We are invariably drawn to the beauty and charisma of a gorgeous fitness model with the quiet hope that eventually, if we follow her regime, one day we might be beautifully fit too.

One such beauty hails from Brazil. Her name is Alice Matos.

fciwomenswrestling.com article, Alice Matos Pinterest.com

At the enjoyable site healthyceleb.com they rave, “Famed for her toned body, Alice Matos is an IFBB International bikini athlete and fashion journalist. Besides that, she also owns one clothing company namely LABELLAMAFIA which has great stock of fitness as well as regular line of clothing. The brunette bombshell who has become a fitness icon among young girls has more than 1000,000 followers on the internet. And needless to mention, they keep their eyes set to see the next move or exercise routine followed by their favorite star.”

Hope springs eternal.

fciwomenswrestling.com article, Alice Matos Pinterest.com

During our fascination journey we eventually reach their food and nutrition menu and that’s where some of us take an exit.

Others more determined stay the course, diet adherence in all. Good for them.

They have one more hurdle.

Did any of us realize that even if we eat the right foods that their nutritional value may be diminishing because of climate change?

Recent major hurricanes brought attention to the possibility they are connected to climate change.

At the global news and information source cnbc.com they report, “Hurricanes Harvey and Irma caused billions of dollars in damage to homes, businesses and infrastructure, yet people are not fully understanding the magnitude of the issue right now, said Mike Burke, CEO of engineering company Aecom.

According to a preliminary estimate by Moody’s Analytics, the combined destruction from the hurricanes could range from $150 billion to $200 billion.”

Apparently climate change is costing us nutritionally as well.

fciwomenswrestling.com article, Sean Johnston pixabay.com photo credit

In a startling frank article found at theguardian.com, “Rising carbon dioxide emissions are set to make the world’s staple food crops less nutritious, according to new scientific research, worsening the serious ill health already suffered by billions of malnourished people.

The surprise consequence of fossil fuel burning is linked directly to the rise in CO2 levels which, unlike some of the predicted impacts of climate change, are undisputed. The field trials of wheat, rice, maize and soybeans showed that higher CO2 levels significantly reduced the levels of the essential nutrients iron and zinc, as well as cutting protein levels.”

Were you aware of that?

The evidence is further supported at bigthink.com who share, “When it comes to climate change, we’ve taken into account less arable land, more flooding, less reliable weather, and how all of this might affect crop yields. But what scientists are now finding is that dramatic, atmospheric changes are effecting how plants operate internally. Today, food crops are getting more carbon dioxide.

As a result, they’re manufacturing more sugars and carbs and producing fewer nutrients. That means over time, our food becomes less nutritious. In the near future we might gorge ourselves, and still come up malnourished.”

There is much discussion about climate change but for many it is difficult to understand. What most people don’t understand, they dismiss.

We have a visiting writer who breaks it down really well.

On Climate Change: Science, Systemic Analysis and Unanswered Questions

fciwomenswrestling.com article, pixabay.com photo

By Robert M DePaolo 

We might be living in the most highly charged times in our nation’s history. The net result seems to be that information (and there is so much of it nowadays) is inexorably filtered through the mindset of the ‘left” or “right.” Nowhere is this more evident than with respect to the debate on climate change. Many scientists swear by the notion of climate change, while a growing number scientists such as Gregory Baker of England (2012) and NASA scientist Charles Bolden (who spoke on behalf of 50 fellow NASA scientists 2012) now refute the notion and view the recalcitrance of climate change alarmists as ideologically-driven.

Their contention is to an extent supported by the harsh treatment of a top meteorologist in England whose conclusions that carbon-based products were not as harmful to mankind as some had suspected met with ostracism, plots to destroy his reputation and physical threats. (2014). One nay-sayer, J. Blast issued specifics in opposition to the climate change argument (2003) In response to the current liberal mantra that… there is consensus on this topic within the scientific community. He also cited the collective opinion of a group of over 17,000 scientists and physicians in Oregon, who signed a document in opposition to global warming theory based on their research-based conclusion that the earth’s temperature has not changed significantly over the past several decades and that models used by scientists are not based on actual, reliable measurements but on computer-generated projections – which are extrapolations derived from a computer system programmed by people who, in so doing, set the rules from which conclusions would be derived.

It would not be the first time the scientific community lined up behind an idea irrespective of facts and data. For example, during the liberal-tinged enthusiasm for LBJ’s great society, social scientists supported programs such as Head Start, in part because their research seemed to indicate that the children in this program showed a significant increase in IQ scores. Later it was discovered that the results lasted a few months, ten reverted back. Furthermore the higher scores never exceeded normal variability in the first place. (Any psychometrician could have predicted that from the outset and saved everyone a lot of time because by definition IQ scores are not supposed to change with time, other than in test-retest administrations with subjects who suffered head trauma or psychosis.

