Perhaps in some minor 'unknown' areas for unknown reasons that could be true, but overall it's far from true. The rotting material creates exponentially more methane than any mechanism could trap. You and they don't even mention the mechanism that traps methane at all, the methane being released is from bacteria eating thawed organic material.

EDIT: Actually, your study quote did not say that "they've identified regions up north where the soil absorbs more methane the warmer it gets"...it said "numerical simulations predict" they exist, "but the drivers, magnitude, timing and location of methane consumption rates in High Arctic ecosystems are unclear." This means places where methane capture outpaces release, or happens at all, have not been found-'location unclear'.

OK, you did say 'if we magically remove all the CO2 we've ever produced' (ignoring methane and other greenhouse gasses) in your second post. I missed the 'magic removal' part. My mistake, but that makes it a silly argument since we can't do magic. If we could, there would be no problem....and if I crapped diamonds I would be rich.

Well, in the context of talking to a person from 1912, if you explained to them that the 'progress' (by which I guess you mean population explosion and technical advancements) of the last century comes at the cost of the environment, nature, and may destroy the planet over the next century (at least for human survival), I would bet anyone with an IQ of 90+ will say 'selling (or even gambling) our permanent future for temporary industrial progress is a terrible idea, no thanks'.

Well, you must see that some of that great 'food production' is actually corn and grain for livestock, bio fuels, palm oils, etc., not human food stuffs. In order to make that 'food', forests are destroyed, removing entire eco systems that provided 'bush taco' (natural foods) which wasn't included in the equations about overall food production. Food HARVESTS of natural foods have declined rapidly worldwide, just look at the ocean. It may be unfishable in 15-20 years at current acidification rates. Kill the base of the food web, and the web falls apart. It's a rare place today that can support a human population without industrial agriculture and food importation, both of which have failed to solve starvation issues to date.

You can only be ignoring that data about it being catastrophic. I referenced it earlier. Just to mention ONE way, by 2025 it's estimated that 2/3 of people worldwide will live in a water shortage. In most cases, there's absolutely no way to fix this. For instance, Northern India/Southern China is nearly 100% dependent on glacial melt water, glaciers that have lost 50% in the last decade, and that rate is expected to continue to accelerate. With no water, industrial agriculture fails instantly, and people die in 3 days or so. There's NO solution for this disaster, not a plan, not an idea, nothing. There are already immigration problems worldwide, how to solve that when the immigration increases exponentially everywhere?

The downvote was not for your opinion, it was for your dangerously mistaken estimations and conclusions, and insistence that, contrary to all human history and all scientific evidence, this time humans will find and implement a working solution to the problem in time (already too late IMO) that's not worse than the problem was, and so we should not be bothered by the coming massive shortages and upheaval that comes with them, because somehow in that upheaval we'll find and implement massive global solutions to currently insurmountable issues. We can't even slow down the rate of increase in CO2 emissions, it's unbelievable to think we'll turn that to a negative number in 20-30 years even if the tech is invented (which still leaves us in Mad Max times at best, IMO), much more so to think we could erase 100 years of emissions in that time. EDIT:...and I find that kind of dangerous unrealistic suggestion insulting.

Those figures are wildly inaccurate and only apply to grain fed beef (which I do not recommend)

[link] (https://books.google.com/books?id=9Wb7BgAAQBAJ&pg=PA102&lpg=PA102&dq=meat+water+myth&source=bl&ots=a3_wbcpZ8Q&sig=2sJtfTpgxUXkytsUqu-AaR8niSo&hl=en&s
a=X&ved=0CDwQ6AEwBTgeahUKEwib7ImP5ZXGAhUGbK0KHaroAjw#v=onepage&q=meat%20water%20myth&f=false)

How much beef in a quarter pounder comes from Cali?
How much water does the nutritionally equivalent amount of veggie require? This can't be measured pound for pound and veggies and grains are not as nutrient dense as meat. I have a feeling if an honest look was done at the math, Moby might end up missing a shower.

