Slashdot Mirror

30 years ago when my parents were in school they were saying we're headed to another Ice age. I still haven't seen any definitive evidence that we're not in a cycle. Our sample time is far too short.

Climate Myths:

They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
It's been far warmer in the past, what's the big deal?

Read the articles and follow their links.

no amount of conservation will cause a reversal in the current climate change trends

While you say "reversal" and that is technically correct, you are obviously using this to avoid any action at all based on your own ridiculous hyperbole:

short of shutting down nearly every energy source on the planet, shutting down all factories and eradicating all internal combustion engines...notice, that's a BIG if.

MYTH: We can't do anything about climate change.

Get off your lazy butt.

you forgot the fact that this is likely to lead to an ice age.

MYTH: Warming will cause an ice age.

Read the entire article.

Ahhh, so that's why the polar bear population has doubled since 1960.

MYTH: Polar bear numbers are increasing.

The Guardian can be wrong? Shocking!

I mean what about all the volcanos erupting

MYTH: Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter.
Feel free to skip to the section labelled "Volcanic misunderstanding".

Most of the 1421 theory revolves around a map that seems to detail North America in some fashion.

Most of the global warming theory revolves around computer models that seem to detail future events in some fashion. As it turns out, those models are proven wrong through simple observation over and over and over again. Until somebody can find more proof to back up the global warming claim, it is an undecidable as to its veracity.

0:-)

Ok, I got a link for this, I knew I read that somewhere... It says 10 percent every one billion years or so... pretty small fraction isn't it? But with all other parameters taken into account, like the runaway greenhouse effect, the effect on Earth's warming is a little heavier.

In fact there is some research that suggests for certain kinds of decisions, more thought is actually counter-productive. That is, initial "gut" decisions are sometimes more optimal than carefully-considered ones (where "optimal" is measured by longer-term happiness/regret of decision). (For instance, check this writeup of this paper, or the associated Slashdot submission.)

The point is that while thinking long and hard about some problems can be helpful (e.g. designing something complex and technical), for other kinds of problems, added thought can hinder (e.g. when there are many confounding unknowns).

Don't forget the huge disagreement between the US and Europe over the Galileo satellite system. The EU intended to use the GPS military band carrier frequencies for Galileo, so that the US couldn't jam it without also jamming the signal used by their own armed forces. Eventually the EU backed down and agreed to use separate frequencies.

I know lots of people have gotten the short attention span sickness, which most Americans have. Still i am dissapointed, even on slashdot.
But this stuff is not new.

Just some links about this technology, from 2006:
http://blog.wired.com/music/2006/11/acoustic_recogn.html
http://technology.newscientist.com/channel/tech/mg19225780.159-big-brother-is-listening-to-you.html

One of the companies responsible for this was founded in 2000:
http://www.soundintel.com/

more links wanted? go to http://www.rug.nl/scholieren/adamsAppel/archief2007/afl11 [dutch]

**** Knowing is less important then Remembering. ****

New scientist has an article on Brains generate their own built-in noise to achieve optimum performance.

Unless one subscribes to a concept of a soul or some such nonsense, the brain is merely a device with a series of inputs and outputs. If we simulate everything that happens between those inputs and outputs, then we will be able to replicate thought.

The analogy of nuclear simulation and airplanes is flawed because there is no communication between simulation and reality. A simulated brain would need a way to communicate with the real world, i.e. by giving it real sensory data from reality and by giving it the ability to interact with reality. For an example of communication between reality and simulation, see hippocampus prosthesis.

Who says the Singularity is reliant on ARTIFICIAL Intelligence?

AUGMENTED Intelligence is actually within our grasp: for example, look at the number of people who know how to Google / Wiki any information they don't know to get caught up with whatever subject is at hand? "Well, Damn, don't know much about RAID, better Wiki it... oh, I get it!"

How long until we figure out how to make pills to make people think faster, or remember better?

How long until we get PDAs in the form of sunglasses that will allow you to automatically get the definition of words as you hear / read them?

Or Contact Lense-displays that connect to a PDA that you control using your brain?

The Singularity is not going to be an all at once WHAMMO thing, we're not going to wake up with benevolent robotic overlords announcing that the Rapture of the Geeks is at hand. It will be gradual, and those of us on the techy side will likely not even notice it.

