The Splendor Of Splenda?

Discussion in 'Food and nutrition' started by sunshine, Jan 8, 2005.

  1. sunshine

    sunshine Guest

    As we now know, FDA approval means nothing...

    The Splendor Of Splenda?

    Truth in advertising? Health watch alert about Splenda (sucralose).

    According to the Women’s Health Access Project, the makers of Splenda
    have been deceptively ingenious with their marketing campaign. They
    say the campaign was designed to lead people to the conclusion that
    because its base element is natural (sucrose), then the product itself
    is natural. According to some, Splenda’s ad campaign has been
    effective, but only by misleading the consumer about what goes into
    your body or into children’s diets. Splenda is not a natural product,
    it is an artificial sweetener whose intense sweetness depends on its
    chlorination. Opponents claim the makers of Splenda purposely tied
    their product to sugar so that the natural and organic reputation of
    sugar would rub off on their product.

    The Project argues that Splenda should be labeled what it actually
    is-- a chlorinated artificial sweetener, which when produced is not
    100 percent natural. Splenda is neither natural nor a pesticide. It´s
    a new chemical (according to a report in The San Francisco Chronicle,
    September 15, 2004, Carol Ness).

    Splenda manufacturers claim that "about 15% of ingested sucralose is
    passively absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract". The FDA’s "final
    rule" which approved Splenda says that as much as 27% can be absorbed.
    No one has any idea whatsoever what the long term effects of ingesting
    sucralose will be on the human body. Splenda has only been on the U.S.
    market since 1998.

    The FDA has reviewed the following possible side-effects:

    - Enlarged liver and kidneys.
    - Decreased white blood cell count.
    - Reduced growth rate.
    - Decreased fetal body weight.

    According to the FDA Final Rule, experiments with rats who were fed a
    diet consisting of Splenda resulted in a shrunken Thymus gland. The
    Thymus gland is significant because it is critical in developing the
    human immune system. For this reason, Splenda can be dangerous for
    people with compromised immune systems.

    With regard to safety, very little information exists except for
    safety studies that were commissioned by organizations standing to
    gain from the acceptance of sucralose. However, sucralose has been
    widely used by consumers since 1991. The fact that it has generated
    very little negative press stands in its favor. Although sucralose is
    "derived from sugar," it is also a highly processed additive created
    from the manipulation of molecules. Also, despite its derivation from
    plain sugar (a feature its manufacturers repeatedly emphasize),
    sucralose is an artificial sweetener.

    FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT THE Women’s Health Access Project at
    (504) 897.6152

    Bayoubuzz Note: Some might have other opinions regarding Splenda.
    Here is its web site http://www.splenda.com/ Check out the
    information and draw your own intelligent conclusions. More
    particularly, according to its own website, Splenda makes these
    current comments:

    "Sucralose underwent the FDA’s rigorous food additive approval
    process. In 1998, the FDA approved sucralose for use in 15 food and
    beverage categories, the broadest initial approval ever given to a
    food additive. Then in August 1999, just 16 months later, the FDA
    extended its approval of SPLENDA® Brand Sweetener to permit its use as
    a general-purpose sweetener in all foods and beverages. The FDA has
    never required any warning label or information statement on products
    containing sucralose.

    Sucralose in Other Countries

    Sucralose has been approved for use in more than 50 countries
    worldwide. Canada approved sucralose in 1991, and Australia and Mexico
    in 1993. Regulatory agencies have also approved the use of sucralose
    in Brazil, China, and Japan, and in various Latin American, Asian,
    Caribbean, and Middle Eastern countries.

    In 1990, the safety of sucralose was confirmed by the Joint FAO/WHO
    Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA). JECFA is an international
    body of experts whose safety evaluation of food additives is relied
    upon by other countries.