That's true for baking, but the errors involved in volumetric measurement of water and rice probably aren't significantly different than the errors involved in measuring them by weight. Sugar and flour can have quite different weights for a different volume depending on how tightly packed they are, but this is not true of either rice or water.

That said though, I do often measure rice by weight, so I know that half a cup (125ml) is close to 100g of rice (at least for long grain or basmati rice), and in my small pot 150ml of water is exactly right for that 100g of rice.

He got a couple of things right - use freshly toasted bread with butter, but it doesn't have to be white, and also the butter doesn't have to melt in, butter is awesome no matter how much you use Basically, use the vegemite like salt and you're good. It always boggles me when I see the video's of people tasting it - they may as well be eating a spoonful of salt, they wouldn't enjoy that either, but salt, used correctly, is an essential ingredient in most dishes.

My favourite is whole grain toast, lots of butter, a very thin layer of marmite/vegemite and some avocado +/- some freshly sliced tomato.

Over the past few years there has been this trend towards simulating artifacts that you'd more commonly associate with film, presumably to give games a more cinematic feel. Some of them I find really annoying, like film grain, but others like lens flare can actually be used to communicate something you wouldn't otherwise be able to. Likewise, I find depth of field to sometimes be very nicely implemented, even where the effect is really quite strong. Alien: Isolation sort of made a gameplay mechanic out of it. I find it works best when the game only applies it in a context where it makes sense, like bringing up the scanner in Alien, or zooming into one your cities in Endless Legend. Where it fails, I think, is where it is always on and assumes that your crosshair is always going to be your focus.

My family owns and operates a farm, wheat and corn, in Kansas. We use Roundup herbicides sometimes.

Specifically, there is a GMO variant of field corn called "Roundup Ready" where the corn is genetically resistant to the herbicide. Plant a field of that corn, then after it emerges but well before harvesting (obviously) spray it with Roundup, diluted to an appropriate level. All of the pest plants in the field die. The corn looks a little wilted / harried for a few days after spraying, but bounces back and grows out just fine.

We use that specific kind (Roundup Ready) about 1 year out of every 4 or 5, only when pest plants are starting to become an issue. They'd love to sell it to farmers every year, but most only rotate it in when necessary, just like us, and use a small amount of normal seed (not GMO, just some of the normal corn we harvest) held in reserve from previous year(s) in the other years.

Before Roundup (and other major herbicides and pesticides), pest plants could be a major problem. From what my family says, corn can cross-pollinate or do some kind of hybridization with other crops like milo or sorghum or something, which results in a sterile cane-stalk plant like corn that produces no actual grain. Back 20+ years ago, that was a fairly major problem ... but it is very easily controlled nowadays with herbicides, and Roundup in particular.

Pure, concentrated Roundup is pretty nasty stuff. Then again, farmers still use or have used a lot of much nastier stuff during normal farm operations, like Malathion being sprinkled into grain bins to kill off insects and other small pests. I wouldn't want to chug down a glass full of any of that crap, BUT on the other hand I think we're way better as the human race off WITH all these things being used to control what can be or have been significantly damaging pests than how things would be WITHOUT them. Not to mention that all of these things are used in very very trace amounts compared to the actual amount of food produced itself, and usually a *really* long time before it becomes food. I think you'd be pretty hard pressed to detect any of them in the parts-per-multi-multi-billion scale by them time we eat them.


...That being said, the dude walked right in to this one. If his message was "this stuff is 100% safe and beneficial if used properly", I'd actually 100% agree with him. But when he's trying to oversell it by saying that it is perfectly safe to drink a glass of it ... of course somebody is going to call his bluff. Duh.

