The Questioning of Studies
A recent study declares that no amount of alcohol is good for you. The story declares to expose and disprove the “long-held belief that moderate drinking is good for you.” There certainly have been many stories suggesting that moderate consumption is healthy, and just as many stating that it is not. The study on this topic deserves the football violation of “unsportsmanlike conduct” for, “piling on.” I suppose some researchers presume that their research information, data, and conclusions produce the preeminent study on a given issue, while others declare, usually in the silence of a bank vault to have reached the correct verdict based on their ideology or that of the research funders or philanthropists.
These “good/no good” studies have been done on coffee, chocolate, wine, beer, red meat, dairy, all meat, products, fast food, and many others. Many of these items have been members of the Study of the Month club for decades. This situation again deserves the quote from the late physicist Richard Feynman, “I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned.”
While Oxford University says a vegan diet would cut both CO2 emissions and healthcare costs by enormous sums, a study by the University of Graz in Austria, an institution established in the year 1585, asserts that these people are “less healthy (in terms of cancer, allergies, and mental health disorders), have a lower quality of life and also require more medical treatment.”
The fact here, relative to anthropogenic climate change, is that each proponent study of the theory is given the gold stamp of approval, while a study refuting climate change or specific details of an advocate study is considered erroneous and chocked-full of misinformation. Many in the public square accept that research studies on many issues or things can arrive at different answers, as I show at the beginning of this article, yet the authenticity of anthropogenic climate change should, in no manner, be questioned. Is that not ironic?
This is how we can tell, without much doubt or difficulty that the science of climate change or global warming is purely political.
Many will not even accept that CO2 levels, which seem not to have any effect on temperatures, are effectively and essentially good for the environment by enhancing plant growth. This would include the advancement of food harvests. Again, the nonacceptance of that fact proves the pure politicization of human-generated climate change.
