Slashdot Mirror

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.

Pity has long held high standing in our societies. Groups sacrifice useful things like bowls and blankets to bury others perhaps in tribute but very likely as a sharing of suffrage. Those girls owe us because they damage males(Darwinist Style).

• ScienceDaily
• Google News
• Lords of the Blog

As much as is sucks you should use a paper filter. There are a bunch of studies showing a strong cholesterol raising effect of French press coffee.

A quick summary of one is here.

I reckon you've got a few options:

1. point him towards your country's relevant legislation: UK (and in non-legalese) or US
2. explain why spam is so annoying because it's intrusive and it makes it harder to read wanted messages in your inbox
3. explain that spamming 1000 people may get him 1 extra sale, but it will piss off the other 999 to the extent that some of them will go out of their way to avoid trading with you

Ok, so you're dealing with a sales-focussed person here, the only one likely to carry any weight is going to be last one and even then, you may be onto a losing streak. Assuming this person controls your pay packet, you're either going to have to put up a token resistance and then keep your mouth shut; or perhaps if you have the option, consider whether you want to be working for someone like that...

Somebody mentioned Perdue, but you forgot about the other development there. Turn sunlight into electricity, use the electricity to smelt Aluminum. Mix the aluminum with gaollium, ship the aluminum mixture to where ever it's needed. When it gets there, drop it in a bucket of water, (available everywhere on Earth) and, bada-bing! you have H2 to burn. Now that's efficient! http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070518163146.htm

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

Dear Moraelin,

If you want to do science, you have to use numbers properly.

You can put some numbers into the Stefan-Boltzmann law (this guy does the same thing), and if the Sun's radiation was all that was keeping the Earth warm, the average temperature would be 278 degrees Kelvin, or 5 degrees Celsius. In fact, the average temperature of Earth is closer to 15 degrees Celsius.

Why the discrepancy? The atmosphere traps heat, allowing the sun's visible light to penetrate to the ground, but preventing much of the infrared light form escaping. This is referred to as the "greenhouse effect". This is roughly why almost all scientists agree that changes to the atmosphere (such as volcanic eruptions or human emissions of carbon dioxide and methane) can change the Earth's temperature.

Could the Sun be getting brighter, thus explaining global warming? Interestingly, in 28 years of monitoring from space-based observatories, the solar irradiance has only varied in amplitude by about 0.2% (that's 0.002). That represents changes in the brightness of the Sun caused by the 11 year solar cycle. There is no evidence that the solar irradiance has increased (e.g., Frohlich & Lean 2004, Astronomy & Astrophysics Review, 12, 273; sorry I can't easily find something freely available outside of a university library). By your estimate, we require about a 1.2% increase in the Sun's intensity to account for global warming. There is no evidence the Sun could be the main cause of global warming.

Incidentally, Jupiter is not getting warmer. A large storm is redistributing heat in the atmosphere, which is very different (I'd say the science media interpreted that one wrong). The Mars data is controversial, because it covers a short time span, and was measured with two different instruments. The measurements on Earth are more reliable.

Please spend some quiet time in the Chapel of Science, considering these facts.

--Endstar

This is an interesting idea. A recent paper has shown that by burning all of the fossil fuels that we can find (about 4000 Gt of carbon) we are going to delay, or skip lightly over, the onset of the next several ice ages. No more ice ages.

The facts: "On this first ATV mission, Jules Verne will deliver 4.6 tonnes of payload to the ISS, including 1 150 kg of dry cargo, 856 kg of propellant for the Russian Zvezda module, 270 kg of drinking water and 21 kg of oxygen. On future ATV missions, the payload capacity will be increased to 7.4 tonnes.

About half of the payload onboard Jules Verne ATV is re-boost propellant, which will be used by its own propulsion system for periodic manoeuvres to increase the altitude of the ISS in order to compensate its natural decay caused by atmospheric drag."

Also: On April 25, 2008, the European Space Agency announced that earlier in the day its first automated transfer vehicle (ATV), the "Jules Verne," increased the altitude of the International Space Station by about 2.8 miles (4.5 kilometers)--the first time an ESA craft had performed such an important task. The 12.3 minute maneuver was directed by ESA's ATV Control Center, which is located in Toulouse, France.

At 6:22 a.m. Central European Summer Time (CEST) (0422 GMT), controllers turned on two of the Jules Verne's four main engines. The two engines produced a thrust that increased the station's speed by about 8 feet per second (2.65 meters per second).

