Which part isn't true? Because the 'science' of 'global warming' is indeed very subjective.
So I suggest we concentrate our attention on a variable that is reliable, namely Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide measurements and suggest possible and probable causes and cures.
Discus
Who was talking about "true"? This guy was talking about what scientists "believe".
I was wondering about these figures like "90% of scientists believe ..." and "90% of 30% came to this conclusion", not to mention the undue importance placed on what scientists "believe".
"Believing" is for religions, not science. The value of scientists is not what they "believe", but what they can support, or contradict, with data, and what future predictions they can make with refined models based on data.
Since this is a "bi-carb" thread, I suggest we continue any discussion of global warming science and/or religion in another thread.
Bekele wasn't using them and he was still faster than all those who have.
Oh really? Tell me which world records Bekele currently holds.
The only runner faster than him over the 5k-10k is the current wr holder Cheptegei. It wasn't the shoes. But everyone else has had the opportunity to use them.
What a gormless argument. You effectively liken bicarb to EPO. One is banned and the other isn't. For reasons you find impossible to fathom.
Is there a difference? With respect to performance, bi-carb and EPO are alike in that both are believed to be potentially performance enhancing.
You didn't specify EPO earlier, but vaguely said "doping". According to experts, it is not possible to generalize performance from "doping". Some "doping" can be performance enhancing. For most "doping", there is no performance data. Some drugs can even impair athletic performance:
American Journal of Medicine wrote:
Just as drugs that enhance exercise capacity and/or athletic performance are often called "ergogenic," drugs that impair these functions can be termed "ergolytic." Today's athletes hear too much about the former and too little about the latter. Ergolytic drugs used today by certain athletes include alcohol, marijuana, smokeless tobacco, cocaine, antihypertensives, eye drops, and diuretics. Some antidepressants, too, can be ergolytic, as well as some antihistamines and other common drugs--even caffeine--in some settings, for some people.
With respect to reasons I find possible to fathom to ban a substance, EPO is also arguably banned for being 1) potentially harmful, and 2) against the spirit of the sport. According to WADA, these reasons alone are sufficient to ban EPO without having to consider performance. We don't know why WADA bans it because they do not make their reasoning public, nor otherwise justify their reasoning for their subjective conclusions.
Anyone who doesn't recognize that EPO is banned because it offers unfair advantage has no idea what doping is. You somehow think athletes take drugs just to harm their health. Staggering.
"Global warming" is confirmed by science world-wide. His arguments are more along the line of there was a second shooter on the grassy knoll.
Temperatures haven't been measured the same way over time. Constant temperature measurement is something of the past 40-50 years. "Scientists" say the temperature was X before constant measurement was possible. But really they're apples and oranges and they can't scientifically make this deduction. Big cities with intensification blocking out cooler temps, more ocean temperatures added into averages where seas are warmer than land, coastal areas don't get as cold in winter, temperatures being collected at airports. Anyway researchers into the figure of "90% of scientists believe in man-made global warming" found it wasn't true. Less than 30% responded believing this, the rest didn't believe it was conclusive. So 90% of the 30% came to this conclusion. Anyway the earth is warming fastest from the bottom of the oceans upwards.
The mods aren't sophisticated enough to realize that you are a sophisticated climate-change denier diverting from the subject of the thread.
Sure. So does wearing the right shorts and eating chocolate bars. But the shoes haven't enough of an effect to wipe Flojo's, Kratochvilova's and El G's records from the books. Bekele wasn't using them and he was still faster than all those who have.
This is why your argument sounds like you are a global warming denier. You point to rare exceptions as if they disprove everything else. The 1% of cases does not refute the 99%.
More guys running under 3:30 in the 1500 than ever before. More guys running under 13:00 in the 5000 than ever before. More guys running under 2:05 in the marathon than ever before. Youth, college, national, and world records galore. Yet you fixate on the few records that still stand. Illogical.