If indeed ideology has eclipsed true science as a measuring stick of mankind’s future plight, one might ask whether we will ever attain the truth, not just with respect to climate change but to other questions that might arise in the future with similar importance to mankind?

Confrontation/ Resolution…

There are ways to settle such conundrums and these can be used to address and critique the validity of the argument for climate change. In that spirit this writer would like to submit some questions to pro-change scientists and provide criteria that might provide a broader understanding of the issue. In a perfect world these questions and others more profound would be asked of scientists and politicians as they continue to rely on a consensus in asserting the inevitability of this so-called man-made disaster.

First: dear scientist, can you be more specific than in your use of the term climate change? One does not have to be a Kantian metaphysician to understand that the word change entails a transition from one state to another. So, what was the earth before the change and in what direction is the change occurring? From cooler to warmer? From stable to more volatile? Please adopt a starting point and move on from there. When you shift terms, from “global warming” to “climate change” to sidestep evidence contradicting your original hypothesis, it renders you immune to criticism. As you know, criticism is at the heart of the scientific method.

Second, are you aware of the fact that the earth’s atmosphere was formed through reciprocal interactions among flora and fauna? The former inspire carbon dioxide and expire oxygen, while we fauna do the opposite. Thus an abundance of both carbon dioxide and oxygen is needed to sustain our atmosphere and both (co-dependent) life forms. In that context, could you please stop alluding to carbon as some sort of poisonous refuse, when it is actually critical to our survival? Bear in mind, that herbivores eat plants, carnivores eat herbivores, and omnivores eat both. Remove the carbon and you destroy that balance. There is a reason carbon-based fuels are called fossil fuels. They are biotic, thus derived from the carbon of life forms. In other words that “poisonous byproduct” we are spewing out into the atmosphere is the very thing that provides the structure of our DNA. It is “us” re-manifest in the atmosphere. It keeps plants alive, which in turn keep us alive.

Third, do you know how the precious cover for our atmosphere (ozone) is created? Let me inform you, or perhaps refresh your memory – because prior to your ideological conversion you probably learned this in school. Ozone is a unique product that is produced in a rather baroque way. In composition it is actually O3 – as compared to O2 (oxygen). It is formed when the UV rays of the sun bombard oxygen molecules rising up from plant expiration and the oceans. UV rays break them up O2 into O1 molecules, which are then recombined, as per electro-chemical attractions, and at some level of probability into new batches of O3. In short, that means you cannot get a replenishment of ozone without periodic thinning of the ozone layer. Put even more simply, you have to get some epochs of global warming, reflected in a depleted ozone layer to get renewal of the ozone in the atmosphere. If not for that cyclic process the existing ozone would incur entropy, with no possibility of replenishment. More to the point is that UV rays, as well as carbon dioxide affect the ozone layer.

Thus it would appear your linear models of global warming (based on temperature calculation and computerized odds making) don’t take into account that the earth’s atmosphere operates in cyclic, self-correcting (cybernetic) fashion. It always has, which is why life has been sustained despite far more disastrous climatic events than we are now, in your estimation, experiencing.

Fourth; a point which perhaps gets to the heart of the matter better than any other. It is actually based on simple statistics. Statistical theory encompasses two things called the mean and the standard deviation. In order to determine causative change (as opposed to random change resulting from normal variability) you have to establish a measurement threshold called a standard deviation (or standard error).

To say things like “we’ve had the warmest April in the past decade” (a typical statement from change advocates) means nothing in itself. In order to establish significant change you have to first determine the earth’s mean temperature by taking all temperatures from all parts of our planet, going back at least thousands of years and certainly back to the advent of the steam engine, taking into account variables such as organic decomposition, tumultuous geological events and even the flatulence of livestock – all of which produce carbon emissions. Meanwhile to determine specific causation, you would have to separate carcasses from flatulence, geological events from carcasses and flatulence in some proportionate manner.

Beyond that, you would have to establish a standard error factor, calculating all possible sources as well as their probabilities and quantities of carbon emission. I don’t believe there is a statistical method for doing that.

Still, on the notion that there might be such a statistical concept, dear scientist, please tell us; what is the standard error of the earth’s temperature and under what set of geological circumstances? If you cannot answer that question, i.e. tease out extraneous variables, your experimental design is flawed and you cannot make your case. Absent that, you have in effect confirmed the null hypothesis, which holds that there is no climate change, global warming… or whatever trendy name you decide on now or in the future.

Fifth, and most important, is that you might have underestimated a vastly greater influence on the earth’s climate. Roughly every 40,000 thousand years our planet becomes frigid, with many parts rendered uninhabitable. During such epochs, water freezes up, plants die off, and mass extinctions occur among various life forms. The last Ice Age ended about twelve thousand years ago so the geo-temporal trends alone would point to a warming trend for a while longer, irrespective of jet planes and power planets.