To achieve this re-boost in altitude, the ATV consumed 537 pounds (244 kilograms) of fuel. In all, the ATV carries about two metric tons (about 4,400 pounds) of propellant for re-boost activities.

After the burn was completed, the new altitude of the ISS became 212.5 miles (342 kilometers) above the Earth's surface.

The Space Station needs periodic boosts to raise its orbit because its orbit decays slowly over time due to a very small amount of atmospheric drag on the large structure as it orbits about the Earth.

In the past, the RSA Progress, the NASA Space Shuttle, or the ISS itself has performed such a maneuver. However, only RSA Progress and the ESA ATV are able to re-boost the space station to such a high level due to the amount of fuel onboard each vessel.

The Jules Verne ATV (ATV-001) will perform three additional re-boost maneuvers over the next few months: on June 12th, July 8th, and August 6th. Normally, the space station tries to keep at an orbital height of about 211 miles (340 kilometers) above the Earth's surface.

Later in August 2008, the Jules Verne, loaded with waste and unneeded materials from the space station, will be undocked from the ISS. The ATV has a capacity of carrying up to 6.3 metric tons (13,900 pounds) of unwanted material from the Station."

So what most people don't realize is that JV carries a LOT more (dense, low-volume) as mass as fuel for reboost than it does anything else in that cool pressurized comparment it has the astronauts go in. I understand that the JV maneuvers were held off to allow Shuttle attachment of KiBo at the lower and easy to reach altitude. But my point is that things are only going to get worse and will ultimately I think go beyond what JV is designed or funded to do to keep ISS up.

JV is an experiment in European autonomous docking technology, not an integrated reboost system. I have yet to see any plans for how many JVs will be flown in the long run - currently there are only 4 more in the pipeline thru 2015. The numbers above represent the data required to figure out just how many JVs will be required to keep ISS up for X number of years. I predict that when that calculation is finally run - and when NASA explains to ESA that there will be zero American funding to keep the JV production line running - that ESA will say, OK, we ain't payin no Euros to keep this junkheap up either, which side of Hawaii do you want us to splash the ISS in?

"...while the warming of Jupiter can be explained by increases in solar output, the warming of Earth can not.

From http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080512120523.htm

"Right now, we are in between major ice ages, in a period that has been called the Holocene," said Cahalan. "Over recent decades, however, we have moved into a human-dominated climate that some have termed the Anthropocene. The major change in Earth's climate is now really dominated by human activity, which has never happened before."

My question is what is the optimum temperature to sustain life on our planet? I've searched and can't find that answer and would appreciate any help. I'm not denying warming or trying to flame, I am serious about the question.

I hope you got a look at the Spitzer view of Andromeda. Check it out:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/051017070302.htm

Augmented Reality Goggles May Offer Mere Mortals X-Ray Vision

Currently, it is used for Eye of Judgement, a somewhat bizarre PS3 game.

It seems that evolutionary processes usually find these sorts of effects millions of years before we humans do. One recent example is the photonic beetle. If the avalanche effect is three times as efficient as the process that drives photosynthesis, it sure seems we ought to see it somewhere in nature. (Cue the intelligent design discussion...)

The article itself links to an article from a year ago:

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Spirit_Rover_on_Mars_finds_water_made_'silica-rich_soil'

It's taken a year for the paper to be published in Science, along with more evidence of other silica outcrops.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080522145222.htm

Original sources:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/320/5879/1063
http://www.mars.asu.edu/news/news-silica.html

I worked on one way back in 1998, it was used for scanning teeth.
not the one I work on but newer and smaller http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2007/0805-digitial_dentist.htm

The blurb has a lot of jargon but no reference as to what uses T-rays are likely to be put. T-rays applications They're likely to help with certain cancer scans within the body, but these are also the basis for new "scan 'em naked at fifty paces" airport security cameras. I'm not sure I'm too excited about advancement in this technology just at the moment. Yeah, yeah, scanners don't scan people, overzealous control-freak post-democratic regimes scan people. But you get my drift.

4> Along with that new infrastructure, you will have an entirely new level of security issues. I invite you to consider the explosive potential of a hydrogen tanker being used by "youths" as an improvised FAE.

"If Hydrogen-Fueled Aircraft Were Used, the Collapse of World Trade Center would Not Have Happened".

But I am in agreement that we should be building nuclear power plants

And create more problems?

