice the rate of depression in vegetarian males.

I would also predict that low stores of the essential omega 3 fat, DHA in nursing mothers is likely to cause problems, since it is vital for the development of the babies brain which carries on growing at a great rate for the first year after birth.

It is certainly not possible to dismiss the activity of the glutens as lightly as you did and their activities are not restricted to the irritable bowel diseases. If you do not believe that they are responsible for a vast variety of diseases in all our tissues – please read the new books – “Wheat Belly” and “Undoctored – Why Health Care has Failed You and How You Can Become Smarter Than Your Doctor” both by William Davis MD; “The Plant Paradox – The Hidden Dangers In “Healthy” Foods That Cause Disease And Weight Gain” by S R Grundy MD; and “Autoimmune Fix” by T O’Bryan – as well as the many, many scientific papers that are available on the web.

Unfortunately, reliable and dispassionate dietary advice is hard to come by and the old adage “follow the money” is still very appropriate in this area. The large powerful food companies convert inexpensive materials like flour, potatoes and sunflower seeds into expensive end products like biscuits, crisps and oils. This gives the companies tremendous profits and therefore clout with which to influence societies involved in nutrition around the world. If you doubt this read the new book by Professor Tim Noakes – “Lore of Nutrition – Challenging Conventional Dietary Beliefs”. Tim is a leading scientist in South Africa and a marathon runner who wrote books praising carb loading – until he was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. After carrying out his own research, he realised that what he had been publishing previously was wrong and dangerous. He very courageously came out and said he was wrong and that carbs were the enemy and not fats. Since he was so high profile, his comment to a mother that she should weened her child in a lowish carb way was jumped on – even though babies being fed mother’s milk are in mild ketosis though the metabolism of milk fat – and he was threatened with losing his medical licence. However, at a public hearing when he presented all the evidence regarding the advantages of a low carb diet with the help of experts from around the world, he was exonerated. He relates all this in his book and all the forces that had come together in an effort to silence him.

In conclusion, there is no doubt that the various types of plant toxins constitute a real threat to health. There is no doubt that vegans suffer from low B12/Fe/omega 3 fatty acids/vitamin D and K2 levels even after supplementation. As Doctor Davis put in “Undoctored” – “No-free living population throughout history has adhered to a vegan or vegetarian lifestyle until recently….”

It is a totally modern construct that without careful management is greatly detrimental to health.

I applaud you for following such a diet because of your love of animals – but because of the risks to health, I do not believe it should be pushed, and it is being pushed, as a healthy lifestyle when it plainly is not.

Ian

You have obviously studied the issue of CMCC and seemed to be upset with my presumption that there is no evidence – so I will ask two questions. Firstly, I’m a scientist so could you please give me the scientific proof that CMCC is occurring? And secondly, if it is so solid and unarguably correct, why has the IPCC been so reticent about holding public discussions with climate scientists, like Judith Curry?

When Britain is spending billions and the West trillions on reducing the production of CO2, I think it is only right that the evidence is as watertight as it can be. After searching for this evidence for 10 years or so, I believe this is very far from being the case – perhaps your evidence will convince me!

You may be willing to spend these huge amounts of money, if the chance of CMCC occurring was say 95% and the only opportunity for remedying the situation was to act now – but if the chance is only 5% and the situation can be remedied later at a much lower cost – why would anyone act now – please see towards the end of the post for more discussion.

I agree totally with your comment regarding the factors that influence climate – “There is far too much that is currently unknown or uncertain, and a great many factors are involved – not least being sun spots, CO2, orbital mechanics and climate patterns historically.” That was exactly my point – how can we be expected to believe in climate models when all the factors and their weightings are not known and modellers are selecting their pet factors. Yet governments around the world are squandering billions and billions of pounds on the back of these man-made incomplete models.

I think you speed read my comment regarding a comparison of the warmth of the MWP with the present day. I started that paragraph of the post by talking about the figure that appeared in the first IPCC report – a figure created by Lamb of UEA in which he indicated that the temperature of the MWP was above that of the current day. Not my diagram, but one created by one of the foremost climate scientists of the day. So you have the IPCC’s report presenting Lamb’s figure indicating that the MWP was warmer than at present, yet the IPCC still pressed on in its endeavour to prove that the current temperature was so high that we are at a tipping point. I agree with you, the two temperatures are pretty similar – so why is the IPCC talking about run away global warming when we know that the Holocene Maximum was around 1 degree warmer than today, recent interglacials were around 2 degrees warmer, and the Pliocene (3 to 6 million years ago) was around 3 degrees warmer.

In the paragraph, I also made the comment that Lamb’s figure was no longer quoted by the IPCC, so on that specific point, could you please refer me to the pages in any later IPCC reports that reproduces this figure or even mentions that the MWP was warmer/or of similar temperature to today.