    ====================================

    <http://www.bayoubuzz.com/articles.aspx?aid=2865>
     
    Tags:


  2. Tiger Lily

    Tiger Lily Guest

    "sunshine" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > As we now know, FDA approval means nothing...
    >
    > The Splendor Of Splenda?
    >
    > Truth in advertising? Health watch alert about Splenda (sucralose).
    >
    > According to the Women's Health Access Project, the makers of Splenda
    > have been deceptively ingenious with their marketing campaign.


    blah de blah de blah

    and i have used Splenda for 14 yrs now

    guess i should be dead according to your report here

    where DO these conspiracy theorists come from?????? man oh man!

    kate
     
  3. "Tiger Lily" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >where DO these conspiracy theorists come from?????? man oh man!


    Isn't it amazing? I can't imagine a life where all I did was worry about those
    evil corporations who are trying to kill me.

    Actually, the new Michael Crichton book "State of Fear" explains pretty well
    what is behind all the global warming/bad medicine/bad food ruckus.
     
  4. Tiger Lily

    Tiger Lily Guest

    looks like a book i have to read...... the whole concept just blows me away

    i can 'profile' the typical conspiracy theorist in a split second... but i
    still don't understand HOW they got there!!

    and i'm a cynic!

    "Clark W. Griswold, Jr." <> wrote in message com...
    > "Tiger Lily" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >where DO these conspiracy theorists come from?????? man oh man!

    >
    > Isn't it amazing? I can't imagine a life where all I did was worry about

    those
    > evil corporations who are trying to kill me.
    >
    > Actually, the new Michael Crichton book "State of Fear" explains pretty

    well
    > what is behind all the global warming/bad medicine/bad food ruckus.
     
  5. Cubit

    Cubit Guest

    I'm about a quarter of the way through reading "State of Fear."

    Actually, I felt the Splenda post was reasonable. If there were no people
    like that, we'd all be in trouble. We live in an era where Corporations are
    getting their way with regulatory agencies. Some double checking is in
    order.

    Inspired by today's Splenda post, I weighed out a cup of Splenda. On my
    scale it came to about 25 grams. On the Splenda website, they say Splenda
    is 24 carbs per cup. Thus, it is one carb per gram. Sound familiar? Sugar
    is also one carb per gram!

    The Splenda people claim that a cup of Splenda granules is the same
    sweetness as a cup of sugar. However, I learned long ago that I have to use
    much more Splenda by volume than I used of sugar to do the same thing. Has
    anyone done their own taste test? I would do one now, but I have no sugar
    in the house anymore. I may buy a bag of sugar to do a test. I'll bet the
    advantage is more like 2 to 1, rather than the 8 to 1 they claim.

    Cubit
    311/200/165


    "Clark W. Griswold, Jr." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > "Tiger Lily" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >where DO these conspiracy theorists come from?????? man oh man!

    >
    > Isn't it amazing? I can't imagine a life where all I did was worry about

    those
    > evil corporations who are trying to kill me.
    >
    > Actually, the new Michael Crichton book "State of Fear" explains pretty

    well
    > what is behind all the global warming/bad medicine/bad food ruckus.
     
  6. Tiger Lily

    Tiger Lily Guest

    1 gram of Splenda is a LOT MORE than 1 gram of sugar by volume

    weigh a cup of sugar and get back to us....... it weighs a LOT more than
    splenda does.......

    go figure....
    kate


    "Cubit" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:%[email protected]
    > I'm about a quarter of the way through reading "State of Fear."
    >
    > Actually, I felt the Splenda post was reasonable. If there were no people
    > like that, we'd all be in trouble. We live in an era where Corporations

    are
    > getting their way with regulatory agencies. Some double checking is in
    > order.
    >
    > Inspired by today's Splenda post, I weighed out a cup of Splenda. On my
    > scale it came to about 25 grams. On the Splenda website, they say Splenda
    > is 24 carbs per cup. Thus, it is one carb per gram. Sound familiar?

