Slashdot Mirror

I learned new concepts today regarding the Global Warming.

• An anoxic event, which is related to the sea temperature, could potentially lead to increased hydrogen sulfide emissions, which can poison the atmosphere.
• Vast areas of Earth can be rendered uninhabitable because of the "sudden" rise in the wet-bulb temperature. No time to adapt.
• Evapotranspiration may already be severely disrupted. The consequence may be a feedback loop to a drying Earth.
• Clathrate gun hypotesis - the rising temperatures lead to a feedback loop of ever increasing methane

It's worrisome that currently everything is pointing to an increased possibility of aforementioned things happening. All of this while the humanity itself is releasing as much CO2 into the atmosphere per year as an extinction level super volcano.

I'm not sure what to think of this. I feel like we already all past the point of no return. The forced reduction of the human activity because of the change in the external conditions can be considered as a natural negative feedback cycle.

I don't know about other recreational drugs, but I've heard about people using Ritalin to help improve their focus.

Oh, you're giving up on volcanoes and now it's forest fires that put out far more CO2 than humans.

I did a little Googling and found this story from 2007. It says forest fires release about 0.29 gigatonnes a year in the US and Alaska, equivalent to 4-6% of the nations output from burning fossil fuels. A significant amount but still far below the emissions from fossil fuels.

The fire suppression we've practiced for the last 100+ years leads to fuel buildup which can produce bigger fires when they happen.

What I'd really like to see is some good scientific research put in to this sort of thing, stripping away the associated mysticism and getting right to the core of it. Based on the rather limited article, it appears this might not be too difficult as he may already be keeping the mysticism to a minimum.

That's probably what these neuroscientists were likely doing. There has been a bunch of psychology research into the benefits of mindfulness meditation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindfulness_(psychology)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110121144007.htm
http://nccam.nih.gov/research/results/spotlight/012311.htm

The last I heard, this particular universal vaccine does not work very well when injected. The key is to introduce the antigen(s) below the tongue:

"Sublingual vaccination with M2 induced immune responses in the lungs of mice whereas the same vaccine administered by injection failed to do so."

The normal flu vaccines are also available as a nasal aerosol.

Setting aside any other issues:
What is the essential moral difference between killing someone outright and giving them a minute chance of living? Is any amount of wasteful expenditure justifiable? It is doubtful that any artificial gestational environment would be perfect, or that the transition would be without trauma. How are you on the possibility of condemning a person to a wide spectrum of disorders?

Here's another. Though not an independent study, it did evaluate actual success rates according to the courts' own records and found only a 44% success rate. And that was the average. For one minority, the true-positive rate was clear down at 27%. (Can you say "cues from handlers"? Sure. I knew you could.)

Also, they are probably not the best things we have. And even if they were, that "best" is pretty obviously not good enough.

You can't just argue that it's "the best". It has to be good enough. Not only that, but the huge potential for intentional cuing of the animals is seldom considered.

"That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved." -- Benjamin Franklin, letter to Benjamin Vaughan, March 14, 1785.

This is a confusing press release. From what I can gather, this bacterium, which has already been discovered decades ago and its genome fully sequenced, was found 3 years ago to reduce toxic gold compounds into metallic gold. The MSU team fed higher concentration gold solution and this created spherical metallic gold "nuggets" around 30 microns up to 1.2 mm in size. The art exhibition which is pretty distracting from the original scientific research, of which it appears there was some, plays on the themes of alchemy and illuminated manuscripts.

Unfortunately the explanation of the cool scientific part is completely overshadowed and twisted by the art exhibition! That is really annoying. Art exhibitions made by or in collaboration with scientists are often interesting but this announcement of research and an art exhibition at the same time means that factually incorrect words are helplessly mixed in with fact, making everything cloudy. It may seem romantic but it really is a bad idea to do that. In fact the only place alchemy really happens that we know of is in a nuclear reaction, which this is not.