I would try to find more ways to replace fossil fuels with electricity as well as finding more non-fossil alternatives.

In "A Solar Grand Plan" Sciam lays out how solar power can provide the US with 69% of it's energy needs by 2050. And the US has enough potential wind power to supply a lot of energy to the US as well. Other sources of energy are biofuels including hydrogen produced by algae, geothermal, and tidal power.

Except you don't. You pull it from the oceans. Both from upper & lower layers.

So the oceans aren't a carbon sink? According this article the oceans adsorb 25% carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted into the atmosphere. And because of all the CO2 the oceans are aborbing they are turning acidic.

But the oceans contain MUCH more carbon than the oil fields, and that *will* be brought up, because algae NEED co2 (like every single plant does)

And like every other plant algae takes CO2 from the atmosphere and give off oxygen.

and for plants more co2=better

While this is true for some plants, such as poison ivy "Climate Change Surprise: High Carbon Dioxide Levels Can Retard Plant Growth, Study Reveals".

So I do believe the poster was right. Nobody tell the green nuts, okay ?

Have you read what science says?

New studies show there is more genetic diversity between humans in Africa:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1288178
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050310103042.htm
http://www.science.psu.edu/alert/Tishkoff1-1999.htm

It might be easier to find a genius among very different subjects, than finding one in a group where everybody is similar.

Hawking is a genius

Water usage will have to be taken into account, but Ponds Found To Take Up Carbon Like World's Oceans.

I teach courses in literature, most frequently poetry, at a major Southern university.

This semester I've been trying to decide how to deal with students texting in class and with students who use laptops recreationally in class. I haven't come up with an ideal solution, but I'm leaning toward banning cellphones. The laptop thing is harder; many students use them to take notes and for reference, which is laudable. I think I might tell students using laptops to be prepared to e-mail me notes on demand at the end of class so that I'll know who's using a laptop to take notes and who's goofing off.

So that's background. I'm posting in response to some ideas from the student perspective that I see repeated here.

Several posters say that students are capable of multi-tasking. This is true, but research indicates that you're not capable of doing anything well nor of retaining it when you multi-task.

Several posters suggest that they should be allowed to be the judge of what's worthwhile. I'm all for agency, but if you decide to tune out, you might miss something that would interest you. Furthermore, some material isn't so exciting, and though a teacher should attempt to generate interest, some students expectations are unreasonably high when it comes to the entertainment value of literature. Maybe, too, it would be well to look on a lecture as a form of work.

A few people say they can pass without paying attention in lectures. That is probably true. I often find myself dumbing down my lectures, assignments, and exams so that students who have tuned out during class can pass. If I fail too many students, my enrollments go down, my evaluations suffer, and I may even lose my job, as I am on one-year contracts and get rehired based on student evaluations. If I do that, for fear of my job, the content of the course suffers.

Finally, a few people here say lectures are outdated and that content should be online. What about procrastination; would students just shrug off all this content until finals? What about dialog; will all exchange in your life take place via chat? What about seeing others modelling an interest in material only understood or valued by a minority? Do you want to give those faculty who are already distant from students one more excuse to tune you out completely?

I guess I'll conclude by saying that the small minority of students who text in class or play on their laptops in class are the worse students in my class. They waste a lot of my time asking me about things covered in class or begging for favors and special attention. And they tend to earn poor grades. I wouldn't want to be their boss and certainly not one of their fellow employees. Though as their boss, I could fire the lot of them, and that would be very gratifying.

Actually the bee problem is mostly identified with a virus.

"finding IAPV in a bee sample correctly distinguished CCD from non-CCD status 96.1 percent of the time."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070906140803.htm

Please also see:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/01/990119080707.htm

Actually, I'm wondering about a slightly different mutation. The full article (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080415101021.htm) mentions that the water reached temperatures of 55,000 degrees F at the time of the explosion. Would the surviving corals from such extreme temperatures gain an adaptation to higher water temperatures? I mention it because there was another related article about how areas where varying temperatures exist might create corals more resistant to bleaching: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071129183829.htm I'm just picturing the human race rapidly increasingly evolution of coral by raising the water temperatures to the extremes associated with atomic explosions. I'm no evolution expert but am curious if such a thing could occur?

"Organic" foods is by and large just a pseudo-scientific bunk phrase like "moisturizes your skin". That's not to say that I don't approve of some forms of agriculture over others. I'm seriously pondering getting my own chickens, for the fresh eggs and maybe even a few meat birds.