Computers will get faster, and as we learn how to augment ourselves, we will to. Eventually we'll be able to communicate with a PC/PDA directly. Meanwhile, things like RepRap will change our world in ways we're not quite ready for. (For example, I have no dobut that a functional RepRap would be a beautiful, amazing thing in the hands of Slashdot or the OSS Community. At the same time, the idea of 4Chan getting ahold of one fills me with Dread.)

They have a deplorable track record. If I were a global warming proponent, I wouldn't even refer to the IPCC. Let's have a look at their short history, shall we? They were founded in 1988. In 1990, they were making wild ass predictions based on computer models. In 1995, those predictions failed to materialize so they blamed sulfate aerosols. In their 2001 report, they were the ones pushing the hockey stick fraud, claiming exponential, runaway global warming. It turns out that random data entered into that model produced hockey stick graphs. So they come back with... drum roll please... more inaccurate computer models.

Ya don't say? You know what, I'm noticing a pattern here. I mean, I can sit down with Excel and create some pretty impressive graphs, but that doesn't make it science.

It's a good thing Copernicus didn't think that way.

According to the only study like it that I know of, men tend to NOT lie when self-reporting sexual activity. Women lie a lot.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3936-fake-liedetector-reveals-womens-sex-lies.html

Naturally, it is all fault of men or society.

The one study that I know of concludes that women will lie through their teeth about the number of men they have slept with, whereas men either are honest or possibly slightly DE-flate the number.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3936-fake-liedetector-reveals-womens-sex-lies.html

• Dilbert - do I need to describe this?
• Explosm.com - Cyanide and Happiness comic
• Fokke & Sukke - Dutch comic. Popular daily cartoon (yes, I'm dutch and the name is intentional)
• Little Gamers - gaming comic
• Penny Arcade - gaming comic
• FAIL blog - epic fail every day

Finance & Economy

• BusinessWeek Online -- Most Popular Stories
• Calculated Risk - general blog
• The Economist - News analysis and views
• NRC | EconomieDutch newspaper, economy section

Space

• Bad Astronomy - Phil Plait's blog about astronomy and skepticism
• Chris Lintott's Universe - Astronomer, Galaxy Zoo co-founder and co-host of BBC's The Sky at Night
• NASA Astronomy Picture of the Day
• New Scientist, Space - Astronomy section of New Scientist
• Space.com - More space news...
• Starts With a Bang! - Astrophysicist Ethan Siegel, tries to answer some common but very complex astronomy questions.
• Universe Today - One of the most well known astronomy blogs

Tech

• Engadget - THE gadget blog
• Evil Mad Scientist Laboratories - making crazy electronic stuff (and drooling over niche market product catalogues)
• Gametrailers' ScrewAttack - funny gaming videos
• Kotaku - THE games blog
• Reuters Science
• Reuters Technology
• Slashdot
• The Brainy Gamer - in-depth articles about (the history of) games in general
• Tweakers.net - the dutch Slashdot

Misc

• Greggman - American gamedev'er who lived in Japan
• Jort Kelder - Dutch dandy. Ex-editor-in-chief of Quote, a magazine about entrepeneurs and the life of the nouveau rich. Co-host of the dutch Dragons Den.
• Scalzi's Whatever - Sciencefiction author.
• The Sartorialist - Fashion photographer. If you'd like to dress like a man with some class, instead of a fake tan metrosexual...look here for inspiration.

Well now we understand why he announced the pre-emptive strike:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4551-bush-to-announce-manned-mission-to-mars.html

So what is the hard part? Getting the fissile materials. For that you need nothing other than one of a number of nuclear reactor designs. For this reason alone, the US should lead the world in not using Nuclear technologies.

I disagree.

Evidence:

Burman DD, Talin T, Booth JR (2006)
Sex Differences in Neural Processing of Language Among Children

Example from New Scientist

Men and women's brains use different strategies to remember highly emotional images, according to a new brain imaging study. The discovery helps explain how women manage to remember emotional events better than men, something psychologists have known for years. "It's hard evidence that there are differences in the brains of men and women," says Stephen Maren, of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, commenting on the research. He thinks that evolution may explain the differences. Women tend to be caregivers, more empathetic and more verbal: "Those traits are reflected in brain mechanisms." In the study, Turhan Canli, at the State University of New York at Stony brook, and his colleagues asked 12 women and 12 men to view a selection of images while their brains were being scanned by functional MRI.

