Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Use my Amazon Portal
Gary Taubes makes some good points, but like most people with a cause, he gets carried away.
Real science takes time, and it's mind-numbingly boring and repetitive. So if you see it in the headlines, it's probably not science.
I read most of the book at a Barnes and Noble and decided it was just too close to the Atkins diet for me.Also, I have ranted about the New York Times and it's damage to America on this blog's comments more than anyone, I believe.But today on this story - about one family in the tornadoes - the NYT nailed it just right:Losing Everything but What Really Matters(apologies for off subject)
He is on to something. No potatoes, no corn, no bread, no desert and eat everything else and you will lose weight. Or add back the potatoes, corn, bread and deserts to reverse that process. If you are still losing weight, have no fear, today we have a fattener designed for beef and pork going to market that fattens them and us up quickly called High Fructose Corn Syrup
We know how to keep from getting fat, but the government can't regulate it - although it would love to.The Gray Lady hates that.
A few weeks on this diet, eat whatever you want of protien and fat, and you can put on a good 20 pounds. The magic of eating all you want and losing weight. Invented by Obama and adopted by the Secretary of Treasury.
If you go on eating when you are no longer hungry you are over-eating, you know you are over-eating and eventually you will get fat. The solution isn't a special diet it is to stop lying to yourself that you are not over-eating and to start eating to satiety but not beyond.
I have been arguing his side lo these many months. Thank you for just posting right to the source.Jason, check Taubes out. He rails against bad science.
It's not overeating, it's not calories in, calories out, and it's not sedentary life styles. Gosh, I wish people would at least read Taubes first. Or at least here we have an easy way to get his points in the diablov thing.
Taubes rails against bad science and then embraces it when it supports his cause.* * *Taubes is part of a larger medical coverup; there is damn good evidence that everyone who eats dies!I've also observed first hand that from the time of birth, humans gain weight at an astonishing weight, though not as fast as many other animals.* * *Hysterics: Ahhh, the sky is falling. We aren't eating right!Common sense: We are living longer than ever.Hysterics: But we aren't eating right. Sugar. HFCS. Protein. Fat. We are killing ourselves with food!Common sense: We are living longer than ever.Hysterics: You don't understand! We aren't eating right!Common sense: You're a loon.
I've been on South Beach, a variation of his diet, for five years. It is an easy - yes, easy - way to lose weight and keep it off and feel better. My cholesterol stays down too. That's the experience of friends who tried it as well. As Taubes says, you don't need a major study to modify your diet slightly and see the results.Our country has been on the food pyramid designed by politicians, and we are FAT because of it. http://tinyurl.com/42lyzxs
Hysterics: Ahhh, the sky is falling. We aren't eating right!Common sense: We are living longer than ever.____Or, common sense: childhood diabesity rates are through the roof, higher than ever.Again, just a suggestion: read, listen to, digest in some form something of Taubes.
As with climate, the human body is a very complex system composed of relatively simple individual elements. Going from the trees to the forest is not easy, as is evidenced by the gyrations over what is good for you and what is bad for you over the course of my lifetime. Many of the correlations are shaky (conflicting studies abound), much less the cause and effect relationships. Throw in the fact that each individual has their own biochemical peculiarities and it's a wonder we can make any sense of it at all.Certain things (like sawing off your arm with a chain saw) we are fairly certain are bad for you. You might even say the science is settled on that point. The recent study of high-grade prostate cancer and omega-3 fatty acids (and the correlation of a lower incidence with higher serum levels of trans fatty acids) seems to go against conventional wisdom as it currently stands. When looking at the individual pieces and parts, there are good biochemical reasons for suspecting carbohydrate is a major culprit in obesity. But the body taken as a whole is not always that straightforward.
That's great ricpic. Got any tips on getting taller? I won't ask if you have any tips on getting smarter or more observant cause it's very obvious you don't.
I have the book here. Want to buy it? Check out the Duke Medical site, or Mayo, or any site that deals with this as a serious matter. This is just a reworking of his other publications and he has sold it. Good for him. Now, go eat some fat. You WILL love his diet.
Shorter Crimso: nothing is as simple as it seems.And I would tread cautiously on the observation that we are living longer than ever. A substantial chunk of the increase in average lifespan is a large decrease in infant mortality rates. Some of it is almost certainly due to advances in both medical care and nutrition, but not all of it.
