Sunday Tidbits: Latest in Paleo Podcast, Global Warming and Hot Pockets

~ Wow do I ever like all of the health and fitness podcast guys out there, and have thoroughly enjoyed each and every interview I’ve done. And also, with so much going on lately in Paleoland, everything shiny and new doesn’t always show up on my radar right away; or, if it does, it often takes weeks or even months for me to call forth the alert aircraft to go investigate. Well, in this case, Angelo Coppola (seriously, go check out those before & after pics) came to me and I have taken serious notice…no, very serious notice.

There’s two reasons to take Angelo’s show very seriously. First, it’s a podcast devoted to paleo, and from an unabashed, unapologetic evolutionary basis to boot.

This Week in Paleo is a blog and a weekly podcast (iTunes). At the intersection of scientific evidence and evolutionary clues left to us by our ancestors, the paleo Diet and Lifestyle is a unique approach to nutrition and fitness. [emphasis added]

The second reason to take Angelo very seriously is that the production value of his free podcast is absolutely astonishing in my view. Not only is Angelo very polished and professional behind the microphone, but the sound quality, the music, the audio clips, the transitions…well, everything is as though you are listening to something coming from a multi-millon dollar sound studio complete with a host under contract for millions, and a team of engineers and producers to make things happen. As I gather, this began as "This Week in Paleo" podcast and with about 20 shows in the can, it got picked up by the 5by5 network — no doubt in no small part due to the aforementioned production value.

So yes, Angelo contacted me a week or so ago to invite me on the show and as I gather, it will be for the duration, as we talk not only about what I’m up to and this blog, but also about various current events in Paleoland. I’m really looking forward to it. If anyone has specific topic suggestions feel free to drop them in comments. I believe it will be episode #17.

So, if you haven’t been listening to the programing, then you might want to get going. If you have been listening, then let other readers know what you think in the comments. Oh, and by the way, in episode 12, Angelo and frequent commenter here, J. Stanton, discuss The Real Health Debate beginning at about 28:00 into the program, audio clips of the debate and all. As I said, this guy is pro all the way.

~ Had to shovel about 4-5 inches of "global warming" — …oh, yea, it’s "climate change," now, such that anything and everything can be accounted for, just as with the religious "it’s God’s will" meme — off the deck this morning. Friday when we arrived here in Arnold about 2pm in the afternoon, we were sitting on the deck in shorts, in 75 degree sunshine, with no so much a flake of snow left on the ground anywhere. The latest I’ve seen snow up here — since we acquired this place about 8 years ago — was early April. It’s May 15, just over a month away from the summer solstice.

Global Warming – May 15, 2011, 4,500 ft. elevation

~ Longtime readers are well aware of my penchant for bashing Hot Pockets as the sort of meta-touchstone for crap food. Well, a commenter on yesterday’s post came up with this Jim Gaffigan clips about…Hot Pockets. Funny.

~ Late Breaking Update: I hadn’t taken note that the trailer for In Search of The Perfect Human Diet, a documentary film by C.J. Hunt, which I’ve mentioned before and donated to, was actually a new promo and not the one that has been around for a couple of years. Take a look.

And help support the post-production if you can. This is just the anecdote needed for that T. Colin Campbell propaganda film, Forks over Knives.

Richard Nikoley

I'm Richard Nikoley. Free The Animal began in 2003 and as of 2021, contains 5,000 posts. I blog what I wish...from health, diet, and food to travel and lifestyle; to politics, social antagonism, expat-living location and time independent—while you sleep—income. I celebrate the audacity and hubris to live by your own exclusive authority and take your own chances. Read More


  1. Daniel on May 15, 2011 at 13:25

    Wow Angelo, amazing transformation. Way to go on re-taking the reins of your health! Holy crap, that “liver recipe for everyone who hates liver” pic from your site looks incredible!

    • Angelo on May 16, 2011 at 09:25

      Thanks, Daniel. It’s been an incredible ride!