ScienceDaily (Oct. 9, 2009) — Australian scientists have found that the bacterium Cupriavidus metallidurans catalyses the biomineralisation of gold by transforming toxic gold compounds to their metallic form using active cellular mechanism.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091007103034.htm

The bacterium Cupriavidus metallidurans strain CH34, originally isolated by us in 1976 from a metal processing factory, is considered a major model organism in this field because it withstands milli-molar range concentrations of over 20 different heavy metal ions. This tolerance is mostly achieved by rapid ion efflux but also by metal-complexation and -reduction.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi/10.1371/journal.pone.0010433

or perhaps we just need to fire the current squadron of editors?

original article Here (NB from 2009) in which Australian scientists discover the gold-nugget-forming action of this bacteria.

I prefer the Science Daily version. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120920202045.htm Less sensational.

It's also why the "no GMO" and "organic" people are part of the problem.

GMOs often have lower yields, and organic yields are comparable to conventional -- and are more sustainable, since they're not petrochemical dependent.

I respectfully suggest you stop drinking Monsanto-brand Kool Aid and seek to become more informed about this issue.

According to all known studies on happiness, there are only 2 things that affect happiness overall - everything else people adapt to after a while and get back to their normal levels of happiness.

1. Get a pet dog - people are always happier with this on average and the buzz doesn't wear off. 2. Have a long commute - people are always unhappy with this on average and they never get used to it.

That's ridiculous. Studies have found that lots of things bring long term happiness including Money, Marriage, Social ties among many others.

Here's a simple citation easily google'd

This is for the /. mods who love to just mark me troll
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/01/000127082228.htm

There is no growth in petroleum reserves, only growth in known petroleum reserves, which necessarily means shrinkage of undiscovered reserves. We've already used close to half of all the oil we can reasonably expect to exist in the world, and as you point out usage is still growing. Price manipulation may have drawn out the peak into a plateau, but we're going to hit a precipice eventually, sooner than you think.

Organic food has plenty of pesticides too. Most of them are worse than the synthetic ones.

So far, you have a good point...

Pesticide free...? Nature has its own pesticides. Many plants, especially fruit trees, produce their own pesticides when attacked by insects.

Yes, this also has been well-studied and documented.

These pesticides are *inside* the fruit and can be very toxic.

Holy {citation needed}, batman! There's nothing indicating that the natural pesticides (lectins etc) in commonly eaten fruits exhibit significant oral toxicity to humans in the concentrations encountered in these fruits. It would be unlikely too, given that we evolved for millions of years to effectively deal with these compounds.

Organic food has plenty of pesticides too. Most of them are worse than the synthetic ones.

Pesticide free...? Nature has its own pesticides. Many plants, especially fruit trees, produce their own pesticides when attacked by insects. These pesticides are *inside* the fruit and can be very toxic. You can prevent their formation (ie. make the fruit less toxic) by applying artificial pesticides when the insects appear.

I understand but these problems are intractable, you can't actually control how other people read your message on the internet. I was a bit snide in my OP but being instantly downvoted to zero and then all the hyena's show up (moronic gamers) who start digging in just I'm not immune from being human as well. No doubt I should have probably worded my OP better, and by "d-pad" I had a custom tailored mouse design in mind, because you actually have to play around with and refine the design through testing and manipulating things like mouse shape, button size, button layouts, etc.

But mostly people rejected my OP because it didn't hit the right tone and MOST people on slashdot are not nerds or hardcore gamers.

Science says people with unusual thinking styles are usually rejected, that also means I've also had a hard life because I have a truth based nature but I am also habitually not tactful and much of our behavior is not in our direct control. i.e. I can think I am being 'not really rude, perhaps a little edgy' and someone else will perceive 'omg total assholes' and downvote. Most people are emotionally driven and hence often times no matter how you frame a message if it goes against 'common wisdom' even the most well written post will get dowmodded if everyone thinks the 'idea is dumb' because of group think 'we know better'.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110903142411.htm

Often times you have to do a lot of work refinement and be anal rententive and obsessive to finish your work and then actually demonstrate that it works but given the nature of the internet and the fact that my post was casual. It wouldn't have mattered even if I had framed it super nicely because most of the responses thus far are 'yuck yuck, ur idear is stupid'.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110903142411.htm

Nope sorry, I've put in the hours, the commenters here have not.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110903142411.htm

F.lux is great, works on Windows, Mac and (jailbroken) iOS. One of the downsides of iOS devices as e-readers is that you have to jailbreak to get f.lux installed and not change your sleep cycle.