My husband and I did Atkins for a while. The trick is huge salads. Eat as many green vegetables as you can.He lost way more weight than I did, of course. For some reason men always do.
PatCA I agree with you, except that Taubes does say that there are people who will not gain a whole lot of weight no matter how many carbs and how much sugar they consume. (Such as Dr Oz :))Regarding Taubes' contentions vs we are living longer than ever. Here is my amateur take on it. If you look at photos from the olden days up to about, say 1982, you will see that most people are by and large slim and trim. If you look at photos starting in the mid to late 80s, you will start to see people who are fatter and fatter. My take on the fact (yes it is a fact) that we are living longer than ever in spite of processed food and carbs being more prevalent than ever is that those of us who ARE living longer than ever most certainly were not exposed and subsisted on as children this processed food and these carbs. No, the people in their 80s, 90s and beyond did not have twinkies, and all the junk food. Now, I'm not saying their diet was great necessarily, but they just were not exposed to the crap that we are today. The true test, in my amateur opinion, will be to see how long people born in the 1960s, 70s etc are going to live. That way you are comparing apples to apples. I can't believe I had to make this point.I have some questions for Taubes too, but I just wish people would at least understand his point before they launch their broadsides.
HT: Twinkies and McDonalds have existed form quite a while now, certainly before the 1980s.You know why we're so fat? It's because of people like Taubes.. People who insist that there's one magic thing, one secret key, one "simple trick discovered by a mom" that's responsible for body weight.The only magic key to weight loss is to eat less and exercise more. You can go around and around over why people overeat, but that doesn't change the fact that the single root cause of obesity is overeating.
Well, IF YOU READ ANYTHING TAUBES WROTE, which you apparently have not, you'd see that (once again) Taubes says it is NOT calories in, calories out that regulate fat, but INSULIN. Please just argue his points, not yours. It's just an endless he said she said silly thing, otherwise.
HT, you are falling for the fallacy that disagreement indicates a lack of understanding the other sides' points.Taubes is not a doctor. He is not a scientist. He is a journalist who makes money peddling his viewpoint. He openly admits he's obsessive about this topic. The doesn't mean he's wrong, but it raises some clear questions about his fundamental integrity.
Joe said... HT, you are falling for the fallacy that disagreement indicates a lack of understanding the other sides' points. Taubes is not a doctor. He is not a scientist. He is a journalist who makes money peddling his viewpoint. He openly admits he's obsessive about this topic. The doesn't mean he's wrong, but it raises some clear questions about his fundamental integrity. 4/30/11 12:09 PM___No.This is just wrong. Doctors are not scientists either. Please just listen to the damn diablog. I can't keep doing this. I'll argue specific points he makes, not deal with ad hominen arguments.
Ah-heh. So it's a contrarian magic bullet after all. "Insulin regulates fat." Brilliant! I guess that's why you see all those skinny diabetics out there. But what's that got o do with Twinkies, McDonalds, and the 1980s?
HT:Insulin can't produce fat (which is essentially stored energy) out of nothing. The energy comes from the food. Don't eat it and then it can't be stored or "regulated".Taubes may be right about insulin, but he's wrong (and you are wrong) about calories in vs. calories out. If you don't eat it, it can't make you fat. Why are you arguing this?
Kohath said... HT: Insulin can't produce fat (which is essentially stored energy) out of nothing. The energy comes from the food. Don't eat it and then it can't be stored or "regulated". Taubes may be right about insulin, but he's wrong (and you are wrong) about calories in vs. calories out. If you don't eat it, it can't make you fat. Why are you arguing this? 4/30/11 12:17 PM___God, just quote me accurately please. Here is what I said: "Taubes says it is NOT calories in, calories out that regulate fat, but INSULIN."I did not say insulin produces fat. If it was not clear about the other part, I meant to say that it is not calories in, calories out; sedentary behavior or overeating that produces(d) the obesity/diabetes epidemic (channeling Taubes of course), but rather - look, he explains it all in minute 36. Insulin regulates fat accumulation. Carbs drive insulin. Can you please listen at minute 36?
I read the Taubes book a few months back and what he is saying tracks very well to my own experience. I was diagnosed as a type 2 diabetic just over a year ago and my doctor's advice was to cut out the carbs. I eat whatever else I want and as much as I want an have managed to lose about 40 pounds.