  2. Raph on May 15, 2011 at 14:46

    seriously you don’t believe in climate change…for real?

    as someone who prides himself on caring about what the scientific community and data point to and not letting his own biases get in the way i am really surprised…

    • Richard Nikoley on May 15, 2011 at 17:24

      Of course I believ in “climate change,” Ralph.

      Climate change is a priori true, which makes it a useless tautology in the way it’s being used.

    • Ken on May 15, 2011 at 22:44

      If the weather follows the climate change religion it is climate change.

      If the weather doesn’t follow the climate change religion it is weather.

    • Scireader on May 16, 2011 at 20:39

      Hi Richard,

      I’ve been reading your remarks on fraud in science with pleasure. There’s a lot of it, and you’re helping to push back something monstrous, where the (former?) mainstream is deeply in the wrong.

      Climatology is different. Unlike nutrition, it’s anchored in physics — a field with well-tested principles, measurable quantities, and falsifiable hypotheses that have been tested until there’s not much room for anything else to be true (unless it’s almost identical in practice).

      Regarding fraud, consider which way the money would push here — not toward findings that are horribly, painfully contrary to what corporate interests and political leaders want to believe. If science weren’t working reasonably well here, the field, or a substantial fragment of it, would be saying what moneyed interests want to hear. That isn’t happening.

      Why not?

      Absent a conspiracy that includes or intimidates scientists around the world, and from a host of cultural and political backgrounds, what can explain this? The parsimonious explanation is pressure from other scientists, but of the legitimate, falsified-means-false kind. If scientists were following the money here, some of them would split off and champion what the money wants them to say.

      It’s harder to fake things in the physical sciences, even in something as messy as climatology. I think that the science is working here, and that the echo-chamber noise to the contrary is about as reliable as nutrition advice on Livestrong.

      Please consider the nature of physics, the openness of access to data about the Earth, and the basis for the (sometimes) deserved reputation of science for moving toward something like truth. Then consider which way the money, and human inertia, and a lot of politics would push in this instance. I think there’s a hypothesis about the facts (both human and physical) that fits all this, and explains the what we hear from both sides.

      And by the way, about the standard snark about warming and snow: We’ve all heard it, and it’s just noise.

      * Heat makes water evaporate.
      * What goes up comes down again.
      * In the winter, what comes down tends to be frozen.

      In other words, warming, up to a point, tends to cause snow.

    • Michael on May 20, 2011 at 06:49

      about the ‘follow the money’ line of thinking:

      there’s a LOT of ecologists groups and researchers AND carbon trading-related companies that have financial and professional interests in the existence of a ‘Climate Change’ threat that needs to be dealt with using billions of dollars of public funds. And have you seen the prices of the toxic CFL light bulbs that they’re pushing?

      ‘follow the money’ goes in BOTH directions.

  3. Murray on May 16, 2011 at 08:43

    Hey Richard, Jim Gaffigan has an interesting take on vegetarianism, too:

    Of course you can’t talk about him and not mention his bacon bit:

    Comedy Gold.

  4. Ronstar on May 15, 2011 at 21:43

    Ummm the earths average annual temperature rising continuously doesn’t mean snow wont still fall. Its like me telling you you’re losing more money year after year and you saying “yeah right. I just got paid, look there’s money in my wallet right now!”

    • Richard Nikoley on May 16, 2011 at 00:32

      Ummm, Earth average temps aren’t rising. But, you’re welcome to be as ignorant as you want, Ron. You might want to look into satellite data vs. Putting measuring stations in paved parking lots next to A/C exhaust. The picturures are out there. Lots.

    • Robert on May 16, 2011 at 01:31

      You can’t know what undiscovered effect CO2 has on the climate, why take the risk? And there are plenty of other problems with fossil fuels too.

    • Trevour on May 16, 2011 at 05:57

      That’s the sort of attitude that keeps anything from getting done. Uncertainty is a fact of life; invoking it here just proves you’ve got no good arguments. I always get a kick out of how these environmentalist types love to claim he moral high ground when their programs would require billions of people to die.

    • Robert on May 16, 2011 at 10:23

      I’m not actually an environmentalist. Don’t try mind reading, you’re no good at it.