There's also XFlux, but I use Redshift too on Linux - http://www.ubuntu-inside.me/2009/03/flux-better-lighting-for-your-computer.html

[[http://stereopsis.com/flux/ios.html Now on iOS]] for jailbroken devices - see [[iPhone]] for jailbreaking.

Discussion: http://forum.koohii.com/viewtopic.php?id=5347&p=1

Blue light in morning resets circadian cycle: http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2006/0201-waking_up_teens.htm

Tie-in to SAD and phase advance or delay associated with depression: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060501113832.htm

F.lux is great, works on Windows, Mac and (jailbroken) iOS. One of the downsides of iOS devices as e-readers is that you have to jailbreak to get f.lux installed and not change your sleep cycle.

There's also XFlux, but I use Redshift too on Linux - http://www.ubuntu-inside.me/2009/03/flux-better-lighting-for-your-computer.html

[[http://stereopsis.com/flux/ios.html Now on iOS]] for jailbroken devices - see [[iPhone]] for jailbreaking.

Discussion: http://forum.koohii.com/viewtopic.php?id=5347&p=1

Blue light in morning resets circadian cycle: http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2006/0201-waking_up_teens.htm

Tie-in to SAD and phase advance or delay associated with depression: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060501113832.htm

One of the best current contenders for the reason homosexuality persists is kin selection.

However, the only problem with feeding cattle a diet that is majority corn is the lack of fiber in the diet, not a problem with digesting the corn. Antibiotics do not have any impact on that.

is patently false. Only patently isn't a strong enough word. Ludicrous and laughable are more close to the truth (sorry if that comes off as rude, but it's true).

What you wrote is sort of correct. Antibiotics do help transition from roughage to a grain based diet and back. However, that is not their primary use in modern factory farming.

In the past, it was common to raise cattle in pasture and grain finish them for a few weeks prior to slaughter. This causes them to fatten up a little before sale. In the present, however, aggressive, grain-heavy diets are now the norm for most of the beef produced in North America. Corn is now much cheaper than it was 30+ years ago, so it can constitute upwards of 80-90% of the feed in finishing yards where in the past it was less than 50%.

A corn-based diet causes cattle's rumen to become more acidic, leading to more acid in the blood. Which isn't a significant problem for short periods of time. But now it is common for cattle to be fed for months on a majority corn diet. When cattle eat a corn-based diet for long periods of time, the increased acidity leads them to develop a condition called acidosis, which leads to significant health problems: liver abscesses, laminitis, and polioencephalomalacia all being common. Increased buildup of starch in the animals' intestines provides a home for many dangerous bacteria to grow, making sudden death syndrom and e coli significantly more prevalent. The solution to this? Pump them full of antibiotics and most of the animals make it to slaughter, even if they are ill.

Beyond that, having large numbers of cattle in industrial feedlots for long periods of time creates massively unsanitary conditions. Industrial feedlots can contain tens of thousands of animals at a time, all in very close quarters with poor sanitation. This increases the risk of common infectious diseases. The solution? Pump them full of antibiotics and most of the animals make it to slaughter, even if they are ill.

Some suggested reading for you:
Overview of common problems with high-grain diet in cattle
Acidosis in cattle.(PDF)
Prevention of liver abscesses by means of antibiotics Sorry, couldn't find a free version of the paper, so the summary will have to do.

Enforcement is the problem. When texting is banned, people put the phones down in their lap to text so that the cops can't see the phones up on top of the steering wheel while they're texting and watching the road.

One study disagrees: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120429085411.htm Phone up or down made no difference, at least with this sample of teenagers.

Glad that's out of the way; though toxoplasmosis and schizophrenia don't seem too appealing either.

I may be blind to the more profound, esoteric aspects of the cat, but I do marvel at what high prices some will pay for a haughty ball of animated fur.
My suggestions to curb this perilous market are as follows, but first and foremost, it could become unlawful to possess an unshaven cat. This would discourage the majority of prospective cat ownership, as no healthy person wants a five pound worm with claws and fangs.