    Sugar
    > is also one carb per gram!
    >
    > The Splenda people claim that a cup of Splenda granules is the same
    > sweetness as a cup of sugar. However, I learned long ago that I have to

    use
    > much more Splenda by volume than I used of sugar to do the same thing.

    Has
    > anyone done their own taste test? I would do one now, but I have no sugar
    > in the house anymore. I may buy a bag of sugar to do a test. I'll bet

    the
    > advantage is more like 2 to 1, rather than the 8 to 1 they claim.
    >
    > Cubit
    > 311/200/165
    >
    >
     
  7. Steve

    Steve Guest

    > Actually, the new Michael Crichton book "State of Fear" explains pretty
    > well what is behind all the global warming/bad medicine/bad food ruckus.


    There may be conspiracy nuts out there, but using Crichton's book to
    refute anything is quite a bit of a stretch...
     
  8. VBH

    VBH Guest

    sunshine wrote:
    > As we now know, FDA approval means nothing...
    >
    > The Splendor Of Splenda?
    >
    > Truth in advertising? Health watch alert about Splenda (sucralose).
    >
    > According to the Women’s Health Access Project, the makers of Splenda
    > have been deceptively ingenious with their marketing campaign. They
    > say the campaign was designed to lead people to the conclusion that
    > because its base element is natural (sucrose), then the product itself
    > is natural. According to some, Splenda’s ad campaign has been
    > effective, but only by misleading the consumer about what goes into
    > your body or into children’s diets. Splenda is not a natural product,
    > it is an artificial sweetener whose intense sweetness depends on its
    > chlorination. Opponents claim the makers of Splenda purposely tied
    > their product to sugar so that the natural and organic reputation of
    > sugar would rub off on their product.
    >
    > The Project argues that Splenda should be labeled what it actually
    > is-- a chlorinated artificial sweetener, which when produced is not
    > 100 percent natural. Splenda is neither natural nor a pesticide. It´s
    > a new chemical (according to a report in The San Francisco Chronicle,
    > September 15, 2004, Carol Ness).
    >
    > Splenda manufacturers claim that "about 15% of ingested sucralose is
    > passively absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract". The FDA’s "final
    > rule" which approved Splenda says that as much as 27% can be absorbed.
    > No one has any idea whatsoever what the long term effects of ingesting
    > sucralose will be on the human body. Splenda has only been on the U.S.
    > market since 1998.
    >
    > The FDA has reviewed the following possible side-effects:
    >
    > - Enlarged liver and kidneys.
    > - Decreased white blood cell count.
    > - Reduced growth rate.
    > - Decreased fetal body weight.
    >
    > According to the FDA Final Rule, experiments with rats who were fed a
    > diet consisting of Splenda resulted in a shrunken Thymus gland. The
    > Thymus gland is significant because it is critical in developing the
    > human immune system. For this reason, Splenda can be dangerous for
    > people with compromised immune systems.
    >
    > With regard to safety, very little information exists except for
    > safety studies that were commissioned by organizations standing to
    > gain from the acceptance of sucralose. However, sucralose has been
    > widely used by consumers since 1991. The fact that it has generated
    > very little negative press stands in its favor. Although sucralose is
    > "derived from sugar," it is also a highly processed additive created
    > from the manipulation of molecules. Also, despite its derivation from
    > plain sugar (a feature its manufacturers repeatedly emphasize),
    > sucralose is an artificial sweetener.
    >
    > FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT THE Women’s Health Access Project at
    > (504) 897.6152
    >
    > Bayoubuzz Note: Some might have other opinions regarding Splenda.
    > Here is its web site http://www.splenda.com/ Check out the
    > information and draw your own intelligent conclusions. More
    > particularly, according to its own website, Splenda makes these
    > current comments:
    >
    > "Sucralose underwent the FDA’s rigorous food additive approval
    > process. In 1998, the FDA approved sucralose for use in 15 food and
    > beverage categories, the broadest initial approval ever given to a
    > food additive. Then in August 1999, just 16 months later, the FDA
    > extended its approval of SPLENDA® Brand Sweetener to permit its use as
    > a general-purpose sweetener in all foods and beverages. The FDA has
    > never required any warning label or information statement on products
    > containing sucralose.
    >
    > Sucralose in Other Countries
    >
    > Sucralose has been approved for use in more than 50 countries
    > worldwide. Canada approved sucralose in 1991, and Australia and Mexico
    > in 1993. Regulatory agencies have also approved the use of sucralose
    > in Brazil, China, and Japan, and in various Latin American, Asian,
    > Caribbean, and Middle Eastern countries.
    >
    > In 1990, the safety of sucralose was confirmed by the Joint FAO/WHO
    > Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA). JECFA is an international
    > body of experts whose safety evaluation of food additives is relied
    > upon by other countries.
    >
    > ====================================
    >
    > <http://www.bayoubuzz.com/articles.aspx?aid=2865>
    >