If you don't eat it, it can't make you fat. Why are you arguing this?So you've never met or known anyone who gained weight on a 1200 calorie-a-day diet while exercising consistently? I have. The endocrine system, which controls body mass, is extremely complex. Exercising more has been repeatedly shown to increase appetite and make it harder for many (not all) people to lose weight -- it can also increase muscle mass and improve health in other ways (like reducing symptoms from inflammatory diseases like RA), but as a weight-loss tool, exercise is pretty much a non-starter.It's sad how many people just know that it's simply calories in and exercise that control weight.
Sorry, meant to include this link above: Time Magazine: Why Exercise Won't Make You ThinThis is written for the general public, but there's a lot of solid science behind it.
HT, Stop with the bullshit that disagreement with you Taubes means I haven't listened to Taubes; that I haven't read him enough. That if I but listened just a little bit more, I'd be completely convinced. I have and I'm not. I believe Taubes does way too much cherry picking of data and peddles too much fear and contrarianism to sell books and make money.
I guess that's why you see all those skinny diabetics out thereThere are two kinds of diabetes. Type 1 which is childhood diabetes does cause people to tend to lose weight. Sudden weight loss is one of the symptoms to diagnose a person with Type 1 diabetes. Type 2, adult onset, is very much tied to being overweight and other lifestyle choices. My husband has type 2 diabetes and we control his insulin levels with diet, weight loss and some mild oral medications.Basically our own versions of Atkins and South Beach, where we eat vegetables, fresh fruit, whole grains, meats and much less of the refined flours and sugars. The government food pyramid is bunk. Too many carbohydrates and not enough fats.We also are not afraid to use butter, cheese, bacon, eggs, pasta (in moderation), have some cocktails and eat desserts in moderation whenever we want. Since going on the modified Atkins type diet we both have lost weight, his cholesteral is down (despite the butter and eggs) and we feel much better with higher energy levels.Moderation and interesting varieties of food are the keys in keeping our diets on track. Falling off of the food wagon occasionally is also good for the soul. You have to treat yourself to the 'forbidden' foods once in a while.
Joe said... HT, Stop with the bullshit that disagreement with you Taubes means I haven't listened to Taubes; that I haven't read him enough. That if I but listened just a little bit more, I'd be completely convinced. I have and I'm not. I believe Taubes does way too much cherry picking of data and peddles too much fear and contrarianism to sell books and make money. 4/30/11 12:33 PM____Your comments are general and indicated to me that their lack of specificity means you haven't read him. Argue a specific point and we can talk more. Your points are so general.
I can't help it if you have no self-control, Bob R, you tub a' guts.
HT:No. Because I don't care. Energy not eaten is not "regulated". I regulate it by not picking up the food and eating it.I (roughly) understand the rest of his points. There may be a substitue for eating less. But if you actually do eat less by an adequate amount, then there's no substitute needed. Arguments to the contrary are simply incorrect.
Kohath said... HT: No. Because I don't care. Energy not eaten is not "regulated". I regulate it by not picking up the food and eating it. I (roughly) understand the rest of his points. There may be a substitue for eating less. But if you actually do eat less by an adequate amount, then there's no substitute needed. Arguments to the contrary are simply incorrect. 4/30/11 12:37 PM___Taubes, I think, would say it depends. (The sugar guy, Lustig, would say sugar is toxic and leads to heart disease and diabetes.) Taubes might also ask, I think, if eating fewer carbs as a way of losing weight (as opposed to more veggies and meat) truly workable? What if you aren't full? And further, if you are predisposed to weight gain, it might not matter. "some people their phenotype in this environment [high carb] is weight gain." No matter how few you eat.
No. Because I don't care. Energy not eaten is not "regulated". I regulate it by not picking up the food and eating it.I (roughly) understand the rest of his points. There may be a substitue for eating lessActually, you are wrong.Since being on our new lifestyle diet, we are eating MORE and have lost weight.In fact many of the suggested meal plans are more than we want to eat and more than we often CAN eat.More quantities of food spread out over more frequent smaller meals. But still MORE food.It is just the right kinds of food (for us at least)
HT says :"What if you aren't full?".What if indeed. I would say that the obesity problem is perfectly summed up in your question. And your question also explains why some people have such a hard time losing weight.What if a person could conceivably stop eating before he was full? What if that person could avoid or delay eating despite hunger? That person would have control over his weight and wouldn't have to listen to Taubes or anyone else on the subject.