Exchanges, or replacement-cats would be comprised of internal motors, synthetic fur shells with a stuffable, washable center into which they could be figuratively "fed", and an exit module by which they could also be un-fed.
Some form of appropriately colored reusable putty would be included in the exchange. This putty would serve two purposes:
1.) To supplement food, thus saving money and resources and one's nose.
2.) To be placed into a litter-box for a genuine looking effect.
For the lower-maintenance, upgrade model, a wireless link would be installed. Through a very cute web interface, owners could enter credit-card numbers and refill codes to control the figurative health of the cat. It would bloat or compress upon signals received in accordance with funds transferred or not transferred. The cat would in extreme situations of over or underfunding, either gently explode or implode, but show only trivial, charming contractions under normal circumstances. There would of course, be settings, such as adjustable mewing, retractable thorns to cut one's self on or destroy furniture with, etc.

Those are my suggestions.

The August 28, 2011 Science Daily had an article about females being able to reject sperm from undesireable cocks: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110828210552.htm

Go ahead and check for yourself.

If I am making a choice between varicose veins and blood clots I am choosing to live with ugly veins.

Turn them into a fuel source! No really its not a punch line. My apologies to PETA, but can you think of a better option?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090722110903.htm

No congratulations earned; solid state was still taking over from tubes when I was a kid, so my layman's understanding was okay.

Thanks for the link. Leads to other things. Looks like solid state THz may have started in 2007.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terahertz_radiation
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071126121732.htm

He's come out with some pretty apocalyptic predictions, such as his 1988 chart showing 3 different scenarios, all of which are looking to be way off the mark.

You're kidding, right. Hansen's 1988 projection for the CO2 release scenario that best matches what actually happened is way off (indeed, it is almost surely within the range of error of the temperature data, particularly after properly adjusting for unpredictable short-term effects such as volcanic eruptions. So if his projection is "apocalyptic," I guess reality is as well.

Professor Peter Wadhams of Cambridge University predicted an ice free arctic by 2015.

Funny how a speculation of one scientist somehow mutates into an absolute prediction. Here's what Wadham was actually saying in 2007: "It might not be as early as 2013 but it will be soon, much earlier than 2040." So a rough estimate of no ice at the height of summer, sometime between 2013 and 2040, and probably toward the low end (estimates of other climate scientists range as high as 2100), probably toward the low end, somehow becomes an absolute assertion that there will be no ice at all in 2015. And how is that apocalyptic? Arctic ice is floating, so it's not as if it will contribute to rising sea level. It will certainly be convenient for navigation. It is important mostly because it is yet another indicator of the warming trend.

And here's [sciencedaily.com] another prediction for some catastrophic sea level rise.

And once again, this turns out to be not a definite prediction, but a warning that there is considerable uncertainty on the high end regarding the speed and magnitude of the sea level rise, and that while the IPCC estimate is about a third of a meter in 100 years, it could plausibly turn out to be three times as large, particularly since the melting seems to be occurring faster than projected. This is, in fact, an honest account of current scientific knowledge. Is this apocalyptic? It will certainly be very expensive to deal with, even if reality turns out to be toward the low end of estimates--expensive enough to more than justify the comparatively modest costs of CO2 mitigation. A lot of people will need to move inland, producing huge numbers of refugees. But do you really consider it to be an apocalypse?

He's come out with some pretty apocalyptic predictions, such as his 1988 chart showing 3 different scenarios, all of which are looking to be way off the mark. And Al Gore had some pretty wild assertions about sea level rise in his movie too. Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the IPCC, also had some wild claims of Himalayan glaciers all being gone by 2035. Professor Peter Wadhams of Cambridge University predicted an ice free arctic by 2015. And here's another prediction for some catastrophic sea level rise. There has definitely been lots of alarmist predictions, and unfortunately the mainstream media like to give the alarmist predictions lots of coverage.

... of Buckyball swallowing in about six months.

Football, one of the most popular sports in the United States, is also the leading cause of sports-related injuries. During the 2005-06 season, high school football players sustained more than half a million injuries nationally.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070815154430.htm

Makes Buckyballs look pretty safe and the Consumer Product Safety Commission look pretty misguided.

solution to fix all things ( and maybe even improve climate variability ) http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081222114546.htm to change 'local' climate - there is need for much less area. I think that mass produced aluminum foil on some substrate could be used as well ( will be easy to scale back reflection if needed )

First and foremost, I find it unlikely that supervisors at ford are clearing $100k, and even if they are, manufacturing jobs are hard damn work.