      I’m just using logic. Yes, there is a good chance nothing dramatic will happen because of the CO2 emissions, but if does do what some scientist fear than the consequences are catastrophic. Why risk that? And don’t say it’s the same with other things in life, because it isn’t. There are few things in life that any group of people could do that potentially have such extreme consequences.

      And for what? So we can have our energy cheaper? I like cheap energy, so I understand why we do what we do. However, I still think it would be best if we found a way to quit fossil fuels sooner than later. That is all am saying.

      And what about the other disadvantages? Just think about these OPEC fuckers, funding terrorism with the money the make from selling oil.

    • Milton on May 16, 2011 at 06:24

      Invoking a form of Pascal’s Wager makes the AGW movement look even more like a religious one. I don’t think that there’s any argument over the desire (or even need) to find ways to reduce pollution and improve our impact on the environment. But lying to people in order to force change? That sounds like the anti-fat pro-statin movement all over again.

    • Richard Nikoley on May 16, 2011 at 07:41

      Exactly, Milton. It’s all just the lipid hypothesis all over again. Climate change is now a big industry too, as becomes all politicized science.

    • Charlie on May 16, 2011 at 22:01

      I think most here would agree that mainstream scientific consensus is not always all it is cracked up to be. However, I would argue that climate change and the lipid hypothesis are an apples to oranges comparison.

      In the case of the lipid hypothesis, mainstream science still backs the entrenched status quo, to the benefit of big agribusinesses and pharmaceutical companies (among others). A shift in the scientific consensus would be disruptive to these powerful industries, and they work hard to oppose any such shift.

      On the other hand, in the case of climate change, the mainstream scientific consensus is a direct threat to business status quo. Recommendations of scientists like James Hansen (such as a revenue-neutral carbon tax), if followed, would be very disruptive to a huge range of industries, and thus it is no surprise that these proposals are vigorously opposed by large business groups such as the US chamber of commerce.

      One could make the argument that climate change is some sort of power-grab by the government to regulate yet another sphere of private life. I have a lot of sympathy for such libertarian positions. However, I think an (the) important role of government is to ameliorate tragedies of the commons. It would be convenient for individuals to just pitch sewage and slop out their windows, but if everyone did it it would make for a foul neighborhood. Government is the instrument by which citizens can act together to solve such problems. (Which is not to say that I support all, or even most, of what our government does…)

      Unfortunately, climate change is a global issue (man made or otherwise), therefore, if we want to keep conditions favorable for human civilization, coordinated global action may be required by mid-century if not earlier.

    • Richard Nikoley on May 17, 2011 at 15:56

      “I don’t think that you can fully do away with government.”

      Speak for yourself. 🙂

      My anarchism has never been about doing away with government. It is about “leave me the fuck alone and out of your stupid schemes and I’m happy to take my chances and pay my own way in everything.”

      “What entity makes the final call as to when damage has been done to an individuals part a river or the atmosphere, giving them cause of action? What form does an individual’s action take? Legal? That would require some form of group governance.”

      I don’t know. Different micro societies, groups, cultures will have to come up with ways to resolve disputes, I guess. There are many ways. See “Enterprise of Law.”

      As for myself, I have never conditioned my right to be left alone with the possibility that “that would never work,” to which I always reply, work for WHOM?

      “Should we all just resort to brute force to protect our possessions, or can citizens as a group make decisions as to when force is appropriate?”

      I don’t really know what you or anyone else _should_ do. I’d admonish you all to act like rational human beings, however.

      “Is it possible for a group to make decisions about shared interests?”

      Sure, happens all the time. Ever heard of a business?

      “Isn’t that government?”

      Not when you can vote with your feet, or your wallet.

    • Richard Nikoley on May 17, 2011 at 13:36

      “I think an (the) important role of government is to ameliorate tragedies of the commons.”

      The better solution is private property.

    • Charlie on May 17, 2011 at 13:53

      A fine solution in many cases, but I don’t know that it will work here.

      To what entity would you propose selling the earth’s climate system?