From my investigation, that's incorrect.
The places in China where hand pollination is used still have bees. The reason they do hand pollination is they switched to a very few varieties of apples and pears...and apple and pear trees need a DIFFERENT apple or pear tree to pollinate, so if you only have one apple variety (the norm there) it won't self pollinate, no matter how many bees there are. Also, climate change is putting the bee cycles and the tree cycles out of synch, making natural pollination even more difficult or impossible. By hand pollinating, they are able to have less than 10% 'pollination' trees to 90% 'fruiting' trees, and pollinate on the tree's cycle. THAT'S why production was better with hand pollination, not because people could do it better, but humans could target which pollen to use on which flower/tree. Also, commercial beekeepers won't 'lend' (rent) their hives out, or require high payments for them pricing most farmers out, because farmers there still use pesticides that kill bees through the pollination seasons.

Other areas that used to do hand pollination have stopped thanks to education. Now they plant more variety (so the bees/insects/birds CAN pollinate for them) and use less pesticides (that they actually didn't realize would kill bees) and are getting better yields for less money than the Chinese.

EDIT: These 'studies' always seem to ignore the incalculable cost of removing all the natural food pollinated by bees, and the collapse of many food webs caused by the loss of that food base. If people are spending cash to do the pollination work, you can be certain they'll go to great lengths to NOT share that produce with any wildlife.

Also, human hand pollination doesn't work for crops like certain grains and smaller vegetables and nuts, main human food sources. It only works for foods where a single pollinated flower will produce something worth the cost of pollination...grains simply don't, and neither do most vegetables, fruits, or nuts. Only large fruits or vegetables could use this economically. So while you're correct, it CAN be done, doing it across the board would probably quadruple the cost of average foods, if not worse.

WIKI-" If humans were to replace bees as pollinators in the United States, the annual cost would be estimated to be $90,000,000,000.[4]"

http://www.wired.com/2014/05/will-we-still-have-fruit-if-bees-die-off/

I knew this would happen. Talking to you, too, @oritteropo:

I'm leaving it with just this, because people are attached to their bacon and steaks as tightly as they are tied to religion. Perhaps it's again apples to oranges, but I'm guessing a lot of you are the same folks who rant against religion and wonder why people are so stupid and don't look at logic and science, blah blah blah. This is the perfect time to look in the mirror and see a touch of what you're up against. When you've been indoctrinated with something since you were literally born, you fight against being wrong so hard. So, so hard. Seriously. Take a moment, take a deep breath, and take a little search inside looking at how much of you knows for a fact that eating meat is just fine, and how much of it is cognitive dissonance. How much of it is emotional and how much of it is logical. Look at a video of people going on and on about how Jesus Christ is Lord and another video of people going on and on about how much they love bacon. It's kind of disturbing how zealous bacon-lovers get. Try it. It's fun. It's why I became vegetarian only about 4 or 5 years ago. And I gotta say, getting rid of that cognitive dissonance is very, very relieving and satisfying.

Yes, yes, yes. Loads and loads of vegetarians and vegans are unhealthy. Actually, I would argue that most vegetarians and vegans are wholly less healthy than omnivores since most of them have a high-and-mighty "I'm vegetarians/vegan so I'm automatically healthy" and eat some of the most disgusting, heart-disease-inducing, oily, fatty, un-nutririous, processed shit that's ever been made. Look at some of the fake meat stuff to just have a peek.

No. If you actually watched any of the videos you will see that it's not just being vegan that is important. It's to be a healthy vegan. You know, all that shit you can't ever, ever argue is bad for you. Fruits. Leafy greens. Beans. Lentils. Whole grains, occasionally. But mostly leafy greens and fruit.

And there are loads of studies that control exercise and all sorts of other arguments for "NO NO NO! IT'S NOT MY MEAT! STAY AWAY FROM IT IT'S ANYTHING BUT MY MEAT!". I can think of a specific one that I read/watched about controlling for exercise, and I can find it for you if you'd like, but I'm guessing you aren't really interested. They discovered that very aerobic, exercising, running omnivores were as healthy as lightly walking vegans. He even had a cute graphic for it.