All of that supports my argument that these latter improvements are more likely to result from doping than the other factors you identify. We know doping is throughout the sport - Howman says the dopers are getting away with it - but you avoid including it as a likely factor in enhancing performances.
Anyone who doesn't recognize that EPO is banned because it offers unfair advantage has no idea what doping is. You somehow think athletes take drugs just to harm their health. Staggering.
The question was never what doping is, but how it has been linked to performance.
WADA clearly defines what doping is, and performance is just one optional criteria which WADA is not obligated to prove.
What does WADA say about why EPO is banned, in the context of distance running?
Athletes risk harming their health based on hope, often out of desperation as a last resort, or forced to dope by another party.
If I'm wrong, you could end this discussion once and for all by simply providing the data clearly showing this unfair advantage that everyone is supposed to have recognized.
This is why your argument sounds like you are a global warming denier. You point to rare exceptions as if they disprove everything else. The 1% of cases does not refute the 99%.
More guys running under 3:30 in the 1500 than ever before. More guys running under 13:00 in the 5000 than ever before. More guys running under 2:05 in the marathon than ever before. Youth, college, national, and world records galore. Yet you fixate on the few records that still stand. Illogical.
All of that supports my argument that these latter improvements are more likely to result from doping than the other factors you identify. We know doping is throughout the sport - Howman says the dopers are getting away with it - but you avoid including it as a likely factor in enhancing performances.
You can't begin to talk about "more likely" results from doping without any doping related performance data.
You deny shoe data and argue that doping is bigger without any doping data.
Howman only tells us what we don't know is a lot more than what we do know.
Anyone who doesn't recognize that EPO is banned because it offers unfair advantage has no idea what doping is. You somehow think athletes take drugs just to harm their health. Staggering.
The question was never what doping is, but how it has been linked to performance.
WADA clearly defines what doping is, and performance is just one optional criteria which WADA is not obligated to prove.
What does WADA say about why EPO is banned, in the context of distance running?
Athletes risk harming their health based on hope, often out of desperation as a last resort, or forced to dope by another party.
If I'm wrong, you could end this discussion once and for all by simply providing the data clearly showing this unfair advantage that everyone is supposed to have recognized.
You talk such rubbish. Athletes don't dope out of "desperation"; they dope because it is normal amongst top athletes and because they know that if they don't dope they are likely to lose to those who do. Doping is scarcely different from choosing the best shoes (but with an even better result).
EPO has long been known to enhance performance, which is why it has been the drug of choice for so many athletes over decades. WADA doesn't have to prove it is performance enhancing to know that it is, and that means its use can't be defended by any athlete on the grounds that WADA wasn't able to show it enhanced the athlete's performance.
As for health considerations, amongst the innumerable athletes who have used EPO what is the number of fatalities it has caused? As many as a COVID vaccine?
All of that supports my argument that these latter improvements are more likely to result from doping than the other factors you identify. We know doping is throughout the sport - Howman says the dopers are getting away with it - but you avoid including it as a likely factor in enhancing performances.
You can't begin to talk about "more likely" results from doping without any doping related performance data.
You deny shoe data and argue that doping is bigger without any doping data.
Howman only tells us what we don't know is a lot more than what we do know.
Howman doesn't tell us that; he says dopers are getting away with it. He's telling us what he knows; not what we "don't know".
You talk such rubbish. Athletes don't dope out of "desperation"; they dope because it is normal amongst top athletes and because they know that if they don't dope they are likely to lose to those who do. Doping is scarcely different from choosing the best shoes (but with an even better result).
EPO has long been known to enhance performance, which is why it has been the drug of choice for so many athletes over decades. WADA doesn't have to prove it is performance enhancing to know that it is, and that means its use can't be defended by any athlete on the grounds that WADA wasn't able to show it enhanced the athlete's performance.
As for health considerations, amongst the innumerable athletes who have used EPO what is the number of fatalities it has caused? As many as a COVID vaccine?
