This is true but there is an underlying motive to dismissing the consensus in climate science (particularly AGW). The scientific consensus would require a significant change from business as usual. It's far easier (and you feel less guilty for doing it) to simply dismiss the consensus or try to rubbish the consensus and continue with the current business as usual, than make a meaningful change. It's just people following the path of least resistance.

I live on an island that can be described as entirely rural. It's about the surface area of the Houston area in the US, but with only 80,000 people and also separated by miles of water from any metropolitan area. Our population is mostly dispersed around the island. Yet everyone here can get a 50Mbit/sec connection and we have three ISPs and actual competition.

Don't apologise for your crappy ISPs and lack of competition. If we can do it, any rural area of the US could do it too - if it weren't for the ISPs campaigning to get public infrastructure and real competition banned.

There are plenty of airlines in general with a mid-range option. For example British Airways has "World Traveller Plus" on its transatlantic routes. Basically, it's an economy seat with A LOT more legroom, plus a plug in for your laptop, plus things like real metal cutlery instead of plastic. The price varies but last time I flew it was about 25% more expensive than plain economy.

I used to use a small laptop with a 12 inch screen. On a transatlantic flight the teenage girl in the seat in front reclined the seat so violently it was pure luck the screen didn't get trapped and broken. The recline mechanism really needs a damper in it to limit the speed at which it can recline (and on transatlantic flights, reclining is pretty necessary).

For domestic flights, easyJet has the best idea - their seats don't recline at all.

The obesity epidemic also correlates with the increase in amount of food eaten and the decrease in the amount of exercise taken.

Who claims fructose is a non-digestable sweetner? Fructose is half of what's in normal sugar (sucrose) and is extremely easy to digest. Fructose is the sugar in US non-diet Coke.

Calorie restriction may increase lifespan more than exercise, but exercise will make it more probable that the achieved lifespan has good quality closer to the end. It's no good boosting your lifespan 10 years if it's going to be 10 years of very poor health and low quality of life caused by chronic conditions caused by chronic lack of exercise.

Just to give you an idea (and why it is move more AND AND AND eat less), I have a hilly bicycle commute. To and from work is 24 miles. Assuming I average 120 watts power output and it takes 50 minutes each way, that's only 720 kilojoules burned exercising (that's only 171 kcal, or about three quarters of a Mars bar).

(Sure I'll burn more than 171kcal in total but most of that will be energy required just to live, which would be burned even if I were sitting at my computer, so the additional energy burned by 24 miles of cycling is only about 171kcal. Even if we add some inefficiency factors to this for energy lost by muscles, it won't work out much more than a Mars bar's worth of calories).

But the real benefit of this exercise is that it's (a) extremely cheap transport and (b) I feel so much better than during an inactive period.

Portion size. I've not been to Japan, but in my native country, portion size is generally less than half of what it is in the USA. We eat a hell of a lot less.

I spend less than an hour on cooking and less than an hour on cleaning up to make a family meal. If it takes you that long to make a healthy meal you're doing it wrong. If I cook just for myself the entire process of cooking and cleaning up is usually under 20 minutes, and the cooking time doesn't require 100% attention (I can often do other things during the heating phase).

Rubbish. I know lots of people over 30 and most of them have fully working bodies (myself included). The difference between over 30s with fully working bodies and the ones without are the ones with fully working bodies have had a long term active lifestyle.

Michael Phelps is a bad example in this case, the overwhelming majority of people cannot dedicate their entire life to fitness like a professional athlete does.

In reality most people don't even do the 2.5 hrs a week of exercise which is the bare minimum, let alone the 5 hours a week that is recommended for good long term health (Phelps probably gets 5 hours *a day*). In reality most people need to both move more AND eat less AND eat better.

So the Russian military allows their soldiers to go on leave in a tank?

Why? In my country not only is it legal to do so but it's expected that motorcyclists will lane split (we call it "filtering" here).

China is our off shored CO2 producer. China only produces this much because of Western demand for their goods.