About six months ago, I switched to a low carb diet that includes meat and fish, with almost no sugar and some wine at night. I also exercise six days a week. The results: I lost some weight, increased the good HDL and lowered the triglycerides significantly. As soon as I add too many carbs that are not complex ,my weight increases and I feel a loss of energy. Each person has to find their balance, but clearly the eating habits most Americans is not healthy, and this fixation on sugar is just one of the negatives.
Kohath, it seems to me you don't want to bother reading/understanding Taubes. Why comment in that case?
Real science takes time, and it's mind-numbingly boring and repetitive.Not true. You can do it in an instant, and it's so interesting that you want to bore others with it right away.Did I ever tell you why low pressure areas have clouds and high have clear weather?
HT,I agree with you on the obesity. I don't think tho we can say that "we" are living longer than ever. As a whole we are, but black people do not live as long as white people. I recently watched Hoop Dreams, filmed in the early '80s and was stunned to notice the absolute absence of any overweight people in the black neighborhoods. Very different from today--it's got to be the diet, government-mandated and provided.
What I love about Taubes is that he offers persuasive arguments. I don't know if he is right or not but he is a billion times more compelling than his critics. One thing I'd like to hear about is they physiology of eating fat. What happens if I chug a bottle of olive oil? How does the fat in the oil turn into fat in my body? At least in the dvlog, Taubes doesn't address that issue.
I agree, DBQ. I eat MORE food now than when I stuck to the high carb, low meat, pasta with tomato type diet.I am not hungry, ever. If you eat three meals plus your snacks, you will not have cravings. It's true. I do cheat: Sometimes wine at night or a pastry in the morning. The only "will power" required is when I choose to have a little cookie instead of a bear claw with my espresso in the morning (depending on my current weight).
themightypuck said... What I love about Taubes is that he offers persuasive arguments. I don't know if he is right or not but he is a billion times more compelling than his critics. One thing I'd like to hear about is they physiology of eating fat. What happens if I chug a bottle of olive oil? How does the fat in the oil turn into fat in my body? At least in the dvlog, Taubes doesn't address that issue. 4/30/11 2:29 PM___Agreed.What I'd like to hear about even more than the olive oil is the meat fat. This is something I am particularly concerned about given my recent diagnosis of Celiac disease. Not that I ate a lot of bread pre-diagnosis, but what my CD means to me now is that I must eat more meat than ever. I also eat fish (not as much) and of course chicken a lot. But it's of course the red meat I'm concerned about. Taubes all but ridicules the AHA proponents and officials for linking that high fat to heart disease and diabetes. I understand (or I'm getting there) him when he says it's really the carbs, and when he shows how. However, and I guess it's hard to prove a negative, it is less clear to me that high meat fat diets are not correlative to heart disease. He recently posted his lipids. I wish I could read those tests better. My cholesterol has been more or less fine, but I know I eat way less red meat than he does. If the science is there, my talent at discerning it (so far) is not.Olive oil (in my mind) is different. But who'd want to chug it?? I read an article that states that most of the world's olive oil (including Italy's) is not 100% olive oil.
Here, from page 45 of the book is the “refutation” of calories in-calories out theory of weight gain, or the basic proposition of “scientists.”He recounts some “observations” that runners, as they aged, seemingly, had to run farther “if they wanted to remain lean.” From this he waxes on and on and concludes: “If we believe in calories-in/calories-out, and that n turn leads us to conclude that we have to run half-marathons five days a week (in our forties, and more in our fifties, and more in our sixties . . .) To maintain our weight, it may, once again, be time to question our underlying beliefs.”If you are willing to accept this sort of sleight of hand (or word) as science, go ahead. But, please don’t argue that those who find it just a book are somehow ignorant of its contents.
"Each person has to find their balance, but clearly the eating habits most Americans is not healthy, and this fixation on sugar is just one of the negatives."Many of my students are nutrition majors, and it heartens me to see how much they are willing to admit is still unknown. "Each person" indeed. I tell them that there will come a day when nutrition and metabolism is so well-understood that each individual will see a nutritionist to determine their individual dietary needs.Insulin, BTW, has a major role in all of metabolism, not just carbohydrate. Some people even consider it to be a growth factor (the IGF's, insulin-like growth factors, are called that for a reason). I have seen diabetes described as a condition wherein "the body acts as though it is starving when it is in the midst of plenty." It most definitely affects lipid metabolism. This last bit of pedantry is for rhhardin.