    Three uses of the word "natural" in the first para tells you all you
    need to know, especially in reference to sugar - as if table sugar were
    naturally occurring. (apparently it grows on a tree in its own dish)

    Have the aspartaphobes found a new target?
    --------------------
    VBH
    T2/UK/A1c 5.6/ 1000Met/Dx Oct-03
     
  9. I suppose that you are not dependant on Chlorinated Sodium.

    "Ignoramus4718" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > It will be a long time before I become convinced that chlorinated
    > sugar is a safe substance to eat. As for conspiracy theories etc, we
    > cannot know what happens behind closed doors, but we can know what are
    > people's incentives. The incentives are to conceal anything bad about
    > the products that they sell.
    >
    > --
    > 223/174.6/180
     
  10. sunshine wrote:
    > As we now know, FDA approval means nothing...
    >
    > The Splendor Of Splenda?
    >
    > Truth in advertising? Health watch alert about Splenda (sucralose).
    >
    > According to the Women's Health Access Project, the makers of Splenda
    > have been deceptively ingenious with their marketing campaign. They
    > say the campaign was designed to lead people to the conclusion that
    > because its base element is natural (sucrose), then the product itself
    > is natural.


    Even if it were perfectly natural, that would not necessarily mean that it's
    good for you any more than sugar or arsenic is good for you just because
    it's natural.
     
  11. Frontline had an interesting take on how things get moved through the
    FDA. Since the studies only target a couple thousand subjects (if were
    lucky) you dont get those 1 in 10,000 or 1 in 20,000 negative effects.
    Also negative "effects" are posted voluntarily to a branch of the FDA
    manned by maybe 50 people. There are 1000's of posts are received every
    day and trying to associate any link to the myriad things a subject
    might be taking would be almost impossible. Almost except for the drugs
    that have recently been taken off the market.

    The Frontline episodes are available online at www.pbs.org.

    It will be forever before I become convinced that chlorinated sugar is a
    safe substance to eat. I find it hard not to be a conspiracy theorist
    but Im trying. Remember folks, just because the government says its ok,
    doesnt make it "ok." Even if they are not on the take, they are
    fallible. And relying on the possibility that you can sue for millions
    does not make up for the lack of a functioning liver for example.

    Stick with real food. It tastes better and is better for you.

    Dont subsitute some awful laboratory creation for sugar, just stop
    eating sugar. A donut made with splenda is still a donut.

    k

    Ignoramus4718 wrote:
    > It will be a long time before I become convinced that chlorinated
    > sugar is a safe substance to eat. As for conspiracy theories etc, we
    > cannot know what happens behind closed doors, but we can know what are
    > people's incentives. The incentives are to conceal anything bad about
    > the products that they sell.
    >
     
  12. Water was also used as a medieval torture device.

    If you were to remove all of the sodium chloride from your body death would
    happen pretty quickly. Millions of children a year, who would die from
    inadequate sodium chloride levels in their body, are saved by a rehydration
    therapy that includes vital sodium chloride.