    • Richard Nikoley on May 17, 2011 at 14:50

      It’s no different than a river. You own the part that passes through your property and if someone pollutes it up stream and does damage to your part, you have a cause of action.

      It pollution were treated always as damage to a real individual or group of individuals’ property rather than some nebulous abstraction like Earth, society, “the people” we’d have a lot less of it and would be a lot better off for it.

    • Charlie on May 17, 2011 at 15:41

      I agree, but I don’t think that you can fully do away with government.

      What entity makes the final call as to when damage has been done to an individuals part a river or the atmosphere, giving them cause of action? What form does an individual’s action take? Legal? That would require some form of group governance.

      Should we all just resort to brute force to protect our possessions, or can citizens as a group make decisions as to when force is appropriate?

      Is it possible for a group to make decisions about shared interests? Isn’t that government?

    • Charlie on May 17, 2011 at 18:12

      Interesting. I’ll have to find a copy of Enterprise Law.

      Clearly the state is not a prerequisite for group decisions.

      I do think that some people make the mistake of focusing too much at the individual level, when we are, after all, social animals that form groups.

      Just as our bodies are comprised of individual cells, human and otherwise, that derive benefit from cooperation, groups are made of individuals who (ideally…) derive benefit from cooperation as well. Each new layer of complexity creates emergent properties which are not seen at the simpler level, so it’s a mistake to focus solely on any one level.

      If a group of individuals governs itself, has that group created a “government”? I don’t suppose the semantics matter.

    • Richard Nikoley on May 18, 2011 at 07:16

      I have no problem with the recognition that man is a social animal and I don’t think it conflicts with individualism. Humans naturally seek out other humans, just like various species of other animals do.

      But that doesn’t mean humans need to be made captive or slaves to the group. One merely requires the freedom to walk away if thongs aren’t to one’s liking (or for individuals or the group to ostracize any other individual) and that’s not government in the nation or city-state sense. Government, the state, is fundamentally about force.

    • Ron Scott on May 16, 2011 at 15:43

      But if the measuring stations are in the same spot year after year how does that matter?

    • Richard Nikoley on May 16, 2011 at 15:48

      Ah, that’s the rub. Many/most used to be in rural areas and heat islands have grown up around them. This is all well established and documented with photos and gps coordinates if you care to look into it.

      Also, many are — get this — sitting near the exhaust outlets of A/C units. That represents a cpnfounding variable of enormous proportions. It would be like someone in the measuring station coming out ever 20-30 minutes in the summer and turning a hair dryer on the unit.

    • Scireader on May 16, 2011 at 21:23

      What you’ve heard about Earth average temperatures is an example of the pattern I outlined above. It’s based on cherry picking and citing what’s known to be wrong. The story that the satellite data is inconsistent with ground data is wrong: Misleading data series from weather stations in urbanizing areas stopped being misleading once the problem was recognized. That’s how science is supposed to work, and sometimes does.

      It’s not as though there’s just a few scraps of evidence. The seas take a kind of moving average of temperature, and they’re getting warmer. Polar ice keeps setting record lows for thickness and area. The ecological ranges of species are shifting northward, and trees in the temperate zone are budding earlier in Spring, and not because birds and plants are being lied to by climatologists.

      You’re an independent thinker, able to sniff out bullshit and call it what it is. One way or another, there’s a big stinking heap of it somewhere.

      Spend a few days looking into this one (the literature, not the third-hand crap on either side) and see what you find. Then discount sources that have been relying on what is clearly misinformation, take that into account, re-weight for credibility, and add up the evidence again.

      If this doesn’t change what you think about the physical facts, then you aren’t who I think you are.

      What anyone should do about any of this is separate question, with room for radically different views. There’s no need to think that climatologists and their admirers are talking sense about anything much beyond air and water. Economics, for example, or technology.

    • Richard Nikoley on May 17, 2011 at 14:14

      It’s amusing how you guys don’t seem to think that there’s NOT a whole industry grown up around climate science, now, with enormous vested interest to tow the party line.

      The best site for actually looking at actual data is Climate Audit. This is by the guy who forced NASA to admit they had a Y2K bug in their software that when fixed rendered 1938 or thereabouts as the hottest year on record.