First, median teacher salary is only $40k, not 50k. Second, median production supervisor salary is just shy of $80k. Source: http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Ford-Motor-Production-Supervisor-Salaries-E263_D_KO11,32.htm. As for your comment that manufacturing is hard work, sure it is. Digging ditches is also hard work. Does that mean we should pay people more to dig ditches than to educate our children? That's just plain nuts.

First, make kids go to school year round.

That's actually a terrible idea. Kids need time to be kids, too. Most of them don't get that time while school is in session. You'll end up with kids that are very well educated, sure, but they won't be well-adjusted. Further, studies show no benefits to year-round schooling.

Also, the argument that you would reduce seasonal variation in the economy by switching to year-round schooling is disingenuous at best. The reason people take vacations during the summer is that unless you're traveling to the southern hemisphere, this is the best time to enjoy yourself outdoors. That will not change. What will change is that parents will take their kids out of school more often, which is disruptive to the education process. And to the extent that people take fewer vacations during the summer because of year-round schooling, they are unlikely to take additional vacations during the winter because the weather sucks anywhere that ordinary Americans can realistically afford to go. In short, it will reduce the seasonal variation in the economy by decreasing the number of people taking vacations during the summer, which will result in fewer seasonal jobs, but will result in no additional year-round jobs.

Worse, parents whose kids go to different schools may find that their kids' vacations are not at the same time. Those parents will have no choice but to take one or more kids out of school when they should be in class. Think of it as taking the problems caused by staggered spring breaks and multiplying them across every vacation your family takes.

No, there is nothing good about year-round schooling.

I believe this is far more relevant as to why there are large differences in tech employment than sexist jokes.

Not that I think it will change your mind, because in my experience, most people who say this are biased to the point where they won't accept any evidence to the contrary. But just on the offhand chance that merely didn't know, studies disagree.

The gender divide in math scores is purely cultural, and yes, sexist jokes are definitely part of that culture that is causing the divide. I really hope that you can overcome this notion of women simply being "wired differently," and maybe even help debunk it to others when you run across it.

You owe the poster an apology:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100301091552.htm

And Green Peace turned into an 'ANTI-anything from corporations and shit we don't understand' group in the 80. AS a former member, it's saddens me to have seen the go from "How can we do thins safely" to "Don't do anything new".

I understand what your saying, and you do make some good points, but I don't think humans should get obese due to lack of exercise. Some exercise is important, but only really important as a muscle builder. Walking everyday is all that should be needed.

Weight with a normal diet self regulating. You eat until you get full, and this is primarily run by the hormone Leptin. Leptin is secreted by your fat cells, and the more circulating in your body, the more your appetite is inhibited. Unfortunately, carbohydrates block the hormones message, by causing Leptin Resistance.

As you can see, this sets off a vicous cycle, where the only result can be overeating.

It actually makes me mad that animal fats have been demonised by the media, when in reality, it's the carbohydrates that are causing all the problems. Animal fat is good for you.

The quadrillion bacteria happily living in your guts would disagree, and depending on the type of their population they'll even change your behaviour.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110517110315.htm

If you knew anything about these parasites, you would not write what you just did.

Cats are carriers. Rodents are part of their life cycle. Rodents infected with these parasites tend to be "more brave", some even to the point of taunting a cat to attack them. The cat eats infected rodents, and the cycle of the parasite is complete as it returns to the soil and rodents pick it up once more.

Humans are just unintended side show for the parasite, but since these affect behaviour in mice brains, it is not surprising these parasites affect human brains too.

http://www.livescience.com/5631-zombie-ants-controlled-fungus.html

Is another example of similar effects in non-mammals by other, yet similarly acting organisms.

In a similar unrelated note, there are experiments that show even more bizarre behaviours, like effectively a "personality transplant" by a swap of gut bacteria cultures between two mice. One aggressive and another docile. Swap their gut cultures, and you swap their bahaviours!

There is plenty of other research starting to appear in this area,
      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110517110315.htm

So basically, how you eat may tell what you are/may become and your becteria and viruses play bigger part in your life than you can image.