I will say people have not read or listened to the man when it's apparent they haven't, when they just state generalizations and say if we just moderated our intake we wouldn't even have to listen to Taubes.If you cite specific parts of the books, of course I won't say you are ignorant of Taubes' books. I'll respond with a quote of his from the diavblog"when you're obese or diabetic you are hyper insulemic. You're insulin resistant which causes you to have high insulin levels. When you have high levels, not only are you storing calories as fat, but the only fuel that your muscle will burn are carbs. The insulin signals the mitochondria in your cels to burn carbs not fat. So basically carbs are the fuel for fat people. That's why you crave them."If you feel this does not adequately respond to your specific point, I will have to do better and find a more germane quote. For energy in/energy out refutation, is at minute 41. "Calories are the wrong paradigm." He cites children as an example - "children take in more energy than they expend. Growth is a hormonal issue, not an energy in / energy out issue."Refutation of sedentary behavior as cause: minute 43BTW, which book do you reference? GCBC or Why We Get Fat? (Not that I have either, but I will go to the library.)
Calories in vs. calories out. As a chemical engineering major as an undergraduate, we took a course called "Material and Energy Balances." The potentially significant mistake people are making is that "calories out" is that number which is used in exercise. I am quite certain that feces has a nonzero Gibbs free energy content. I have seen reference to (but have yet to actually pin down) a study in Africa by Burkitt which examined how much caloric content exits as feces. It is claimed that it was substantial and diet-dependent. A PubMed search for "caloric content of feces" produces a whopping 23 hits (that's sarcasm; search for the enzyme I study and you get thousands of hits). "Free energy content of feces" produces 42 hits (didn't check to see how many were duplicates). One of the 20 hits produced by searching "Burkitt feces" is probably the relevant study, but the ones that look applicable don't have an abstract available. The laws of thermodynamics aren't just guidelines.
Have your thyroid checked.A long while back I asked in the comments on this very blog something like, "C'mon, how many people really have thyroid problems?"The answer, as it turned out, was at least one more than I thought (me), so it's probably worth a quick check.Excuse me while I settle in for a meal of crow.
HT, I don't think you are really understanding what Taubes is getting at when he talks about calories in/out. Children will in fact stop growing if you starve them. It is just that usually, nutrition isn't the issue in stunted growth, hormone levels are the issue.If you are on a starvation diet of fewer calories in than out, you will loose weight--this is physics. Normal people cannot loose this weight this way though because it is too unpleasant and they will quit. Carbohydrate restriction is the proper paradigm according to Taubes. This is because it works and people with normal will-power can do it.
Did I ever tell you why low pressure areas have clouds and high have clear weather?Why?
Type 1 which is childhood diabetes does cause people to tend to lose weight. Sudden weight loss is one of the symptoms to diagnose a person with Type 1 diabetes. Used to work with a guy who inexplicably lost fifty pounds over a short period of time. He went to the doctor terrified and certain that he would come back with a cancer diagnosis. You've never seen a man so elated to find out he had diabetes.
You should watch the documentary "Fathead" on Netflix. It's all about this topic.
I have the "Why" book. I also have many fat friends who have been on the Atkins diet for years.When I was running 6 miles a day (and that in my aging 40's when I would theoretically gain weight unless I ran 13 miles a day), I could have eaten nothing but donuts and never gained an ounce.
dbp said... HT, I don't think you are really understanding what Taubes is getting at when he talks about calories in/out. Children will in fact stop growing if you starve them. It is just that usually, nutrition isn't the issue in stunted growth, hormone levels are the issue.___I'm sorry, how am I not understanding? What did I say? Taubes in the next breath says what you say. He says it's not calories, it's hormones. You say it's hormones. Not getting something here.
HTWhy should I listen to him when his message prominently includes falsehoods?Even so, I think he's actually right about insulin. But then he goes nuts and claims insulin is The Answer and all other answers are wrong. No. Insulin is part of the answer for some people. Other answers work for other people. Restricting calories works, but only if you actually do it and continue it in amounts that matter. Saying that it doesn't work is false and harmful. It's a betrayal of everyone who believes him and loses a chance at weight loss and better health.I lost over 100 pounds, mostly by simply eating less. What if I had listened to someone like Taubes who said it doesn't work and it's impossible and no one can do it? Maybe I'd still be huge. Maybe I'd be dead. Who knows?A major step for me was when I decided to stop listening to anyone's diet advice and just eat less.