Do you have any scientific evidence to back up your claim? Here's some links to science articles on organic food:

• "Organic foods in relation to nutrition and health key facts"
• "Healthful Compounds In Tomatoes Increase Over Time In Organic Fields".
• Research At Great Lakes Meeting Shows More Vitamin C In Organic Oranges Than Conventional Oranges".
• "Organic Diet Makes Rats Healthier".
• "Organic Farming Has Little, If Any, Effect On Nutritional Content Of Wheat, Study Concludes"
• "Alternative Farming Cleans Up Water"
• "Compost Can Turn Agricultural Soils Into A Carbon Sink, Thus Protecting Against Climate Change"

At the same time, if we're going to feed a growing global population, we're not going to do it by "organic" means.

Some scientific studies on this conclude organic food can't feed the world while others say it can:

• "Organic Farming Can Feed The World, Study Suggests".
• "Organic Farms Produce Same Yields As Conventional Farms"
• "Organic Crops Impressively Productive When Compared With Conventionally Grown Crops".
• "Organic Farming Produces Smaller Crops, Healthier Soils, Swiss Researchers Report In Science".
• "Can sustainable agriculture really feed the world?"
• "Organic agriculture and the global food supply"

Maybe I missed it but I didn't see one key way to feed the world in any of the articles above, cutting out a lot of meat if not moving to a vegetarian diet. Raising animals to eat requires more land to grow the food to feed them than if people didn't eat meat.

Falcon

"Organic" foods is by and large just a pseudo-scientific bunk phrase like "moisturizes your skin". That's not to say that I don't approve of some forms of agriculture over others. I'm seriously pondering getting my own chickens, for the fresh eggs and maybe even a few meat birds.

Do you have any scientific evidence to back up your claim? Here's some links to science articles on organic food:

• "Organic foods in relation to nutrition and health key facts"
• "Healthful Compounds In Tomatoes Increase Over Time In Organic Fields".
• Research At Great Lakes Meeting Shows More Vitamin C In Organic Oranges Than Conventional Oranges".
• "Organic Diet Makes Rats Healthier".
• "Organic Farming Has Little, If Any, Effect On Nutritional Content Of Wheat, Study Concludes"
• "Alternative Farming Cleans Up Water"
• "Compost Can Turn Agricultural Soils Into A Carbon Sink, Thus Protecting Against Climate Change"

At the same time, if we're going to feed a growing global population, we're not going to do it by "organic" means.

Some scientific studies on this conclude organic food can't feed the world while others say it can:

• "Organic Farming Can Feed The World, Study Suggests".
• "Organic Farms Produce Same Yields As Conventional Farms"
• "Organic Crops Impressively Productive When Compared With Conventionally Grown Crops".
• "Organic Farming Produces Smaller Crops, Healthier Soils, Swiss Researchers Report In Science".
• "Can sustainable agriculture really feed the world?"
• "Organic agriculture and the global food supply"

Maybe I missed it but I didn't see one key way to feed the world in any of the articles above, cutting out a lot of meat if not moving to a vegetarian diet. Raising animals to eat requires more land to grow the food to feed them than if people didn't eat meat.

Falcon

"Organic" foods is by and large just a pseudo-scientific bunk phrase like "moisturizes your skin". That's not to say that I don't approve of some forms of agriculture over others. I'm seriously pondering getting my own chickens, for the fresh eggs and maybe even a few meat birds.

Do you have any scientific evidence to back up your claim? Here's some links to science articles on organic food:

• "Organic foods in relation to nutrition and health key facts"
• "Healthful Compounds In Tomatoes Increase Over Time In Organic Fields".
• Research At Great Lakes Meeting Shows More Vitamin C In Organic Oranges Than Conventional Oranges".
• "Organic Diet Makes Rats Healthier".
• "Organic Farming Has Little, If Any, Effect On Nutritional Content Of Wheat, Study Concludes"
• "Alternative Farming Cleans Up Water"
• "Compost Can Turn Agricultural Soils Into A Carbon Sink, Thus Protecting Against Climate Change"

At the same time, if we're going to feed a growing global population, we're not going to do it by "organic" means.