Let’s talk about CO2 levels during the ice ages. Because CO2 is taken up by the oceans when they are cooler, it means that in the glacial period the atmospheric CO2 levels go down – yet the Earth warms up again and then during the interglacial the oceans release CO2 – yet the Earth cools down and returns to a glacial period. In all the evidence I have seen CO2 changes have always followed temperature changes.

Going on to Donna Lafranboise’s book obviously, I have not had time to read it again and I rely on my notes taken at the time. In my view, she demolished many of the IPCC’s claims. For example, the IPCC claims that the world’s most renowned impartial climate scientists are responsible for producing the reports and that all the articles mentioned in the reports are peer reviewed. We now know that this certainly is not true. On thorough investigation, Donna Laframboise actually found firstly, that many lead authors in the reports were not world renowned scientists at all since some do not even have a research degree at PhD or even MSc level, secondly, many were not impartial since they worked for lobbying organisations like Greenpeace and WWF, and thirdly, not all papers used were peer reviewed scientific papers. In fact, a large percentage were opinion pieces again provided by the likes of the green lobbying organisations – for example, Donna Laframbroise found 5,587 non-peer reviewed articles in the fourth IPPCC report (AR4).

Against this you state – “Her own research, however, is inaccurate: one of the grad students, for example, mentioned in the book as “earning his master’s [of public health] only two years earlier,” already had a MD in occupational/environmental and family medicine.” Well, I agree with her, I don’t think having a master degree for 2 years or plus or minus an MD in any way qualify you as a world renowned scientist in climate science.

Not that I believe in vampires, but I was intrigued by your information regarding her and this topic – so could you please give me a reference – so I can judge for myself.

I, like Donna, believe that our society is in danger from the underlying political pressure that is generated by the doom-laden propaganda that is constantly spewed out – polar bears will be made extinct by global warming (even when their numbers are increasing this mantra is repeated – how on earth did they survive the last two warmer interglacials; let alone the sea level dropping by 400 feet during the glacials), the ice caps are going to disappear (forgetting that the ice cap on Antarctica is thickening), there will be millions of climate change migrants by 2010 (I think there has been one – and he was sent home from New Zealand), the rate of sea level rise will increase (yet there is no evidence that the rate of rise of 1 foot per century that has occurred for the last few centuries, has be exceeded), there will be more droughts/hurricanes/tornadoes etc (all available evidence shows, if anything, the world is relatively quiet at the moment).

All the gloom laden predictions that were designed to whip up a storm have turned out to be untrue – why would we be fool enough to continue to be driven by them.

This is true particularly true when you look at a comparison of the consequences of CMCC – assuming it takes place.

Well we are helped here by the IPCC itself. The opening statement in the Executive Summary of IPCC AR5 WGII Chapter 10 (Key Economic Sectors and Services) states –
“For most economic sectors, the impact of climate change will be small relative to the impacts of other drivers (medium evidence, high agreement). Changes in population, age, income, technology, relative prices, lifestyle, regulation, governance, and many other aspects of socioeconomic development will have an impact on the supply and demand of economic goods and services that is large relative to the impact of climate change.”

This was backed up by a statement of Professor Richard Toll of Sussex University and one of the most renowned climate economists. After studying 22 papers concerned with the impact of climate change, he wrote a paper accepted for publication in the Review of Environmental Economics and Policy. In which he stated – “Statements that climate change is the biggest problem of humankind are unfounded: We can readily think of bigger problems.”

So why could it be that climate change does not represent a comparatively large catastrophe, perhaps one of the answers lies in the cost of remediation and the increased wealth of individuals in 2100 as indicated below.

Economists have worked out that it will be in the region of 2 to 10 times cheaper to carry out remediation than to attempt to reduce CO2 production.

An OECD report produced for the IPCC indicates that by 2100 the average pay of say an Indonesian, Brazilian or Chinese will be twice that of today’s American. This is applying their – middle of the road scenario – and assuming climate change takes place.

So even the IPCC has stated that CMCC when compared to other things is not such a big deal in the general scheme of things – and since we are predicted to be much wealthier by 2100, then the cost of remediation will be even easier to bear than the phenomenal cost of currently decarbonising – which impacts more on the poorer members of our community.

So is there any advantage to impoverishing ourselves at the moment – I would say no. To my mind, the sensible thing to do would be to wait, for the following reasons –

1. There is no evidence in the satellite or balloon temperature records of any increase in the rate of temperature increase – above that relating to the rise due to climbing out of the LIA
2. If CMCC does not occur then we have saved an absolute fortune
3. If it does occur then remediation would cost a lot less than carbon reduction
4. The later remediation would also be easier to bear because of increased wealth
5. Since the rate of photosynthesis at these relatively low levels of CO2 can be rate limiting on growth, then plant productivity will continue to increase – surely a useful plus whether you want to grow more crops or feed more livestock.

Ian

I am happy to drop it for now but I see that you have inquired about having this important topic discussed in a new conversation.

Alfa

Many thanks