This is an excellent interview and I recommend it whole-heartedly. I have a new found respect for both of these gentlemen. But I do wonder, after all of that, why no mention of The Zone, Barry Sears or Sugar Blues, William Duffy? Ha ha ha, I keed, I keed.
HT, You say, "For energy in/energy out refutation, is at minute 41. " Taubes doesn't refute this at all, he explains why it is the wrong focus.
I read the Taubes book a few months back and what he is saying tracks very well to my own experience. I was diagnosed as a type 2 diabetic just over a year ago and my doctor's advice was to cut out the carbs. I eat whatever else I want and as much as I want an have managed to lose about 40 pounds.This has been my experience as well. I've always had trouble with my weight - either I was dieting and it went down, or I wasn't and it went up.Since I cut back on the starches things are much more stable. When I diet I lose weight. When I don't... I don't gain weight. So I've been losing pretty steadily without putting in any more effort than this: No bread, no potatoes. Rice or pasta once or twice a week.Exercise doesn't seem to matter much, as expected. A pound of fat takes your body about 2 calories a day to maintain. A pound of muscle takes 6. Turn ten pounds of fat into ten pounds of muscle and your calorie budget increases a whopping 40 calories, or about half a teaspoon of butter.
Other answers work for other people. Restricting calories works, but only if you actually do it and continue it in amounts that matter. Saying that it doesn't work is false and harmful.Statistically it doesn't work. It's great you were able to make it work, but you're an outlier. For most people it's bad advice.
Even so, I think he's actually right about insulin. But then he goes nuts and claims insulin is The Answer and all other answers are wrong.Link, please? I don't have Taubes' most recent book but I have GCBC and he says no such thing. In the diavlog here he specifically says there are people who can eat tons of carbs and stay lean. People with metabolic syndrome aka insulin resistance, can't, though, and Taubes is saying that we become insulin resistant by having such a huge proportion of our calories come from sugars and starches. I know that I can occasionally eat starches (pasta, breads) and drink wine without gaining, but when I eat sweets, I gain. I also gain when I'm under a lot of stress - no matter how well I control what I eat -- because stress affects insulin levels, too.
Statistically it doesn't work.As I said, it only works if you actually do it.I'm pretty sure anyone who loses 100 pounds on any diet is a statistical outlier. So I guess none of the other diets work statistically either.I could claim that your diet doesn't work. But that would be a huge disservice to anyone who needed to lose weight and decided not to try it. It works for you, so obviously it's a reasonable thing for someone to try.The same is true for a calories in vs. calories out approach based mostly on eating less (rather than exercise). It will work for some people. I know firsthand. Folks who need to lose weight should try well-reasoned approaches until they find the one that works for them.
Folks who need to lose weight should try well-reasoned approaches until they find the one that works for them.Says Kohath.Yep. Individuals are so different. And, as I've learned, an individual can be different at different points in her life. I lost a significant amount of weight some years ago by eating less and exercising more. Now, I have baby weight to lose and have tried the old approach without the same success. I'm willing to try another approach at this point and the carb issue makes intuitive and experiential sense to me, for me, at this stage of my life. It may not be the same for others and I'm cool with that. Individual physiology varies.
Did I ever tell you why low pressure areas have clouds and high have clear weather?Why?Winds near the ground are slower than aloft, and so leak into low pressure areas when winds aloft just circle the low pressure area.This leakage-in adds air to the low at the bottom, and that causes the air in the low to rise, which causes moisture to condense and power the circulation of the low.It's the reverse for high, where air leaks out at the bottom and causes the air in the high to sink and warm, which evaporates the moisture into clear weather.(Pilots' rule of thumb: the winds aloft are 45 dgrees further from the right than on the ground; this is the leakage angle.)
rhhardin, That's interesting. I had no idea.
Anthropomorphized Global Warming.
This is mind-boggling. I'm a believer. His painstaking approach to research and the dubunking of bad science makes me wish he'd tackle global warming next. None of us laypeople know what to think about anything scientific any more, and Taubes makes us realize that relying on the "experts" isn't always wise.
visit us on lifeandstylemag.comhttp://whois.domaintasks.com/lifeandstylemag.com
Post a Comment