    No large group of people can keep the lid on any significant bad aspects of
    their product for very long - the press just loves to find things like that
    to make front page news. You have made an extraordinary claim and need to
    back it up with extraordinary proof.






    "Ignoramus27473" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 04:34:08 GMT, Keith B. Rosenberg <[email protected]>
    > wrote:
    >> I suppose that you are not dependant on Chlorinated Sodium.

    >
    > Chlorinated sodium was used in many medieval torture methods!
    >
    > http://www.canoe.ca/CNEWSFeatures0108/30_torture-ap.html
    >
    > I am in a great mood this morning...
    >
    > i
    >
    >> "Ignoramus4718" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> news:[email protected]
    >>> It will be a long time before I become convinced that chlorinated
    >>> sugar is a safe substance to eat. As for conspiracy theories etc, we
    >>> cannot know what happens behind closed doors, but we can know what are
    >>> people's incentives. The incentives are to conceal anything bad about
    >>> the products that they sell.
    >>>

    >>
    >>

    >
    >
    > --
    > 223/174.6/180
     
  13. Steve <[email protected]> wrote:

    >There may be conspiracy nuts out there, but using Crichton's book to
    >refute anything is quite a bit of a stretch...


    For most authors, I tend to agree with you. I find it very difficult to read or
    watch fiction that has an underlying theme that I know a great deal about.
    Books, movies, TV news, etc., all tend to have enough errors in the factual
    part, that I can't accept the fictional part.

    There are a few authors that do put enough effort into getting the facts
    correct, that enjoying the fiction is possible.

    Robin Cook's novels have a sound medical basis. Makes sense as he was a trained
    medical doctor before he switched to writing fiction. Not difficult to tell what
    parts of his book are real and which parts are speculative.

    Same with Michael Crichton. If your only exposure to his stuff is the film
    versions of Timeline or Jurassic Park, I can understand why you might think all
    his stuff is pure fiction. If you read his written work, it's extremely well
    grounded. In JP, all you heard was Jeff Goldblum spout off the words 'chaos
    theory' a couple of times. In the book, Crichton spends a significant number of
    pages explaining what it is and how it might apply to a given situation.

    I've not found any problems in his work with areas that I know a great deal
    about. Airframe is technically very accurate in his description of the aerospace
    industry, the technology involved in aircraft guidance and aircraft accident
    investigations. I've gone back and reread Andromeda Strain, and considering that
    it was written some 30 years ago, is also very accurate in the description of
    biotechnology research and the potential threats to humans as they were
    understood at that time.

    In 'State of Fear', Crichton seems to have anticipated the organizations and
    people that might be threatened by the challenges to established positions he
    writes about. I've seen more documentary footnotes in 'State of Fear' than I
    have in many technical papers.

    In addition to the 'story' part of the book, he includes an Appendix that cites
    every source of data used in the graphs, as well as a very long bibliography
    citing all of the background data used in 3 years worth of research.

    While the book is notionally about the fallacies behind the so called global
    warming 'crisis', it goes into significant detail about why such
    food/drug/environmental crisis' have to be created.
     
  14. Steve

    Steve Guest

    "Clark W. Griswold, Jr." <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>There may be conspiracy nuts out there, but using Crichton's book to
    >>refute anything is quite a bit of a stretch...

    >
    >In 'State of Fear', Crichton seems to have anticipated the organizations and
    >people that might be threatened by the challenges to established positions he
    >writes about.


    Maybe, but global warming is not just the province of eco-nuts, it's
    mainstream science these days.
     
  15. Steve <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Maybe, but global warming is not just the province of eco-nuts, it's
    >mainstream science these days.


