Yossarian wrote:

cockbeard wrote:

Once again though we're veering into cult of reason territory. Stop being scared to ask questions, stop trying to be "right", and definitely stop demonising someone who does ask questions

This is nonsense. The entire scientific method is about asking questions, but crucially, it's also about paying attention to the answers. Ignoring mountains of evidence because they do not fit your view and then continuing to question the conclusions of those whose job it is to weigh up that evidence are actions that should be challenged.

It's not scientists you have to convince though. Also the mountains of evidence seem so far not to state that this out of the ordinary, the only one of those graphs that looks dodgy is the one based on a 1000 years. If this is the 'end of the world' then people think in geological time scales, in which 1000 years is insignificant. If this is the steepest, sustained rise in temperature in the life of the human race then there is definitely a problem. However at the moment it doesn't seem to be, not according to those graphs. 

People don't go to the doctor until they think they're ill

My Dawkins comment was relevant, and correct. He states himself that the God Delusion was an attack on religion, now if attacking a group is the best way to open a dialogue with them, I guess we all choose Bush over Buddha

dynamiteReady wrote:

This is why I'm a little angry about some of the views here. I'm accused of twisting facts for posting them, and asking questions about them, but others can get away with denigrating whole branches of established sciences, 'just because', and no-one bats an eyelid.

No-one has accused you of twisting facts.
And there's no problem with asking questions, it's annoying when you ignore every answer you're given that goes against your preconceived ideas despite there being a huge weight of evidence behind them.

The question you're asking repeatedly is 'who will confirm my view?', whilst ignoring the ridiculously overwhelming majority of evidence that contradicts that view. It's the wrong question to ask and the wrong tack to take, especially when dealing with scientific issues, so it's small wonder people are getting frustrated.

Outlaw wrote:

£150 per week!! I'm coming for dinner at yours griffo!

Seal eyes in aspic won't buy themselves.

Bloody love chickpeas. My favourite salad is a chickpea and halloumi one in some kind of garlic oil thing. By the time you're finished it's about 700 calories pp but oh my god its amazing.

Not good enough. I'd have to eat a like over a kilo to get a similar quantity of protein, not to mention that's almost all my personal daily calorie intake. And there's too many carbs in it.

HA!

Like, this does seem to be the sticking point - low-to-zero carb, adequately high protein food that's very very cheap and not animal-based and not requiring even more energy usage to put into an edible state. I don't think it exists. 'Til it does, I don't see how this is supposed to work.

Brooks wrote:

Like, this does seem to be the sticking point - low-to-zero carb, adequately high protein food that's very very cheap and not animal-based and not requiring even more energy usage to put into an edible state. I don't think it exists. 'Til it does, I don't see how this is supposed to work.

I think Spam still technically relies on the farming of beasts. Some portion of them. Also added sugars.

Yossarian wrote:

I'm sorry Dyno, I couldn't help myself. Your entire line of reasoning in this thread is based on a mistake about how much scientific disagreement there is over this issue, a mistake that's been pointed out to you about a billion times by now.

Again, I'm just looking for specific answers to specific questions, in an attempt to build on my understanding, but wonder about the sensitivity surrounding the subject.

Seriously, no other science appears to present so many unanswered questions, while generating so much fanaticism.

It's interesting, yes, but also very disturbing.

I have a newfound respect for medicine now. When two people disagree in that field, they think of the results and the subject first.

Not the opposing view.

Brooks wrote:

Skerret wrote:

I may have something.

Not too bad. 250g is 100g of protein, 80-odd of carbs (that's a bit high imo), for 1150-ish kcal. Now to check on actual costs.

Nuts?

dynamiteReady wrote:

Brooks wrote:

Skerret wrote:

I may have something.

Not too bad. 250g is 100g of protein, 80-odd of carbs (that's a bit high imo), for 1150-ish kcal. Now to check on actual costs.

Nuts?

Nope, too little bulk for the nutrients. Bulk is important in my experience.

Dry-roast soybeans, 250g, that's 4 quid a day here. Doesn't fly for the same reasons the powder didn't.

Yossarian wrote:

The only direct question I recall you asking was the one about the 'pause' graph, to which you received several answers. Beyond that, you just seem to be vaguely linking to denialist websites and newspaper articles. If you have specific questions, ask them. I expect you'll get specific answers.

See how much easier this is?

Now it's up to me to find stuff to present.

But the previous 16 pages give me very little hope for objective answers, though you know I've noted some sources of reason in here, and if I can be bovved', I'll continue to appeal to them, until some of you learn to ease up.

Well we'll have plenty of that rite