Other papers include:

Zhou J.-N, Hofman M.A, Gooren L.J, Swaab D.F (1997)
A Sex Difference in the Human Brain and its Relation to Transsexuality.

Kruijver F.P.M, Zhou J.-N, Pool C.W., Swaab D.F. (2000)
Male-to-Female Transsexuals Have Female Neuron Numbers in a Limbic Nucleus

...and so on and so on. Male and Female brains tend to be quite different, though there's overlap in some areas. None in others.

I'm acutely aware of this as I'm Intersexed, so with a rather mixed and nonstandard neurology.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18625005.300

Solution? Do nothing. It's the same 'solution' offered by the head of NASA and other seemingly intelligent people. I mean, what's the hurry? Where is there any evidence that warming is bad?

Ten years ago, the cult was threatening us with the infamous hockey stick. Computer models were predicting "runaway" global warming. According to the IPCC we were on the cusp of exponential warming. "Oh noes!!11one1! We's all gonna DIES!one1!!"

Then something funny happened... Someone noticed that if you took the model and entered random data, it produced the same hockey stick graph. Gee, do tell... of course, they denied, denied, denied that it was a complete fraud. Yet the most damning evidence is that now, almost ten years later, their predictions simply didn't materialize. 1998 was anomalously hot and temps have not rocketed out of control since then.

Frankly, the only problem I see is global warming cultists preaching fire and brimstone, despite having their alarmist predictions disproven by observation repeatedly.

[And yes, before some global warming cultist chimes in... Griffin did later cede to peer pressure and apologize for making those statement, but to my knowledge he has never rescinded those statements.]

Two cases of "cannabis acute psychosis" following the administration of oral cannabis

Cannabis psychosis following bhang ingestion.

Psychological Responses To Cannabis
Cannabis and acute functional psychosis, chronic psychosis, amotivational syndrome, Evidence for dependence..

Animals Exposed To Marijuana's Active Component Will Self-Administer

"Self-administration of drugs by animals, long considered a model of human drug-seeking behavior, is characteristic of virtually all addictive and abused drugs. ...The drug-seeking behavior in these animals was comparable in intensity to that maintained by cocaine... This finding suggests that marijuana has as much potential for abuse as other drugs of abuse, such as cocaine and heroin."

See: Tolerance and dependence

Cannabis use increases risk of psychotic illness

Cannabis link to mental illness strengthened

Two cases of "cannabis acute psychosis" following the administration of oral cannabis

Cannabis psychosis following bhang ingestion.

Psychological Responses To Cannabis
Cannabis and acute functional psychosis, chronic psychosis, amotivational syndrome, Evidence for dependence..

Animals Exposed To Marijuana's Active Component Will Self-Administer

"Self-administration of drugs by animals, long considered a model of human drug-seeking behavior, is characteristic of virtually all addictive and abused drugs. ...The drug-seeking behavior in these animals was comparable in intensity to that maintained by cocaine... This finding suggests that marijuana has as much potential for abuse as other drugs of abuse, such as cocaine and heroin."

See: Tolerance and dependence

Cannabis use increases risk of psychotic illness

Cannabis link to mental illness strengthened

You spewed a lot of made up facts in that rant. How do you know that carbon-based molecules are the 'best'? Maybe evolution simply hasn't found a 'better' solution yet. We (including you) certainly don't know because it is beyond our abilities to test the trillions of possible chemical permutations to verify this as fact or not fact.

Further, there is real evidence that the number of base pairs in our DNA is simply the result of being 'good enough'. Scientists have created artificial DNA with 6 base pairs that theoretically should be just as stable, but provide a much larger number of possible evolutionary paths (permutations). Article

That's because it was hard to administer weed to animals. Advances in administration showed that it's addictive and the animals experience withdraw. Can't find the study at the moment, but you should never say never.

issue of cross-sensitisation of cannabis/opioid receptors
"research in rats suggests that using marijuana reduces future sensitivity to opioids, which makes people more vulnerable to heroin addiction later in life. It does so by altering the brain chemistry of marijuana users...rats that had been given THC during adolescence had a significantly altered opioid system in the area associated with reward and positive emotions. This is also the area linked to addiction."