      Ocean temps?

      About measuring stations, urban vs isolated (in the arctic).

      Other good sites:

      I also keep tabs on the high priests.

      I’ve been following this stuff for years and years, all of it. You guys are just fooling yourselves if you think this stuff can’t be manipulated and cherry picked just like anything else.

    • Richard Nikoley on May 17, 2011 at 14:39

      “The Arctic seems to be warming up. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers who sail the seas about Spitzbergen [an island 12 degrees south of the North Pole] and the eastern Arctic, all point to a radical change in climatic conditions, and hitherto unheard-of high temperatures. In fact, so little ice has never before been noted. The warmth of the waters makes it probable that the favorable ice conditions will continue for some time.”

      “Many old landmarks are so changed as to be unrecognizable. Where formerly great masses of ice were found, there are now often accumulations of earth and stones. At many points where glaciers formerly extended far into the sea they have entirely disappeared. The change in temperature has also brought about great change in the flora and fauna of the Arctic. There were few [white fish and] seal in Spitzbergen waters this year, and last winter the ocean did not freeze over even on the north coast. With the disappearance of white fish and seal has come other life in these waters. This year herring in great shoals were found along the west coast. Shoals of smelt were also met with.”

      – federal National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) American consul at Norway, George Ifft, NOAA’s Monthly Weather Review of November 1922.

    • Michael on May 20, 2011 at 06:59

      don’t forget Thomas Jefferson’s take on climate change:

      “A change in our climate however is taking place very sensibly. Both heats and colds are become much more moderate within the memory even of the middle-aged. Snows are less frequent and less deep. They do not often lie, below the mountains, more than one, two, or three days, and very rarely a week. They are remembered to have been formerly frequent, deep, and of long continuance. The elderly inform me the earth used to be covered with snow about three months in every year. The rivers, which then seldom failed to freeze over in the course of the winter, scarcely ever do so now.”

      he wrote that in 1804.

  5. Scotlyn on May 16, 2011 at 00:46

    Of course, the real concern, for all us shellfish lovers is ocean acidification.

    Credible responses to potential warming scenarios include livestock management methods that preserve and build up soil (a la Allan Savory, Buckminster Fuller prize winner), promoting biodiversity, which allows robust adaptation to environmental changes, etc.

  6. Scotlyn on May 16, 2011 at 01:24

    Of course, the real concern, for all us shellfish lovers is ocean acidification.

    Credible responses to potential warming scenarios include livestock management methods that preserve and build up soil (a la Allan Savory, Buckminster Fuller prize winner), a powerful carbon sink, and promote biodiversity, the more biodiversity, the more robustly each species can adapt to environmental changes, etc.

    To wrap up, eat lots of meat, which is compatible with biodiversity, eschew annual monocrops which destroy it.

    • Richard Nikoley on May 16, 2011 at 07:46

      Yep, environmental climate change has always been a part of species evolution and even more, extinction. It’s what drove human evolution and we just got lucky we weren’t snuffed out along the way.

      Current climate science as regards co2 is predicated on a premise of positive feedback, when virtually all natural phenomena are driven by negative feedbacks. This guy has written a lot about that:

  7. Scotlyn on May 16, 2011 at 01:26

    Apologies for a bit of redundancy there. Will try to do better.

  8. rob on May 16, 2011 at 04:28

    My opinion on global warming/climate change is “I’ll most likely be dead in thirty years”

  9. […] Subscribe ← Sunday Tidbits: Latest in Paleo Podcast, Global Warming and Hot Pockets […]

  10. Angelo on May 16, 2011 at 09:32

    Richard, thanks for the review. I definitely love doing the show and am passionate about producing as well as I can.

    This week’s show is a lot different from what I normally put out. A lot of listeners have been following along with our “Paleo Pregnancy” and I wanted to give them an update, as my wife delivered this week. It was 10 weeks pre-term, so basically absolutely nothing has gone according to plan.