Some scientific studies on this conclude organic food can't feed the world while others say it can:

• "Organic Farming Can Feed The World, Study Suggests".
• "Organic Farms Produce Same Yields As Conventional Farms"
• "Organic Crops Impressively Productive When Compared With Conventionally Grown Crops".
• "Organic Farming Produces Smaller Crops, Healthier Soils, Swiss Researchers Report In Science".
• "Can sustainable agriculture really feed the world?"
• "Organic agriculture and the global food supply"

Maybe I missed it but I didn't see one key way to feed the world in any of the articles above, cutting out a lot of meat if not moving to a vegetarian diet. Raising animals to eat requires more land to grow the food to feed them than if people didn't eat meat.

Falcon

"Organic" foods is by and large just a pseudo-scientific bunk phrase like "moisturizes your skin". That's not to say that I don't approve of some forms of agriculture over others. I'm seriously pondering getting my own chickens, for the fresh eggs and maybe even a few meat birds.

Do you have any scientific evidence to back up your claim? Here's some links to science articles on organic food:

• "Organic foods in relation to nutrition and health key facts"
• "Healthful Compounds In Tomatoes Increase Over Time In Organic Fields".
• Research At Great Lakes Meeting Shows More Vitamin C In Organic Oranges Than Conventional Oranges".
• "Organic Diet Makes Rats Healthier".
• "Organic Farming Has Little, If Any, Effect On Nutritional Content Of Wheat, Study Concludes"
• "Alternative Farming Cleans Up Water"
• "Compost Can Turn Agricultural Soils Into A Carbon Sink, Thus Protecting Against Climate Change"

At the same time, if we're going to feed a growing global population, we're not going to do it by "organic" means.

Some scientific studies on this conclude organic food can't feed the world while others say it can:

• "Organic Farming Can Feed The World, Study Suggests".
• "Organic Farms Produce Same Yields As Conventional Farms"
• "Organic Crops Impressively Productive When Compared With Conventionally Grown Crops".
• "Organic Farming Produces Smaller Crops, Healthier Soils, Swiss Researchers Report In Science".
• "Can sustainable agriculture really feed the world?"
• "Organic agriculture and the global food supply"

Maybe I missed it but I didn't see one key way to feed the world in any of the articles above, cutting out a lot of meat if not moving to a vegetarian diet. Raising animals to eat requires more land to grow the food to feed them than if people didn't eat meat.

Falcon

"Organic" foods is by and large just a pseudo-scientific bunk phrase like "moisturizes your skin". That's not to say that I don't approve of some forms of agriculture over others. I'm seriously pondering getting my own chickens, for the fresh eggs and maybe even a few meat birds.

Do you have any scientific evidence to back up your claim? Here's some links to science articles on organic food:

• "Organic foods in relation to nutrition and health key facts"
• "Healthful Compounds In Tomatoes Increase Over Time In Organic Fields".
• Research At Great Lakes Meeting Shows More Vitamin C In Organic Oranges Than Conventional Oranges".
• "Organic Diet Makes Rats Healthier".
• "Organic Farming Has Little, If Any, Effect On Nutritional Content Of Wheat, Study Concludes"
• "Alternative Farming Cleans Up Water"
• "Compost Can Turn Agricultural Soils Into A Carbon Sink, Thus Protecting Against Climate Change"

At the same time, if we're going to feed a growing global population, we're not going to do it by "organic" means.

Some scientific studies on this conclude organic food can't feed the world while others say it can:

• "Organic Farming Can Feed The World, Study Suggests".
• "Organic Farms Produce Same Yields As Conventional Farms"
• "Organic Crops Impressively Productive When Compared With Conventionally Grown Crops".
• "Organic Farming Produces Smaller Crops, Healthier Soils, Swiss Researchers Report In Science".
• "Can sustainable agriculture really feed the world?"
• "Organic agriculture and the global food supply"

Maybe I missed it but I didn't see one key way to feed the world in any of the articles above, cutting out a lot of meat if not moving to a vegetarian diet. Raising animals to eat requires more land to grow the food to feed them than if people didn't eat meat.

Falcon

"Organic" foods is by and large just a pseudo-scientific bunk phrase like "moisturizes your skin". That's not to say that I don't approve of some forms of agriculture over others. I'm seriously pondering getting my own chickens, for the fresh eggs and maybe even a few meat birds.

Do you have any scientific evidence to back up your claim? Here's some links to science articles on organic food:

• "Organic foods in relation to nutrition and health key facts"
• "Healthful Compounds In Tomatoes Increase Over Time In Organic Fields".
• Research At Great Lakes Meeting Shows More Vitamin C In Organic Oranges Than Conventional Oranges".
• "Organic Diet Makes Rats Healthier".
• "Organic Farming Has Little, If Any, Effect On Nutritional Content Of Wheat, Study Concludes"
• "Alternative Farming Cleans Up Water"
• "Compost Can Turn Agricultural Soils Into A Carbon Sink, Thus Protecting Against Climate Change"

At the same time, if we're going to feed a growing global population, we're not going to do it by "organic" means.