    Ahh, but that's precisely Crichton's point. Just because something is repeated
    over and over doesn't make it true. At best, global warming (used in the sense
    of "its a crisis, we need to do something immediately") is a theory. Usually
    what you do with theories is test them. And those tests need to be double blind,
    so that the testers don't know what they are looking for and unconsciously
    influence the results.

    That's never been done with climactic change. In fact, the entire basis of the
    global warming theory are models that have a 400% error rate. We get upset in
    the US when presidential exit polls have a 4% error rate and when ballots have
    less than a 1% error rate; why are we making some very expensive political
    decisions based on models with 400% error rates?

    Consider this (excerpted from an appendix in State of Fear). It illustrates why
    politicized science is dangerous:

    Imagine there is a new scientific theory that warns of an impending crisis and
    points to a way out.

    This theory quickly draws support from leading scientists, politicials, and
    celebrities around the world. Research is funded by distinguished
    philanthropies, and carried out at prestigious universities. The crisis is
    reported frequently in the media. The science is taught in college and high
    school classrooms.

    Its supporters included Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and Winston
    Churchill. It was approved by Supreme Court justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and
    Louis Brandeis, who ruled in its favor. The famous names who supported it were
    Alexander Graham Bell, inventor of the telephone; activist Margaret Sanger,
    botanist Luther Burbank; Leland Stanford, found of Stanford University; the
    novelist H.G. Wells; the playwrite George Bernard Shaw; and hundreds of others.
    Nodel Prize winners gave support.

    Research was backed by the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations. The Cold
    Springs Harbor Institute was built to carry out this research, but important
    work was also done at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, and Johns Hopkins.
    Legislation to address the crisis was passed in states from New York to
    California.

    These efforts had the support of the National Academy of Sciences, the American
    Medical Association and the National Research Council. It was said that if Jesus
    were alive, he would have supported this effort.

    All in all, the research, legislation and molding of public opinion surrounding
    the theory went on for almost a half a century. Those who opposed the theory
    were shouted down and called reactionary, blind to reality, or just plain
    ignorant. But in hingsight, what is surprising is that so few people objected.


    What was this theory? Eugenics. That certain types of people should not be
    allowed to reproduce, or in some cases, even live. Otherwise they would soon
    outnumber the 'good' people. What we call racism today.
     
  16. The Real Bev

    The Real Bev Guest

    "Clark W. Griswold, Jr." wrote:
    ....
    > All in all, the research, legislation and molding of public opinion surrounding
    > the theory went on for almost a half a century. Those who opposed the theory
    > were shouted down and called reactionary, blind to reality, or just plain
    > ignorant. But in hingsight, what is surprising is that so few people objected.
    >
    > What was this theory? Eugenics. That certain types of people should not be
    > allowed to reproduce, or in some cases, even live. Otherwise they would soon
    > outnumber the 'good' people. What we call racism today.


    What would it be called if it considered only the reproductive habits of
    those with insufficient intelligence to care for their offspring?

    --
    Cheers,
    Bev
    =====================================================
    It's 95% of the lawyers making the other 5% look bad.
     
  17. The Real Bev <[email protected]> wrote:

    >What would it be called if it considered only the reproductive habits of
    >those with insufficient intelligence to care for their offspring?


    Immoral? Stupid? Compassionate? Intelligent?

    I don't know. It makes the news every time a judge tries to rule that way.
    There's a story about that right now that a Google search would dig up.

    But at least right now, no one is trying to make a scientific argument for that.
     