"I think many alarmists forget that Earth was once significantly warmer than it is now, and had significantly higher levels of atmospheric CO2 than it has now. Was the Earth a desert? Hardly. The Earth was an even greater oasis of life than it is now. The warm Earth gave us the dinosaurs, and all the massive vegetation required to support such enormous animals."

the downside, is that during the several hundreds of millions of years the dinosaurs lived, Not a Single Mammal larger than a Mouse lived.

On a warm, tropical planet, full of heat and humidity, mammals die like http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4259-european-heatwave-caused-35000-deaths.html
the 35,000 Europeans who died in the 2003 heat wave.

No, hot sticky good for plants, good for lizards, bad for humans. Humans need Dry Heat, as we regulate temperature by shedding saltwater out our skin. You Really Really wouldn't like a dinosaur world. Did you know, most modern Air conditioners Fail to Provide Cooling in greater than 110F temperatures? It's not entirely and engineering problem, bigger, faster fans would compensate, but 'energy efficiency' laws are making it hard to put those bigger, faster fans into AC units.

You wouldn't Like it reversing the atmosphere to 'dinosaur' conditions, and how many animals could we still breed as feed in a ever warming world? we can't air condition a feedlot... so you want to start eating geckos and iguanas?

The article gives a false impression of climate security based on the premise that higher concentrations of CO2 are leading to increased plant growth. While everything else in the article is wrong and/or misleading, it is true that increased CO2 increases plant growth, up to a certain point. The problem is, this is low-quality plant growth.

This Nature Journal article (2 Aug 2007, subs. required) describes research confirming increased CO2 concentration increases the mass of crop output. However, the nutritional content of the crops dropped and the growth of crop-destroying pests doubled.

This article in New Scientist reports research showing increased CO2 levels increase pollen production in ragweed. The researchers report a strong correlation between increasing CO2 concentration and increasing rates of asthma.

Similar findings, along with additional information, are described in this blog post.

Warmer temperatures induce melting of arctic and greenland icesheets. If this continues far enough, it may reduce the salinity of the north Atlantic to the point that the oceanic conveyor shuts down; If this happens, Europe freezes. There is evidence that this is already in progress; Measurements have indicated that the columns of cold, dense saltwater from the surface that need to sink to the ocean floor are not getting as far down as they should.

That one's so 2004, 2006 data contradicted it. (Unfortunately, most of the citations are scientific subscription-only, the AP stories are long archived and I can't find them now.)

Increasing temperatures over equatorial oceans drive increased humidity and increased storm formation, resulting in an increased number of more powerful hurricanes/typhoons/cyclones. Rising humidity in tropical regions is also extending the range of tropical disease-carrying insects northwards.

Hurricanes, typhoons, and cyclones we can adapt to. And won't these phenomena put more liquid into the air to come down as rain elsewhere? Tropical diseases we can immunize for, and those we can't we'll have to evolve for. (Yep, it'll really suck for a few decades.)

The addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is altering the equilibrium acidity of the oceans ...

Unfortunately true, also true though is that species reactions to the phoenomenon vary widely, and while many species will die off, it is very likely that many will be able to adapt successfully, spawning new species which can exist in the environment.

Underneath the permafrost in much of the north are unimaginably massive deposits of methane calthrates ... If rising temperatures induce a massive decomposition (blowout) of calthrates, the result would be catastrophic beyond measure ...

Fascinating, and doing a little reading it seems the methane already being released currently dwarfs our greenhouse gas emissions a hundredfold. Might this mean the anti-global-warming nuts have one thing right, not that global warming isn't happening (because it obviously is), but that we aren't releasing enough on our own to make a difference?

There is a now famous picture, showing an image of a Himalayan ice pack taken circa 1910 alongside an image taken today; The ice has all but disappeared. If reduced snow accumulation and increased melting takes place, many borderline parts of the world will be tipped into being outright deserts due to reduced river flow. Guess what feeds the world's rivers?