Some scientific studies on this conclude organic food can't feed the world while others say it can:

• "Organic Farming Can Feed The World, Study Suggests".
• "Organic Farms Produce Same Yields As Conventional Farms"
• "Organic Crops Impressively Productive When Compared With Conventionally Grown Crops".
• "Organic Farming Produces Smaller Crops, Healthier Soils, Swiss Researchers Report In Science".
• "Can sustainable agriculture really feed the world?"
• "Organic agriculture and the global food supply"

Maybe I missed it but I didn't see one key way to feed the world in any of the articles above, cutting out a lot of meat if not moving to a vegetarian diet. Raising animals to eat requires more land to grow the food to feed them than if people didn't eat meat.

Falcon

"Organic" foods is by and large just a pseudo-scientific bunk phrase like "moisturizes your skin". That's not to say that I don't approve of some forms of agriculture over others. I'm seriously pondering getting my own chickens, for the fresh eggs and maybe even a few meat birds.

Do you have any scientific evidence to back up your claim? Here's some links to science articles on organic food:

• "Organic foods in relation to nutrition and health key facts"
• "Healthful Compounds In Tomatoes Increase Over Time In Organic Fields".
• Research At Great Lakes Meeting Shows More Vitamin C In Organic Oranges Than Conventional Oranges".
• "Organic Diet Makes Rats Healthier".
• "Organic Farming Has Little, If Any, Effect On Nutritional Content Of Wheat, Study Concludes"
• "Alternative Farming Cleans Up Water"
• "Compost Can Turn Agricultural Soils Into A Carbon Sink, Thus Protecting Against Climate Change"

At the same time, if we're going to feed a growing global population, we're not going to do it by "organic" means.

Some scientific studies on this conclude organic food can't feed the world while others say it can:

• "Organic Farming Can Feed The World, Study Suggests".
• "Organic Farms Produce Same Yields As Conventional Farms"
• "Organic Crops Impressively Productive When Compared With Conventionally Grown Crops".
• "Organic Farming Produces Smaller Crops, Healthier Soils, Swiss Researchers Report In Science".
• "Can sustainable agriculture really feed the world?"
• "Organic agriculture and the global food supply"

Maybe I missed it but I didn't see one key way to feed the world in any of the articles above, cutting out a lot of meat if not moving to a vegetarian diet. Raising animals to eat requires more land to grow the food to feed them than if people didn't eat meat.

Falcon

"Organic" foods is by and large just a pseudo-scientific bunk phrase like "moisturizes your skin". That's not to say that I don't approve of some forms of agriculture over others. I'm seriously pondering getting my own chickens, for the fresh eggs and maybe even a few meat birds.

Do you have any scientific evidence to back up your claim? Here's some links to science articles on organic food:

• "Organic foods in relation to nutrition and health key facts"
• "Healthful Compounds In Tomatoes Increase Over Time In Organic Fields".
• Research At Great Lakes Meeting Shows More Vitamin C In Organic Oranges Than Conventional Oranges".
• "Organic Diet Makes Rats Healthier".
• "Organic Farming Has Little, If Any, Effect On Nutritional Content Of Wheat, Study Concludes"
• "Alternative Farming Cleans Up Water"
• "Compost Can Turn Agricultural Soils Into A Carbon Sink, Thus Protecting Against Climate Change"

At the same time, if we're going to feed a growing global population, we're not going to do it by "organic" means.

Some scientific studies on this conclude organic food can't feed the world while others say it can:

• "Organic Farming Can Feed The World, Study Suggests".
• "Organic Farms Produce Same Yields As Conventional Farms"
• "Organic Crops Impressively Productive When Compared With Conventionally Grown Crops".
• "Organic Farming Produces Smaller Crops, Healthier Soils, Swiss Researchers Report In Science".
• "Can sustainable agriculture really feed the world?"
• "Organic agriculture and the global food supply"

Maybe I missed it but I didn't see one key way to feed the world in any of the articles above, cutting out a lot of meat if not moving to a vegetarian diet. Raising animals to eat requires more land to grow the food to feed them than if people didn't eat meat.