    I’m looking forward to chatting with you next week. I think your readers will be happy with the shows format. Instead of a straight up interview, you and I are just going to take a look at some of the latest health news and chat about it. Should be fun.

    Thanks again for the kind review of the show. I’ve been a fan of yours for a long time, and it’s all about the genuine, real, non-cellophane-wrapped content that I find here. I don’t like processed foods, and I don’t like processed blogs either. This is one of the best — regardless of topic.

  11. Charlie on May 16, 2011 at 15:04

    Love the blog, read it regularly, esp. posts that mention climate change, because I’m all for hearing differing points of view.

    A picture of spring snow, however, fits neatly into the climate change model.

    More trapped solar energy => more evaporation and air movement (first law of thermodynamics…) => increased precipitation and more extreme weather events, including snow. Just because temperatures are rising on the whole does not mean it will never fall below freezing…

    • Richard Nikoley on May 16, 2011 at 15:43

      Not disputing that at all, Charlie. My bief is with how the “science” is being done, roughly in the same manner as nutrition and diet. The climate changes and there are whole myriads of micro and macro cycles we have no understanding of, and they operate on different wavelengths of periodicity, and sometimes they converge in ways that give us very unexpected results. Hugely cpmplex systems with all sorts of negative feedback mechanisms.

      I’m merely skeptical about both the idea that we have much to do with it and even more skeptical that short of nuclear winter, we can “destroy the planet.”

      That said, I am all for an idea whose time has come. We used to hunt whales and render the fat for fuel. That went away because it was more economically viable to mine and refine fossil fuels. It didn’t take any government policy to make that happen. Someone will replace fossil fuels one day, but I doubt it will be any time soon and I have no problem with that.

    • Nigel Kinbrum on May 18, 2011 at 01:41

      Whatever we do, we won’t destroy the planet. However, there are over 6,000,000,000 humans who depend on rain to fall in the right places at the right times & in the right amounts, crops to not fail, pestilence to not occur and seawater to not flood their land etc.

      I hope you’re right and that there isn’t significant human-induced climate change, but if you’re wrong, there are going to be a lot of corpses to bury.

    • Richard Nikoley on May 18, 2011 at 01:51

      But you imply that we could do something about it, if it were true. You list all the natural phenomena humans are subject too, but leave out all the man made phenomena that a load of 6 B rely on probably even more.

  12. J. Stanton on May 16, 2011 at 22:09

    Richard: In addition to being an excellent host and cranking out a well-produced podcast every week, Angelo is a great guy. You’ll have fun on his show, and I’m looking forward to listening.

    Would have left a comment earlier, but I just got back from skiing 8-10″ in a blizzard at Mammoth and completing a partially unintentional 44-hour fast. I love late-season blizzards…everything is white but the snow isn’t so deep I can’t hike, and the meadow is full of confused robins.


  13. warren on May 17, 2011 at 07:23

    Something you and Angelo could adress is pwo nutrtion for the “still-not-lean” crowd. There seems to be a divergence of opinion in the paleo-world on this. Some seem to suggest that no carbs are fine untill you are lean but others encourage some carbs pwo even if you still have some weight to lose. I have tried mutilpe aproaches but cannot get past my “set-point” (if that is a real thing or not) and fasting has also not worked for me and i assume others are a bit lost on this path. Not all of us have those dramatic before and after photos. I’m much better but still frustrated in removing the spare tire.

  14. Michael on May 20, 2011 at 07:04

    In short: a global warming prediction is a falsifiable thing but a ‘climate change’ prediction isn’t because ‘climate change’ can mean whatever ‘change’ they say is happening and they can blame humans for it. It’s just too easy. When they started using “climate change” instead of “global warming” they extended the goal posts so wide that they can score a point anytime something – whatever it is – happens. What do you call that? scientific astrology?

    this whole “climate change” alarmism is starting to look more and more like the Cholesterol-Heart Disease alarmism.

    “rob: My opinion on global warming/climate change is “I’ll most likely be dead in thirty years””

    but the problem is all those laws and taxes they’ll put in place before it gets discredited: they won’t die with the anthropological climate change theory.

Leave a Comment

Follow by Email8k