Can't you just fast forward to the part where you finally produce the performance data behind all this long known knowledge, so we can end this discussion once and for all?
Otherwise this is all just the gospel of one anti-fan with no relevant experience or knowledge who just bought into all the hype and decided to become a preacher.
This is why your argument sounds like you are a global warming denier. You point to rare exceptions as if they disprove everything else. The 1% of cases does not refute the 99%.
More guys running under 3:30 in the 1500 than ever before. More guys running under 13:00 in the 5000 than ever before. More guys running under 2:05 in the marathon than ever before. Youth, college, national, and world records galore. Yet you fixate on the few records that still stand. Illogical.
All of that supports my argument that these latter improvements are more likely to result from doping than the other factors you identify. We know doping is throughout the sport - Howman says the dopers are getting away with it - but you avoid including it as a likely factor in enhancing performances.
That doesn't make any sense. Hypothetically, let's go with your view that all the top athletes at every level of the sport have been doping for the last 30+ years. In your view, doping is the constant. That hasn't changed in the last 3 decades. If anything, it's been diminished because now dopers need to microdose instead of going full bore like they did in the 1990s.
The explosion of fast times on the track across all levels has happened in the last 5 years since the beginning of the widespread use of super shoes, pacing lights, and the new legal supplements.
If one thing is held constant (doping) while new variables get introduced and a dramatic change occurs, the logical conclusion is the new variables caused the change. Those new variables are the shoes, the pacing lights, and the new legal supplements.
All of that supports my argument that these latter improvements are more likely to result from doping than the other factors you identify. We know doping is throughout the sport - Howman says the dopers are getting away with it - but you avoid including it as a likely factor in enhancing performances.
That doesn't make any sense. Hypothetically, let's go with your view that all the top athletes at every level of the sport have been doping for the last 30+ years. In your view, doping is the constant. That hasn't changed in the last 3 decades. If anything, it's been diminished because now dopers need to microdose instead of going full bore like they did in the 1990s.
The explosion of fast times on the track across all levels has happened in the last 5 years since the beginning of the widespread use of super shoes, pacing lights, and the new legal supplements.
If one thing is held constant (doping) while new variables get introduced and a dramatic change occurs, the logical conclusion is the new variables caused the change. Those new variables are the shoes, the pacing lights, and the new legal supplements.
Doping is consistent, but so are newer variants that work better, better ways to mask it, hence all the bans for masking agents and three missed tests ....for those that understand the windows for getting caught.
The shoes have lowered times. Bi carb has not, it's been round since the 80s in heavy use and definitely pre dates that. The lights , yes they help ...the new legal supplements are like the legal ones in weightlifting, more for show than actual benefits that good diet can't also give you.
Someone else said the new mix allows you to go mad on bicarb... fundamentally misunderstanding what it does. The teaspoon done right is as effective and you'll get 50 lots for under a fiver , not 4 for 70 😂
You talk such rubbish. Athletes don't dope out of "desperation"; they dope because it is normal amongst top athletes and because they know that if they don't dope they are likely to lose to those who do. Doping is scarcely different from choosing the best shoes (but with an even better result).
EPO has long been known to enhance performance, which is why it has been the drug of choice for so many athletes over decades. WADA doesn't have to prove it is performance enhancing to know that it is, and that means its use can't be defended by any athlete on the grounds that WADA wasn't able to show it enhanced the athlete's performance.
As for health considerations, amongst the innumerable athletes who have used EPO what is the number of fatalities it has caused? As many as a COVID vaccine?
Can't you just fast forward to the part where you finally produce the performance data behind all this long known knowledge, so we can end this discussion once and for all?
Otherwise this is all just the gospel of one anti-fan with no relevant experience or knowledge who just bought into all the hype and decided to become a preacher.
Since you have long argued that the effect of drugs is all just in the mind and it is only a "belief" that they enhance performance there is no data that is going to convince you otherwise. I won't bother to try.