whitie

Naturalistic fallacy does not apply to food (it only has only ever been formally applied in moral philosophy)

The idea that more natural foods are generally healthier than less natural foods is based mainly on inductive reasoning, eg. breast milk vs baby formula, grass fed cattle vs grain and animal protien fed cattle, vitamins in plants vs vitamins in tablets, animal welfare limits vs antibiotics and growth stimulants etc

The fallacy links are just inappropriate in this case.

"It's not one or the other"

To a large degree it is, as in "you cant have your cake and eat it".

The claim which I quoted twice.

No its coincidental. Cuminum cyminum, Brown Cumin - Asian grocery grade, 1g a day.

We should be able to do better than that. If there are indications that some foods are burdensome to health, then there should be indications that some foods are beneficial. It is just taking us forever to separate the facts from the persuasions.

Anecdotally, the spices Tumeric and Cumin seem to be great tonics for my particular metabolism/diet/lifestyle.

Don't have a tantrum.

"Later on more work was done to get better global temperature proxies and it was decided that the trend was upwards."

Anecdotal memories of an article or two on Ice ages in the Seventies do nothing to support that claim - It was wrong.

nuff said

I just linked the paper to show that what you did say was incorrect. This is really not the forum for half sayings and saying what-nots.

"Later ... it was decided that the trend was upwards."

Between '65 and '79 there were 6 times as many research papers predicting warming. That was even despite increasing knowledge of Ice Ages.

"The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus" http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1