Here's where that extra water vapor in the air from earlier comes in. Honestly, at the warmest point between the end of the Karoo Ice Age and the start of the Quaternary glaciation, were there any peaks with permanent ice pack? Besides, the portion that is 'permanent ice pack' doesn't actually add anything to the rivers, though it does help more snow to stick to the peak that does. I'm not convinced the loss of the permanent ice on the mountain peaks will have a devastating effect on the downstream rivers.

When the dinosaurs roamed the earth, the weather was hot and sticky and plants were pretty much everywhere. As they died off and geologic-scale processes entombed their carbon, temperatures dropped and we entered an ice age. Now we're putting all their carbon back into the air. I think the most likely result will be a return to that hot, sticky environment, and a loss of millions o

A key problem here is that you need carbon nanotubes and epoxies. Currently, that would have to come from Earth. I don't see it being feasible to bring enough for large structures though using current technology. According to this New Scientist article, you need 100 parts lunar regolith to 10 parts epoxy to 1 part carbon nanotubes (with a touch of aluminum powder). If I wanted to build a 1 meter high, 1 meter long, 20 centimeter thick wall, I think it'd take 400 kilograms of lunar regolith (assuming a density of 2 grams per cubic centimeter). That means 44 kilograms of other material. I understand some people guess that the cost of leaving something on the Moon (ie, getting it there intact and leaving it) is order of magnitude of $100,000 per kg. So you're talking around $4 million to put up that bit of wall. However, a partially buried inflatable structure covered with coarse regolith, could require less mass per unit surface area (the air pressure providing a lot of the structure's strength).

The brain is an adaptive system. Provide it with a stimulus, and it will reprogram itself. How do you think the monkey learned how to use the robotic arm? Did they hack into the neurons and input code to work a third arm?

No, the monkey's brain spontaneously created the neural network to control it. Sentient beings aren't computers, at least not in the conventional sense, because they reformat themselves to process new data (learning), and even to process new types of inputs. One might be able to build a computer advanced enough to handle this level of functionality, but once it is built, you won't be programming it with code. Instead, you'll be teaching it just like you do a child.

New Scientist reported Ballard was looking for the nuclear subs in a 1995 feature. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14719974.500-20-000-tasks-under-the-sea.html

Actually, they're currently working on using a LN-cooled superconductor link in NYC to link some substations in Manhattan. It would replace an oil-cooled copper link. They're expecting to have it running in 2010.

link

"However -- this doesn't mean that we should blithely accept the extinction of an important food crop. This is a warning. What if it were rice? Or sweet corn?"

I don't believe in scare tactics, but you are right on the money. Consider the case of Ug99, a very appropriate name and a very dangerous threat to the world wheat and barley crop.

If I was a politico in the wheat growing states and provinces, I might take a dim view of anyone growing ornamental barberry bushes. So far as I know, we don't have a defence against this dangerous wheat and barley blight.

Given the enormous amount of travel today, both people and plant diseases are incredibly easy to transmit. We'll have to get used to it.

Ummm, no, see:

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11652

God help you if you are a nervous, fat, hyperactive kid who has to use the bathroom.

What makes you so sure in this case? If someone enjoys watching pornography they'd probably enjoy actually participating far more, as experiments have shown that orgasms are far more pleasurable when actually having sex compared to masturbating, based on blood prolactin levels.

You mean like this?
Males of the species, which grows to about 11 centimetres, also produce long hair-like strands of skin and arteries when they breed.

Exactly. Also, half an hour to get 25 degrees of heat from 7 grams of material does not sound like a nuclear event to me, although I'm admittedly no expert (or even a layman).

It sounds a lot like this experiment with similar materials from around 2002, which was ridiculed.

I can't find anything on the net that says that. Provide references.