And it's not just this guy, either. Head over to Dr. Fuhrman's website for more of the same. Except Dr. Fuhrman is toting stuff to sell, so that unnerves some people. They claim he's just trying to make a buck. But all the money he makes goes to nutritional research.

The last thing I'll say is this:

I honestly don't give a flying shit about what you eat. I don't really care about the environment at all. I'm not planning on having kids, and I'm sure I'll kick the ol' bucket before antibiotics stop working, water is scarce, the waters rise above NYC, and all the other possible doomsday things that'll probably happen within the next 100 or so years. It's true that I also enjoy not feeling guilty for eating animals who live. It'd make me happy if you stopped eating them because the main thing I believe I'm around for is to minimize suffering in the world. So, that'd be nice if more people didn't eat them.

But if you want to live a nice, long, healthy life where you don't die of a stroke, heart attack, or diabetes by the time you're 65, eat better.

There's a reason why the milk, sugar, meat and pharmaceutical companies pump out study after study about how it's totally fine to eat their shit. They spend so much money on it, it's ridiculous.

Cheers to your health, either way.

It's unfortunately quite easy to rebut.

Google "heart disease India" (or any other country with a large percentage of vegetarians).

The problem is more complicated than that single factor. I would personally recommend people eat less meat and more plants, but I can't accept that website's premise. Eating lots of sugar and refined grains for instance is quite bad for coronary health too (and very relevant to India's problems with the disease), and studies have also linked poor dental health with coronary heart disease.

That depends on your definition of 'often'. Maybe about once a week on average.
It seems you're missing the point. Sometimes that person may interact with my dog without me being present (like in this video), offering no possibility to instruct them about my dogs diet requirements. When I am present, they almost always ask first, and I ask them about the treat. If it's grain free, she gets a free treat. If not, I usually offer the person a grain free treat of my own to give to my dog (person still gets to interact with dog, dog gets treat, every one's happy). I do not rush out screaming at people over mistakes, but I do tell delivery people about her diet and ask them to please not give her the wrong treats, or she'll suffer for it later. They have all complied, but some have needed reminding.
Then there are random people on the street/in the park with boundary issues that just come up from behind and interact with random dogs on leashes without asking, or reach through a partially open car window to pet and feed a dog waiting inside, I find that rude and inappropriate, treat or not. Maybe that's my problem and not theirs, but someone needs to explain why if I'm to understand.
I do it for my dog, not my sense of control. It's not easy, cheap, or fun for me to keep her grain free. She breaks out in hives if she eats too much grain product. It's like someone offering a random non-speaking child some reses...not knowing if child might have a deadly peanut allergy. I understand it's intended as friendly, but that's why you should ask first, it might be harmful or deadly.

I get angry when people just try to hand my dog a treat. For one, my dog is on a grain free diet for skin issues, and nearly all treats are made from grains. Some people's dogs have other issues. It's just like rolling up and giving someone's child a piece of candy, inappropriate.
Now, since he knew each dog by name, perhaps he had gotten permission to feed every dog. I'll just hope so, but if not he should.

Stevia is too new to make any real determinations on. Currently, there is a lot of uncertainty. Just because something comes from a plant doesn't make it safer. Almonds used to be loaded with cyanide before we eliminated the trees that had those kinds of almonds. There have been recent studies questioning the safety of stevia, and this will likely be dealt with over the next decade. Unfortunately, certain countries have gotten around the necessary procedures for sufficient scientific inquiry because they are marketing it not as a food additive or sweetener but as a dietary supplement, which makes it easier to avoid such scrutiny. Unlike xylitol, which is perfectly fine for human consumption and has been shown to inhibit growth of oral bacteria that leads to caries and plaque, stevia is simply an unknown at this point.

However, stevia has also been around for a while. It has been a product since the 90s and has been banned and un-banned in numerous countries. European reports have shown that it is safe, but it is also still banned in many countries there.

