>>>>>My conclusion, perhaps I will be classified as a conspiracy theorist for this, is that possibly the climate industry has become such a big industry that in order to sustain itself it has to bend the truth a bit and cherry pick data and conclusion to let the world think we have a massive environment problem. What could be a bigger threat to the industry than the outcome that it is build on false assumptions?
>>>
>>>I have considerable sympathy for your viewpoint. However: what if you're wrong?
>>
>>Is an EPA mandate at the national level to generate 28% of our electrical power from solar panels and wind turbines (with roughly two-thirds of that coming from wind) any less wrong? :)
>
>http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/08/09/coca-cola-funds-scientists-who-shift-blame-for-obesity-away-from-bad-diets
>Here's some more "science."

Funding from the food industry is not uncommon in scientific research. But studies suggest that the funds tend to bias findings.

Who would thought of that? Replace 'Food industry' with 'Climate industry' and you'll get my point.


OTOH, I tend to agree on the calories story. Gain weight is much less depended on calories than on an active lifestyle. Here again there are lots of components that are not well understood. There are genetic causes, a healthy diet, and active lifestyle . Personally I tend to think that sugar is a big no-no, but do not think that calories in itself are the main cause. Calories in itself does not mean it will be turned into fat.

What I've witnessed by a few obsese friends is that dieting makes things worse. They lose muscles during the diet, and when they stop, thing get rapidly worse than before.

Walter,