Here's one for Germany and one from South Africa. And to the other poster: Sure, it was in a war economy, but they only had to produce such huge amounts of fuel *because* they were at war. The amount they produced during that time would easily have met all their needs during peacetime with plenty left over for export; even with the monstrous consumption from planes and tanks, and the use of tech that had only been around for twenty years, they still produced half of their petroleum needs (92% of their aviation fuel needs) from Fischer-Tropsch, and only started running out when they lost air superiority and we bombed their plants to rubble. As for South Africa, they're not abnormally blessed with coal; world coal reserves are utterly monstrous (esp. in the US). They had a had a shortfall of about 40% of their oil needs, and made it up in just a couple years. And coal is hardly the only way you can make syngas. Burning virtually anything that has carbon and hydrogen in it with insufficient oxygen produces syngas. In the case of coal syngas, it has about 80% of the original energy of the coal. After Fischer-Tropsch, the resultant oil has about 60% of the energy of the original coal.

You act as if all of this is no big deal but the truth is that cost of fuel is skyrocketing and there's no light at the end of the tunnel. So, if it's not big deal then why is gas getting so expensive?

Once again, *read the freaking page* that I linked at the very beginning of this thread. It exists so I don't have to retype everything over and over and over again.

To me a solution to the problem isn't just replacing petroleum with some super expensive shit that nobody can afford

Since when is ~$30/barrel production cost "super expensive shit that nobody can afford"?

And the reason there are "doomers" as you call them, is that I was around during the 70's when OPEC showed us how they have us over a barrel.

If you'd *read the freaking page*, you'd have some interesting insights into that, such as how shale and bitumen cost almost $100/barrel back in the $70s, and now bitumen is $10-$30 a barrel and shale $20-40. You'd also familiarize yourself with the critical concept of lag between when decisions are made to increase capacity and when the capacity actually comes online. Or, you can just keep arguing against straw men. That's certainly your choice if you want to come across as refusing to debate the actual arguments the other person has made.

The government didn't do jack shit about it so we still have the same dependency now as we did 30 years ago.

Yeah, except for huge investments in technology and mileage improvements so dramatic that it took years for consumption to catch back up, absolutely nothing.

The government started doing "jack shit" when prices went back down. It's why we need a serious gas tax in this country, like they have in Europe -- to prevent low oil prices from being directly reflected in low gas taxes, so the incentive sticks around. The income could be used to directly offset payroll taxes so that you don't disproportionately hurt the poor -- only the wasteful.

Composed, used as fertilizer, and used as a base for other growing plants still leaves it in the ecosystem, basically. It's not airborn, yet, but might be depending on what happens afterwards.

That's the problem with petro, it was taken out of the atmosphere and ecosystem and buried a long tyme ago. Burning it reintroduces it to the ecosystem. Algae on the other hand is carbon neutral, while growing it takes CO2 out of the atmosphere then reintroduces it after it dies. Actually it can be pressurized to form charcoal blocks. I don't recall where it was but I recently read a science article that said dead plants, such as trees, might be able to be buried deep underground keeping carbon out of the atmosphere. Here's one from "New Scientist", "Burying biomass to fight climate change".

I'm really hoping that those medical face masks get popular again. That's a look that should really be cyclic like bell-bottoms and thongs.

You need full Respirator gear if you want to stop nano-tubes from getting in your lungs. Even then, with it being so small, your only chance of stop those tubes is if they are even long enough to get caught in the filter.

Thank GOD people have taken the initiative and developing nanotube filters.

"You should be rated Troll :)"

Because anyone who doesn't agree with you must be a troll by definition.

"Sure, some things comes over very long distances, but you completely bypass that the stuff those animals eat could be used in other things as well than feeding animals :)"

Such as?

"http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/nov/11/food.climatechange"

The last paragraph says:

"For a well-off professional with above average disposable income, no amount of vegetarian or vegan eating, recycling, organic local produce or packaging avoidance will make any shrinkage of our shadow. Flying time, petrol spend and energy bills will predominate."

"http://vegetarian.about.com/od/vegetarianvegan101/f/fossilfuels.htm"

There is a world outside the US which doesn't use 25% of global energy production for 3% of the planet's population.

"http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg19526134.500"

"The calculations, which are based on standard industrial methods of meat production in Japan..."

Japanese meat production is, and always has been extremely inefficient because they don't have much land that's suitable for natural animal grazing and fodder production.

"You also bypass completely the fact that vegans do not eat exotic foods only, yes they are part as some things are simply not grown locally even if the climate would suit."