And, whereas the computer-model of climate change is somewhat vaguely defined, the causes and time tables of cooling and warming trends are much easily to confirm, by analyzing predictable time frames in which the earth’s orbit around the sun veers further out into a more elliptical arc. More specifically, when the earth’s tilt from the sun is lowered to between 22.2 and 23.4 degrees ice sheets form and there is wide- spread cooling and glaciation. As mentioned above this leads to a mass extinction of life forms. At a higher tilt, from 23.4 to 24.2 degrees, a warming trend ensues. (Kutzbach, Galimore et. al. 1998), (Peltier 1993) At present, the earth’s tilt from the sun is at 23.5 degrees – somewhere comfortably in the middle. That suggests we are rather safe from climatic catastrophe with respect to the most potentially formidable influence on our climate – the sun.

Now the data. What we know is that the earth’s temperature has gotten cooler in many parts of the, world, including in Canada, northern USA and many areas of the Middle East. Snow fall has increased in the southern states in the USA over the past decade and overall the earth’s temperature over the past twenty years has not risen at all, let alone beyond a yet to be established standard deviation,. To be fair it has risen in some parts of the earth, for example in Australia and in Pacific and Indian oceanic waters. In essence that means scientists are relying on a location-specific analysis to make their case without explaining either the lack of overall global temperature increase or the cooling in northern locations. It is spotty at best.

With regard to hurricanes, fairly recent research carried out by NOAA and initially conducted by Jose Fernandez Partagas, indicates that the highest frequency of hurricanes in history occurred in 1886. The overall trend over several centuries indicates not a linear increase in frequency but a cyclic trend where, irrespective of man-made causation, hurricanes come and go. For example the 1890s saw few hurricanes in the aftermath of a previously high rate. That trend has held constant over time and totally disconfirms the notion that there are more storms now than before. The claim that more hurricanes are occurring now has also been refuted by American researcher Christopher Landsea of the National Center for Hurricane Research in Miami.

The question of rising sea levels has also been addressed, also with ambiguous results. Conclusions have ranged from total belief in rising sea levels to no rise in sea levels (Monckton 2011) to moderately rising sea levels which began in the 18th century (Jeurejeva 2008). The fact that opinions vary points out that there is hardly a consensus on this issue either – and all the passion and vitriol in the world won’t change that.

There are a number of reasons to be concerned about the climate, so the point is not to completely dismiss the issue. For example, some complaints by the so-called “environmental lobby” appear to be quite reasonable. We do need to ensure that there is adequate plant life on earth due to the reciprocal relationship between flora and fauna. Regardless of one’s political preferences, an irrefutable fact stands out. Life depends on life. Take away too many plants and you cause a proliferation of unabsorbed carbon as well as a depletion of oxygen. It would lead to an atmospheric disaster. In that sense one has to sympathize with the motives, if not the actions of the so-called “tree huggers” because in many ways they are biologically prescient.

Whether mankind can ever come to understand how the earth’s climate operates in a holistic sense is questionable. However the arrogance of many scientists, including their intellectually dishonest categorical transformation from the term “global warming” to “climate change” offers more of a problem than a solution. With training in the neuroscience and clinical domains, this writer has always had a problem with the discreet thought process of some scientists, because some things in nature are cyclic, multifactorial, cybernetic and too systemic to measure with a thermometer. With greater restraint, humility and more of a systemic, rather than discreet approach our species will be far better off. One can only hope the political bifurcation in American society runs its course in time for that to happen.


Peltier, W. (1993) Time Dependent Topography Through Glacial Cycles. Paleoclimatology Data Contribution Series. #93-105

Kutzbach, J. Galimore, R. Harrison, S. Behling, P. Selin, R. Laarif. F. (1998) Climate and Biome Simulations for the Past 21,000 Years. Quarernary Science Review 17: 473-506

Blast, J. (2003) Eight Reasons why Global Warming is a Scam. Article in Policy Documents: The Heartland Institute

NASA-Bolden. Reference. Article in the Washington Examiner by P. Bedard. April 2007

Reference to Gregory Baker comments. In Daily Mail 2012. Regarding Debate on funding for global warming in initiatives in England vis a vis economic concerns.
Scientist petition reference. 17,000 scientists and physicians developed and signed a petition in opposition to global warming through the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine in 2003.

Meteorologist reference. I Was Victimized for Challenging Zealots says Professor Bengtsson of Reading University, England: Poison, Plots and a Battle to Neuter Climate Change Critics. Article in Mail On-Line (2014)

Juerejeva reference: Skeptical Science article on line 2011.

Monckton reference; ibid.

By Robert DePaolo

Article Source: https://EzineArticles.com/expert/Robert_M_DePaolo/1907864

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/8520758