I'm not one for conspiracy theories or "world orders" or some "co ordinated effort" ...but I do see and know that all industries and wealthy people hire lobby groups to sway public opinion and legislators.

One that hits home to me is Big Sugar. Back in the nineteen fiftees and subsequent decade there was a big debate about the health effects of sugar vs fat. Sugar won and there is evidence lots of scientific studies were funded by the sugar industry and its major players. In the end the government published a food guide that excoriated fats, but gave the sugar industry free rein to add it to whatever they wanted...which if you read labels is a lot of sugar in a lot of products.

Fast forward to today and America...and countries around the world are facing a Type II diabetes epidemic and many people are obese.

Today scientists and medical professionals understand that this is the body's response to too much sugar. What is not burned off as fuel for energy is, using the body's insulin, packed into fat cells for future use....but that day does not come because the next day...once again too much sugar. Over time the cells are so packed with this potential energy that the body resists insulin and voila, Type II diabetes.

Earlier this year I read a book by Dr Jason Fung...two books actually, The Obesity Code and The Diabetic Code in which he outlines the rise of sugar use\consumption and the rise of obesity and diabetes....and I did two simple things. I eliminated added sugar as much as I could, and compressed eating good food into 8 hours a day...that allowed my body to start drawing on my sugar reserves.

Since then I have lost about 30lbs and my blood sugar has returned to the normal range from closing in on "pre diabetes levels"

Better yet, less inflamation in joints (also due to weight loss) and best of all...no food cravings. It seems that once you cut sugar out of your diet that craving for sugar stops...

What motivated me was simply being p^&^*sed off by the fact that Big Sugar paid off scientists and the government to favour it over fat...and Fung saying that diets fail because they do not solve the real culprit...it is not about will power and calories as much as the over consumption of sugar in what you do eat. You think yoghurt is good for you? Well it can be but most servings contain multiple grams of sugar. Cereals? Full of sugar. Pop? A HUGE culprit with multiple spoonfulls in every container.

So with that I cut out sugar, fasted intermittently, and in a matter of days...really days...my food cravings disappeared and weight loss started.

Since "winning", Big Sugar, the corn and corn syrop indistries made billions if not trillions of dollars collectively over the decades...which is why they fought so hard to discredit fats.

Take that same approach to other industries who pay scientists and lobby groups...and in public debates, "follow the money" to see how public opinion is being engineered.

I cannot see how the climate change debate is any different. Those who stand to lose the most fund and release and promote studies that favour their position and lobby legislators to ensure their positions prevail. It is simply how things work.

The public is left to decide, according to their own "filters", what is right. And these filters are often legitimate from the individual's POV

Take another hot button. Gun control.

It is absolutely right to invoke the 2nd amendment, self reliance, individual responsibility, "guns don't kill people, people do" , the right to self defence because they are legitimate points of view. But it is also right to point to horrible mass shootings and murder statistics and demand that, in the name of public safety, restrictions be placed on certain firearms, that owners be vetted, training is mandatory etc. But the NRA, even as its membership is small, is very well funded and has a powerful lobby and gets its messages out very well. The result is a polartized public entrenched in their own opinions

Here, today, we are all entrenched ...and everyone rationalizes what they believe with their own beliefs and experiences. The problem is no one makes room for another person's position and disagreements often turm nasty. This thread is simply a case in point. The last federal election was a nightmare here and Brian in the end banned these types of dicussions....and we lost some good people as a result. I myself went away for awhile because of the fallout.

I guess the bottom line here is

1) have some tolerance towards others' POV because they are right based on their individual experiences
2) don't get personal, accusatory, inflame etc...focus on the issue being debated and bring facts (as you know them) to the party
3) understand it is not necessary (and very difficult if not impossible) to come to an agreement on some things (politics, religion are cases in point)...it is the exchange of viepoints that is the objective
4) be open to learning something new

I'm far from perfect, so take from this post what you will. But please if there is one thing .....have some respect for the other's point of view because they believe their POV as much as you believe yours


If writing ever becomes work I think I'm going to have to stop