1. Not mentioning something isn't "bypassing" it. I'm not writing a book, but refuting a brief post with another brief post.

2. They don't have to eat exotic foods to incur transport costs -- a truck with 20 tons of carrots in it uses the same amount of fuel as a truck with 20 tons of meat to cover the same distance. Anything not grown locally (and I don't mean in the same country, but within a few miles of where the consumer lives) incurs a significant transport overhead, irrespective of what it is.

"You also completely bypass that vegans are not the only ones who eat stuff which comes over long distances, like bananas, rice, quite often soy"

While you bypass the fact than non-vegans don't need to eat as much of them, so they incur less transport overhead.

"Furthermore, freighters quite often, or rarely are high-speed, more like tuned for fuel economy"

Balderdash:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/break-bulk-reefer.htm

"alcohol is good for what else than drinking and disinfectant? Yes, that's right, as a fuel. Atleast where i live was it 5% of all gas sold has to be alcohol, mixed into your normal DIN 95 octane or DIN 98 octane."

While you, who accuse me of bypassing things, neatly bypass the fact that producing bioethanol from corn has a slightly worse carbon footprint than fossil fuels:

http://www.newscientist.com/blog/environment/2007/01/complete-carbon-footprint-of-biofuel.html

"Which of these are more environmentally friendly:
- Meat produced locally
- Vegetary foods produced locally
- Regular vegan diet which combines local & foreign foods
"

It depends where you live. In my part of the world for example;

- Meat, dairy products, leather, wool, and poultry come from local free range animals that graze land which isn't well suited to other types of agriculture. They produce natural fertiliser that's collected and used by farmers and gardeners, thus reducing dependance on industrial fertilisers.

- Locally produced crops include (but aren't restricted to) rice, citrus fruits, some tropical fruits, tomatoes, melons of several types, lettuce, spinach, and artichokes. A balanced diet is not possible with local crops alone, none of which contains enough protein, and rice is the only one with a significant level of carbohydrate

I'm normally not a fan of wikipedia, but since this is so very basic stuff, I'm going to make an exception :

Carbon_dioxide_levels_and_photorespiration

I noticed your link says "light-independent reactions" increase with increased CO2 levels however it says nothing about light dependent reactions. And I haven't seen a reduction in light. It also says nothing about plants who slow slower with an enriched CO2 environment yet I previously included links to scientific articles that said some plants do show a slower growth rate.

Yes there are exceptions (that's only because plants have dropped the co2 content of the athmosphere so very much). One or two. Doesn't change a thing for food crops though, or for trees, or ...

Once again you didn't read the articles I provided a link to, the "New Scientist" article specifically says "A two-decade study of rainforest plots in Panama and Malaysia recently concluded that local temperature rises of more than 1C have reduced tree growth by 50 per cent (see Don't count on the trees)." Now this doesn't say an increase in CO2 slows growth it does say a raise in temperatures does, and Greenhouse Gases are called that because they raise temperatures. And if you look at the Google link you will see the search was for "co2 plants OR trees growth". Another article, from Harvard, goes over a science study that shows "Warming may not spark tree growth". Here's another Google, this one for co2 trees slowed growth food. As for food, what affects food crops like corn more than anything else is using the crops to feed cows and other animals as well as biofuels. In the US 90% of the corn grown is to feed livestock and not humans. Yet the amount of corn needed to raise 1 pound of meat can feed a bunch of people. And cows aren't corn eaters, they're ruminants and eat grass. Yahoo! has a webpage explaining why cattle are fed corn instead of grass.

You are being dishonest, sir.

Whereas I've provided plenty of links to scientific research and articles you haven't provided anything and I'm the one being dishonest? You're the dishonest one not me. You're dishonest and, like president Bush, ignore science. Unless you can have a rational conversation and provide evidence to back up your claims I see no reason to continue.

"Vegans have way smaller carbon footprint because they don't eat meat, nor any animal based foods."

Where food comes from has a far greater effect on its carbon footprint than the type of food. A vegan who eats fruit, nuts, and vegetables that are have to be transported over long distances will for example have a much higher carbon footprint than somebody who eats meat, eggs, etc, that are produced locally by animals that eat locally grown animal fodder.