Falcon

"Organic" foods is by and large just a pseudo-scientific bunk phrase like "moisturizes your skin". That's not to say that I don't approve of some forms of agriculture over others. I'm seriously pondering getting my own chickens, for the fresh eggs and maybe even a few meat birds.

Do you have any scientific evidence to back up your claim? Here's some links to science articles on organic food:

• "Organic foods in relation to nutrition and health key facts"
• "Healthful Compounds In Tomatoes Increase Over Time In Organic Fields".
• Research At Great Lakes Meeting Shows More Vitamin C In Organic Oranges Than Conventional Oranges".
• "Organic Diet Makes Rats Healthier".
• "Organic Farming Has Little, If Any, Effect On Nutritional Content Of Wheat, Study Concludes"
• "Alternative Farming Cleans Up Water"
• "Compost Can Turn Agricultural Soils Into A Carbon Sink, Thus Protecting Against Climate Change"

At the same time, if we're going to feed a growing global population, we're not going to do it by "organic" means.

Some scientific studies on this conclude organic food can't feed the world while others say it can:

• "Organic Farming Can Feed The World, Study Suggests".
• "Organic Farms Produce Same Yields As Conventional Farms"
• "Organic Crops Impressively Productive When Compared With Conventionally Grown Crops".
• "Organic Farming Produces Smaller Crops, Healthier Soils, Swiss Researchers Report In Science".
• "Can sustainable agriculture really feed the world?"
• "Organic agriculture and the global food supply"

Maybe I missed it but I didn't see one key way to feed the world in any of the articles above, cutting out a lot of meat if not moving to a vegetarian diet. Raising animals to eat requires more land to grow the food to feed them than if people didn't eat meat.

Falcon

"Organic" foods is by and large just a pseudo-scientific bunk phrase like "moisturizes your skin". That's not to say that I don't approve of some forms of agriculture over others. I'm seriously pondering getting my own chickens, for the fresh eggs and maybe even a few meat birds.

Do you have any scientific evidence to back up your claim? Here's some links to science articles on organic food:

• "Organic foods in relation to nutrition and health key facts"
• "Healthful Compounds In Tomatoes Increase Over Time In Organic Fields".
• Research At Great Lakes Meeting Shows More Vitamin C In Organic Oranges Than Conventional Oranges".
• "Organic Diet Makes Rats Healthier".
• "Organic Farming Has Little, If Any, Effect On Nutritional Content Of Wheat, Study Concludes"
• "Alternative Farming Cleans Up Water"
• "Compost Can Turn Agricultural Soils Into A Carbon Sink, Thus Protecting Against Climate Change"

At the same time, if we're going to feed a growing global population, we're not going to do it by "organic" means.

Some scientific studies on this conclude organic food can't feed the world while others say it can:

• "Organic Farming Can Feed The World, Study Suggests".
• "Organic Farms Produce Same Yields As Conventional Farms"
• "Organic Crops Impressively Productive When Compared With Conventionally Grown Crops".
• "Organic Farming Produces Smaller Crops, Healthier Soils, Swiss Researchers Report In Science".
• "Can sustainable agriculture really feed the world?"
• "Organic agriculture and the global food supply"

Maybe I missed it but I didn't see one key way to feed the world in any of the articles above, cutting out a lot of meat if not moving to a vegetarian diet. Raising animals to eat requires more land to grow the food to feed them than if people didn't eat meat.

Falcon

I believe that hypothesis has been shown (at least in some part) empirically.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080129125354.htm

_going out on a limb_
It may be the case that feeling like you have free will is an adaptive behavior, and won out over the alternative.

There was very recent research that was quite extensive that showed this cost of complexity in evolution is a myth. I don't know why you think it has to come at a cost, it just so happens that alligators needed it to live in their conditions and with their temperaments.

You can sit here all day and question why we don't have some of the obvious advantage traits that any other animal has and the answer is simple: we didn't require it. If humans needed it and didn't have it, we wouldn't be around.

Explain your logic on why this must come at a price? The random evolution happened in alligators and may be present in other animals (or extinct relatives).

For sure they should turn the damn thing on, but I'd be more worried for the people working near the LHC than anything else. I bet there will be some very interesting accidents due to, for example, the GIANT magnets they have to direct the particles around the collider. If those things aren't well shielded...