For those of you think that it is "natural" and thus safer, I urge you to look up the naturalistic fallacy on wikipedia before going any further here. It has also been used as a sweetener by certain tribal peoples for centuries, so that means absolutely nothing as far as science goes, but it will still sway many people over, just like traditional herbal Chinese medicines like tiger penis powder and rhinoceros horn powder.

However, it is not a "natural" substance whatsoever, even though that word means nothing in nutrition anyways. Basically they take a small amount of Rebaudioside A from the stevia plant and use a bunch of alcohols and other chemicals to extract out the active sweetening ingredient and then crystallize it. This is then renamed steviol. It is significantly less sweet than most of the other sweeteners, except maybe saccarin, at only about 150x the sweetness of sugar.

Basically, Stevia is probably not bad for you, although the verdict is definitely not in on this one. It is no more "natural" than any of the other sweeteners. You need more of it to reach the same level of sweetness as your other sweeteners so dosage could be an issue. But you have to understand that each of the companies that makes these sweeteners has to find a way to sell their product. So, what do they do? They claim that their sweetener is "natural" and "safe" which implies that all of the other sweeteners that came before it aren't, and as evidence by my previous tirades, this is simply not the case. But they profit from our unwillingness to look at the data for ourselves and play on our natural tendencies to trust them.

In short, we are not certain about stevia yet, but we are certain that sugar is bad and aspartame is fine. However, you probably shouldn't eat any processed food, but we already know that in our bones. We all know that cooking up a delicious meal from simple ingredients is the best way to eat healthy but we don't do it because we are lazy. I am just as guilty of this as the next person. We can only dream of a future similar to "The Invention of Lying" where marketers aren't allowed to lie to us and can simply say that their food is bad for you but you drink it because it tastes good and because you have been for years. A world where they can't market to our children so we don't all grow up addicted to halloween candy or cereals that are more sugar than grains. The best way to do this is to cut your cable from the television and live on the internet with AdBlock installed. Then those fuckers can't get at you as easily.

Upvote for the PvZ basic zombie heads, and honourable mention for the nice demonstration of the flamability of dust (this leads to fires and explosions in grain silos and coal mines etc., explanation here - http://www.profbunsen.com.au/article/dustexplosion ).

BTW, I wanted to add a small comment at the end of this. Something I didn't add back then (but, looking back upon it, I think I should have).

It is regarding the little comment I mad e about feeling a connection to "something" bigger than me, then describing what this "feeling" was like.

I wanted to make it clear that the human mind, our testimony, and our eye-witness accounts are very, very undependable... A sad, but absolute truth.

Most cases that have been thrown out of court later on--once new evidence is brought to light; like DNA evidence--has shown over and over again that in many of these cases, the "victims" or prisoners sent to jail--for doing nothing--were sent there almost entirely on eye-witness testimony and accounts. Then the DNA shows that their entire "story" (because that IS exactly what it should be called), merely served as a way to put an innocent man in jail, and to keep that DA/prosecutor's record as close to "awesome" as possible (because we really DO care FAR too much about a DA's record than whether the person being prosecuted should actually be here, let alone if they are guilty or not). The defense attorney has the same problem; I'm not really sure WE should care about these things (only so much as to whether the state IS actually bringing cases to court that SHOULD be there...).

I have severe sleep apnea and also narcolepsy. With this I get sleep paralysis (basically every night) and an extreme amount of hypnagogic hallucinations (more than powerful enough that i fully understand why many believe in both ghosts and aliens--amongst other creatures). The "feeling" and situation I described above can very easily be traced back into this little issue of mine. It creates everything you could imagine--I even had a hypnagogic hallucination powerful enough that it felt as though someone or something was trying to yank me "through" my bed (hello, Nightmare On Elm Street"--I was actually more intrigued by the event than anything else, akin to a researcher). While most people would have run yelling from there house, or at the least gone to get comfort and forgone sleeping in that room AND bed for quite sometime...I went right back to sleep.