"Animals consume way way way more food during their lifespan than what you get to eat"

Much of that food is however things we cannot eat, e.g. grass, hay (a by-product of wheat production), and various other things that they're equipped to handle, but we aren't. Some (e.g. pigs, chickens) are primarily fed on stuff that's not fit for human consumption, and would therefore be thrown away, to become food for colonies of bacteria that produce heat, methane, and CO2 without benefiting us in any way.

"What are they really good producing, constantly?"

The same stuff that the rotting plant matter would be producing if it wasn't consumed by animals whose stomachs contain bacteria which are similar to those that produce methane when breaking down dead plants outside the stomachs of animals. This is why swamps (which by their nature have few if any large grazing animals living in them) produce extremely large amounts of methane, and also the reason that pockets of it have always been a hazard in coal mines, as well as becoming a source of natural gas in the 20th century (clue: natural gas reserves were produced at a time when there were no animals more complex than insects on land).

"The point is, that it's eating meat whats the true biggest cause of global warming"

But shipping bananas over long distances in high-speed refrigerated ships is environmentally friendly because vegans eat them.

You should be rated Troll :)

Sure, some things comes over very long distances, but you completely bypass that the stuff those animals eat could be used in other things as well than feeding animals :)

Furthermore, it has been studied which is more environmentally friendly. Here's an article in Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/nov/11/food.climatechange

Nevermind the vast amount of fossil fuels used by animal agriculture, sure totally vegetarian uses some too, but not as much. See: http://vegetarian.about.com/od/vegetarianvegan101/f/fossilfuels.htm

New scientist article says:
"A kilogram of beef is responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions and other pollution than driving for 3 hours while leaving all the lights on back home." http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg19526134.500

You also bypass completely the fact that vegans do not eat exotic foods only, yes they are part as some things are simply not grown locally even if the climate would suit. You also completely bypass that vegans are not the only ones who eat stuff which comes over long distances, like bananas, rice, quite often soy. Furthermore, freighters quite often, or rarely are high-speed, more like tuned for fuel economy :) Have you ever seen a freighter go actually fast?

Furthermore, there's ongoing research to turn into alcohol all kinds of compostable stuff, a lot of the stuff which could have been fed to animals. And alcohol is good for what else than drinking and disinfectant? Yes, that's right, as a fuel. Atleast where i live was it 5% of all gas sold has to be alcohol, mixed into your normal DIN 95 octane or DIN 98 octane.

Which of these are more environmentally friendly:
- Meat produced locally
- Vegetary foods produced locally
- Regular vegan diet wh

more co2 = better working.

Better what?

The most important limitation in the plants' rate of photosynthesis is the LOW carbon content of the athmosphere

Did you read TFA about how high CO2 levels can retard some plants' growth? I included the link.

Making the athmosphere revert to, oh say 12% co2 (which is a few million times the current level) would be a good thing for plants.

Read the Sciencedaily article. And Google, which returned the Sciencedaily article, can provide more like it. If it's not acceptable maybe an article from "New Scientist", which Google also provided, is acceptable. If not maybe you're like Bush, anti-science.

Insightful? Maybe your fat-laden carves require dragging. Mine actually actively contribute to my locomotion. This is in stark contrast to the springs in the "cheetah" prosthetics which merely store and return energy that the runner has already expended. Even with these amazing devices the amputee runner is still at a disadvantage (to an athlete that is, you should probably save your pennies and go get your legs cut off ASAP). See here if you want more info http://technology.newscientist.com/channel/tech/mg19426055.200

His prosthetics are actually less efficient than human legs for running so they confer no advantage. If you want to know more try searching the New Scientist archive. They have a good article on this at http://technology.newscientist.com/channel/tech/mg19426055.200 although I think you need to subscribe to see it.

To quote from the article "Most prosthetic leg specialists say such concerns are ill-founded, for now at least. The prosthetic legs, which are made by the Icelandic company Ossur, act like springs which store energy as the foot is pushed into the ground, and then return much of it to the runner, just as tendons do in a natural ankle. However, unlike natural legs, the Ossur prosthetics lack the muscles to generate their own power, and so provide much less energy overall than natural legs, the experts say."