What a twisted cult of creeps. Continue reading Enviro Mocks: We can’t yet blame climate for deadly Oklahoma tornados so we’ll blame denier Sarah Palin
“While many Americans were tuned into news coverage of the massive damage from tornadoes ravaging the state of Oklahoma, Rhode Island Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse took to the Senate floor to rail against his Republican colleagues for denying the theory of anthropogenic global warming.” Continue reading Dem. Sen. Whitehouse uses Oklahoma tornado for anti-GOP global warming rant
“For now, blaming the Moore, Okla., tornado on global warming is bad science and bad politics.” Continue reading Salon: Don’t cry climate-change wolf — for now
Democracy Now reports:
“It is irresponsible not to mention climate change,” said Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, in 2011 after a series of large tornadoes. “The environment in which all of these storms and the tornadoes are occurring has changed from human influences.”
350.org founder Bill McKibben appeared on Democracy Now! in May 2011, the deadliest year for tornado outbreaks in the United States since 1953, with more than 500 people killed.
“What’s happening is we’re making the earth a more dynamic and violent place. That’s, in essence, what global warming is about,” McKibben said. “We’re trapping more of the sun’s energy in this narrow envelope of atmosphere, and that’s now expressing itself in many way. We don’t know for sure that any particular tornado comes from climate change. There have always been tornadoes. We do know that we’re seeing epic levels of thunderstorm activity, of flooding, of drought, of all the things that climatologists have been warning us about.”
Check it out so you can support your local denier. Continue reading Obama campaign releases state-by-state target list of climate deniers
Science Committee Chair Lamar Smith should take his name off and deep-six this bill. We don’t need any more tyranny by “experts.” Continue reading House bill would create Science Laureate of the U.S. — so Obama could appoint Hansen?
This is junk science because… Continue reading Claim: Prenatal exposure to traffic is associated with respiratory infection in young children
This is junk science because… Continue reading Claim: Traffic soot increases risk of heart disease
Yes, the study was funded by candy makers, but…
… the NHANES data is available for anyone to confirm/debunk.
The media release is below.
New study suggests candy consumption frequency not linked to obesity or heart disease
WASHINGTON, D.C., May 20, 2013 – At a time when the spotlight is focused on obesity more than ever, new research suggests that frequency of candy consumption is not associated with weight or certain adverse health risks. According to a recent data analysis published in the April 30th issue of Nutrition Journal, adults who consume candy at least every other day are no more likely to be overweight nor have greater risk factors for cardiovascular disease (CVD) than moderate consumers (about once a week) or even less frequent candy eaters (less than 3 times per month).1
Almost all adults (96%) reported eating candy, but there is variability in frequency and quantity consumed at a given time. Previous research has shown that candy consumers are not more likely to be overweight or have greater risk factors for chronic disease than non-consumers of candy. 2 This research showed that even the consumers who reported eating the most candy on a given day were not more likely to be at risk for increased weight or disease. Such findings were surprising and required further investigation which this new study set out to do, delving into the role of usual frequency of candy consumption and health/weight outcomes.
This study found that frequency of candy consumption was not associated with the risk of obesity, using objective measures such as BMI, waist circumference and skinfold thickness. Additionally, frequency of candy consumption was not associated with markers of cardiovascular disease risk including blood pressure, LDL- and HDL-cholesterol, triglycerides and insulin resistance. Frequency of candy consumption was based on analyses of food frequency questionnaires and data from the 2003-2006 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) – the most recent data set in which these food frequency questionnaires were available – of more than 5,000 U.S. adults ages 19 and older.
“We did not find an association between frequency of candy intake and BMI or cardiovascular risk factors among adults,” notes lead author Mary M. Murphy, MS, RD of Exponent®, Inc., Center for Chemical Regulation & Food Safety.
The study certainly doesn’t provide evidence that candy can be consumed without limits. However, these results suggest that most people are treating themselves to candy without increasing their risk of obesity or cardiovascular disease. More research is needed to further understand the role candy plays in life and the best tips for candy lovers to include their favorite treats as a part of a happy healthy lifestyle.
Candy’s Contribution to Total Calories, Sugar and Saturated Fat is small
According to the National Cancer Institute’s analysis of NHANES 05-06 data (same timeframe as this study), candy contributed an estimated 44 calories per day, or only about 2% of the total caloric intake of an average adult.3
In addition, candy accounted for slightly more than one teaspoon of added sugars (approximately 5 g) or 20 kcal in the diets of adults on a daily basis,4 which corresponds to a fraction of the 100-150 calorie upper limit of added sugars recommended by the American Heart Association.5 By comparison the top three dietary sources of added sugars for adults – sugary drinks, grain-based desserts, and sweetened fruit drinks – account for approximately 60% of the total added sugars intake.
Furthermore, data from the National Cancer Institute’s analysis of NHANES 05-06 indicate that candy accounted for only 3.1% of the total saturated fat intake by the US population aged 2 years, or slightly less than 1 g based on a total saturated fat intake of 27.8 g/day.
“There is a place for little pleasures, such as candy, in life. A little treat in moderation can have a positive impact on mood and satisfaction, and as emerging research suggests, minimal impact on diet and health risk,” said Laura Shumow, MHS, Director of Scientific and Regulatory Affairs, National Confectioners Association.
But the anti-Keystone activists say they can read between the lines [of tweets that avoid mentioning the pipeline]. Continue reading Enviros unhappy Obama campaign silent on Keystone XL: OFA advocacy avoids mention of pipeline