  18. The Real Bev

    The Real Bev Guest

    Ignoramus27473 wrote:
    >
    > The global warming question -- whether we should be doing something
    > about it -- is a great one and in fact very complicated. It should be
    > discussed based on facts, and not based on speculation about
    > conspiracies or lack thereof.
    >
    > As far as I understand, there are several issues with global warming.
    >
    > 1. It has not yet reached the level of statistical significance (which
    > is a criteria that is arbitrarily imposed by us)
    >
    > 2. Climate of our planet does normally change over various periods,
    > and those changes occurred in the past without any human input.
    >
    > 3. Level of CO2 in our atmosphere also varied over the past
    > epochs. (as evidence by Antarctic ice samples)
    >
    > 4. Climate simulation is a very immature science
    >
    > 5. We had an unusually cold period in the middle ages. We may be
    > simply coming out of that unusually cold period.
    >
    > 6. Climate changes, year after year, did not mirror human CO2
    > production at all.
    >
    > 7. There is, nevertheless, a good possibility that GW is a real
    > phenomenon in the sense that our human activity and not Earth's
    > natural climate variation is the cause of the apparent climate change,
    > even though our artificial criteria for statistical significance has
    > not been met.
    >
    > This is a very interesting subject that deserves to be treated with
    > respect.


    Especially since nobody can get funding to study a problem with no
    solution short of emigration.

    --
    Cheers,
    Bev
    =====================================================
    It's 95% of the lawyers making the other 5% look bad.
     
  19. Ignoramus27473 <[email protected]> wrote:

    >As far as I understand, there are several issues with global warming.
    >
    >1. It has not yet reached the level of statistical significance (which
    >is a criteria that is arbitrarily imposed by us)
    >


    Not sure why you would call statistical significance arbitrary. Doesn't
    statistical significance equate to evidence?

    >2. Climate of our planet does normally change over various periods,
    >and those changes occurred in the past without any human input.
    >


    Absolutely. As documented by Crichton, we are in the middle of a natural warming
    trend that began about 1850, as we emerged from a 400 year cold spell known as
    the "Little Ice Age".

    >3. Level of CO2 in our atmosphere also varied over the past
    >epochs. (as evidence by Antarctic ice samples)
    >


    And may be increasing, due to human activity. Some data suggests that CO2 has
    increased from 316ppm to 376ppm, or an increase of 60 ppm. Sounds like a lot -
    let's put that in perspective:

    Think of earth's atmosphere being as thick as the length of a football field.
    Starting from one goal line, the most common gas is nitrogen. Takes you all the
    way to the opposite side, 78 yards. Most of what's left is oxygen. That takes
    you to the 99 yard point. Most of that remaining yard is Argon, an inert gas,
    which takes you within 3 1/2 inches of the goal line. The width of a chalk
    stripe. How much of that stripe is CO2? One inch.

    OK, some data suggests that CO2 has increased 60ppm over the past 50 years. How
    much does that increase our one inch? 3/8s of an inch. Less than the thickness
    of a pencil on a 100 yard football field.

    Is it a lot in absolute terms? Yes. Is it enough to change the world climate
    dramatically? Science can't answer that.

    >4. Climate simulation is a very immature science
    >


    That appears to be the truth.

    >5. We had an unusually cold period in the middle ages. We may be
    >simply coming out of that unusually cold period.
    >


    Not known at this time.

    >6. Climate changes, year after year, did not mirror human CO2
    >production at all.
    >


    Given the data we have and its associated (mostly lack of) accuracy, that also
    appears to be true.

    >7. There is, nevertheless, a good possibility that GW is a real
    >phenomenon in the sense that our human activity and not Earth's
    >natural climate variation is the cause of the apparent climate change,
    >even though our artificial criteria for statistical significance has
    >not been met.
    >


    This is where I can't follow you. Good possibilty implies some evidence exists
    to support it. Without evidence, all that exists is a theory. It needs serious,
    unbiased study to confirm or deny.

    >This is a very interesting subject that deserves to be treated with
    >respect.


    No argument at all.
     
  20. Steve

    Steve Guest

    "Clark W. Griswold, Jr." <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>Maybe, but global warming is not just the province of eco-nuts, it's
    >>mainstream science these days.

    >
    >Ahh, but that's precisely Crichton's point. Just because something is repeated
    >over and over doesn't make it true.


    Yes, well, Crichton likes to maintain that everyone has an agenda
    except him.
     
Loading...