Yes, you did need to provide a link because googling it shows that you are wrong. Promotional budgets at US pharmaceutical firms average 24.4% of their US domestic sales, less than half what you claimed. Here's another source saying 30%, and that's from a largely anti-big pharma report.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think pharma companies should spend (or necessarily be allowed to spend) so much money on advertising, especially direct-to-consumer advertising, but get your facts straight, especially when you're going to make such sweeping claims.

Big pharma is all about marketing crappy and expensive meds to people who don't need them: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080105140107.htm

Perhaps those drinking 3 cups a day are more likely to be in jobs where they are virtually chained to a desk, so they rarely see the sun and thus less skin cancer.

Prior studies on animal models have produced similar reductions in skin cancer associated with caffeine; the result in the article is not surprising. For example, here is a skin cancer study done with caffeine and mice:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120403142328.htm

No mice were chained to a desk for this study. I recall other studies done based on topical application of caffeine (rather than ingestion) with good results but I am too lazy to google them.

Fat people die earlier, and as such have much lower cost of care for age related diseases.

Guess again: http://www.webmd.com/healthy-aging/features/heart-disease-medical-costs

"In fact, most people recover after their first heart attack."

"In fact, of all the money spent in the U.S. on health care, 17% goes toward treating cardiovascular disease"

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110124121545.htm

it's a big ball of gas.

It's worth pointing out that even though it is called a "gas giant", it doesn't mean it is bereft of a rocky core. It in fact does have a rocky core which is suspected of being icier than previously thought.

In addition, given the densities and temperatures to be found there, people generally assume there can't possibly be any life there. I don't know either way, but I would suspect there is a point within the atmosphere where heat and pressure reach some sort of "sweet spot" which allows bacteria to exist, similar to those found in this study.

I would say it is no less likely a source of life as any other of the weird places we've found it on this planet.

You mean the DVD section for Jurassic Park? Birds are not dinosaurs. There is a theory that birds are descended from dinosaurs, but not all scientists agree with that.

The problems with your point is that it is also applicable to conventionally bred resistances. Resistance breakdown is not a new phenomenon. Pathogens and bugs adapt to resistances, and evolution does not care if that resistance came about as a result of selective breeding, wide crossing, mutagenesis, or genetic engineering. Anything that works and is widely used is susceptible to genetic breakdown. People make a big stink about Bt genes losing effectiveness against European corn borer (as they should; it is a big deal that threatens to take away the benefits GE corn has had) but why don't they fuss over, say, wheat and hessian flies? Make no mistake, it is a problem (although hopefully with the new stacked traits with different types of the Bt protein and better refuge area enforcement [apparently Monsanto is going to stop selling to farmers who do not sustainably manage their corn] it will be less of a problem), but lets not forget that such problems are applicable to all forms of resistance. Anti-GE groups often use resistant insects and weeds as an argument against GE, but don't give the proper context to let you know that such issues are caused by over reliance on one or a few genes and cultivation techniques that put too much selection pressure on the pests and that it is a problems of resistant crops, not GE crops.

> Young males still use more tech then females though.

This appears to be true, at least for 7th graders. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080312172614.htm

I've never heard this claim before - do you have a source that involves actual science?

Sure, LMGTFY:

• List of scholarly articles about autism and diabetes
• Maternal Obesity, Diabetes Linked to Autism

There are many more. Google for "obesity and autism".

You claimed that climate change would not be catastrophic. You were proved wrong.

You claimed that the science which indicates catastrophic climate change was flawed. You were proved wrong.

Now you claim that the effects of rising sea levels are negligible. You are wrong again.

from

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090310104742.htm

The impacts of sea level rise - even in the lower ranges of the current predictions - looks to be severe. Approximately ten percent of the worlds population - 600 million people - live in low lying areas in danger of being flooded. A previously released study led by John Church, shows that even a modest sea level rise of 50 centimeters will result in a major increase in the number of coastal flooding events.

"Our study centered on Australia showed that coastal flooding events that today we expect only once every hundred years will happen several times a year by 2100", says John Church.

So I hope everyone reading this can understand why we can't reason with deniers and change their minds. This is what they are, this guy.

Inn history, violence comes when all other means of forestalling the disaster wrought by someone else's behaviour have been exhausted.

As you can see, we have reached that time in history and what history has done in the past, it will do again in the near future . If you're ever inclined to ask the question -why did it come to this, refer to this thread.