Yes, I am claiming I am not a creationist.

when you get to the meat of the differences between creation and evolution, they are so small and in the unprovable parts of each that it is more or less a pissing match between what indicators tend to lend credence to each

The point of it is that life has always been the same life

Is this the bubble theory you are referring to? It says nothing about fully formed animals magically popping out of nowhere. In fact, it deals with how the first cells came to be.

The so called transition fossils we see are more or less early versions of existing animals respectively and not extinct cousins of a different or parent species.

Don't take any pictures.

No, there's methane on Mars that isn't necessarily organic in origin.

My understanding is that the USDA has a plan to combat this fungus. This involves planting highly resistant wheat in the south during the winter while the northern regions get too cold for the fungus to survive. With no place to take hold in the south and a death zone in the north, the fungus should go away. (source)

Thank you, Malthus, but in the 210 years since you first made that prediction, it hasn't come true.

Yet.

You do realize (and perhaps this is rhetorical since you don't seem to) that "210 years" is, let's see ...

A quick search for "age of humans" comes up to about 1.5 million years.

So a tiny fraction of the denominator.

So give Malthus a break, it's hard to be that accurate when you're working with big numbers. Unfortunately, I think he will be correct sooner or later. "Sooner or later" being fairly small numbers in this case (less than 1000).

While most of what you say is correct, 'rhythm' incorrectly describes current methods of practice. Rhythm is only about 93% (thats 70 pregnancies per year per 1000 women) effective due primarily to the fact that ovulation can be delayed through sickness or the fact that some women naturally have longer cycles than the standard 28 days.

Modern methods are called Natural Family Planning, and require scientific observations and recording to accurately determine when a woman is actually fertile. There are three different styles of NFP called temperature only (4 days of elevated temps indicate post ovulation infertility), mucus only (Billings or Creighton, 4 days of lack of mucus after the fertile time), and the Symptothermal method (STM) (combines the other two, most commonly 3 days of both mucus and temperature indication of infertility). A German study into the effectiveness of the STM found it to be 99.6% effective when used correctly, that is 4 accidental pregnancies per 1000 women in one year. The actual effectiveness in the real world is 98.2%. Depending on what sources you use, hormonal contraceptives tend to be about 93% effective in real world use, with a perfect use rate similar to the STM.

Disclaimer: My wife and I use and teach STM NFP, but receive no financial benefit from it other than not having to pay for artificial methods.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/09/050922014720.htm

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,257921,00.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daylight_saving_time

1 & 2. Okay, sure. Quantifying the "certain percentage" that survived the plague due to having a specific allele would be very difficult. Except that, as stated in the article I sited,

"The smallpox virus also has more biological similarities to HIV-1 than does bubonic plague, the authors point out. Plague is a bacterial disease, and there is no evidence that the bacterium, Yersinia pestis, uses the CCR5 receptor in infection. The bacteria actually reproduce outside immune cells.

CCR5 is a coreceptor on our cell's surface that facilitates entry to our cells. This is obviously important to HIV, since HIV reproduces within our cells - deny it entry, it's in trouble. Smallpox also has this weakness. Bubonic plague, in comparison, is not linked to CCR5. Do you have a reference that refutes this?

3. Whaaa? Facilitate certain factors?

Proliferation of the delta 32 marker (by which I presume you mean the CCR5 delta 32 allele) is the same as saying evolution occurred. As far as I can tell, you're hypothesizing that differential survival by people with the marker resulted in the increased gene frequency. There's another scientific term for this: natural selection. Let's look at the sciencedaily article I linked above:

"Our population genetic model finds that genetic selection from plague wouldn't have been sufficient to drive the frequency of this genetic mutation to its current level," said Alison P. Galvani, a Miller Postdoctoral Fellow at UC Berkeley. "It was sufficient for smallpox."

Bubonic plague hasn't been a major source of death in Europe or elsewhere for the last 250 years, while smallpox was only eradicated in 1978, at the same time AIDS (acquired immune deficiency syndrome) appeared. The survival advantage this genetic mutation provided against smallpox has thus been transferred to AIDS, the authors noted.

Following a 1998 paper that linked the gene deletion with bubonic plague, "bubonic plague had been cited as a classical example of a historical selection pressure acting on a clinically important locus," she said. That classic example now changes, with smallpox replacing the plague. "

To sum up, the claim that bubonic plague has had an effect on CCR5 delta 32 frequency has been a popular story that's been bandied about for years; but there is no evidence for this, and smallpox is a more more plausible explanation. Cheers, Paltin