This is why KNOWING what you are up against, what it can do to you, and how powerful it really can be (especially on your psyche and even your physical state is very important...). I knew all of this before it ever happened AND I had also noticed the hypnagogic hallucinations doing A LOT of very small auditory based things--all the time--to me, but they sounded realistic (like dogs barking off in the distance, people whispering outside your window...across the street, telephones ringing upstairs, people you know talking or saying things--like your name--sometimes to the point that you have to ask them if they called for you...and YES you do feel like an idiot, but if everyone knows your physical problems, due to the sleep disorders, they understand what it going on, and can laugh with you when it happens--EVEN the scary ones).

Sleep paralysis happens to be when your body tries to wake up, but it doesn't quite get there. hence you end up in a state were you are both awake and asleep at the same time (dreaming to be accurate). These events have a tendency to be a bit like the hypnagogic hallucinations, in that they can seem real, since you are half-awake. History has a great many examples of SP--the ones that don't seem that scary, like visiting angels. To those that can create bone-chilling "ghost stories", like demons and succubi. There is a very famous painting of a "breath-stealing" demon, depicting a SP event (many people did in fact DIE in their sleep from "lack of breathing", this is where SP fiction AND the reality of many of the SP sufferers having severe sleep apnea--something fully unknown in that day and age--were not taken into account, and instead it was a demon! Many people that DO have sleep paralysis events have dreams and dream like events that are close to and resemble each other, so there must be a basic psychological connection in the formation of many of these dreams--even space alien abductions seem to have this same thing in common...

So when a big SP or hypnagogic hallucination comes along, and just by chance it happens to mix with each either (if you suffer both), you can get some truly panic inducing events (go look these up, if you don't understand why they could be so panic inducing--you'll understand pretty quick why they SUCK; luckily, as I've gotten older my mind has created two ways to deal with sleep paralysis events; the first it created, and I don't know how to be honest, is that I realize in these "half-dreams" that if I relax I will gain all of my abilities back...sure enough it works every time, but it can be VERY hard to do this when you have a pure-evil, shadow of fear standing 10 feat from you; then lately...and I think this happened literally due to the shear volume and amount of SP events I've had...I can basically FORCE myself to move again through willpower alone, allowing me to wake up as well--doing this actually feels "odd", it feels uncomfortable, like you are "going against the grain" and then suddenly breaking through a wall that wasn't allowing you to do what you wanted; so I imagine this "ability" forcefully allows me to make my body stop it's "protective" mode that it is in as you sleep and it is ALSO what causes the "paralysis" in all sleep paralysis vents...it is just your body doing what it should)...

Also, from what I've noticed, it seems to me that almost all hallucinations at some level are directly linked with whatever in the mind allows us to dream or create very vivid "imaginations". Both my sleep paralysis events AND especially my hypnagogic hallucinations, accompanied by the fact that I have indeed ran into "run of the mill" hallucinations (caused by adverse effects from medical prescriptions in the past), they ALL seem to be essentially linked together from what I noticed. I'd have to look around and see if there are others that have as many vantage points as I do, and also agree that they seem linked.

Throughout history people have seen these two aspects as something they absolutely are not OR not even close too! Yet FAR too many people don't ask the absolutely obvious question that they ALWAYS should have! Why, do ghost, aliens, demons, angels, you name it, show up at NIGHT (or for those that have odd sleep schedules: when you are TIRED or about to SLEEP--or just have...)?!? The answer should, indeed, be obvious... All of these things have to do WITH our sleep or something with our ability TO sleep (you don't necessarily need to be asleep or need to have just woken up for this stuff to happen to you; my narcolepsy shows this is absolutely true--as I can get hypnagogic hallucinations at ANY time of the day, sometimes without warning). The creatures and gods we have created do indeed exist, but they are located at the border between where our brain can see clearly and when our brain could use some rest--then we all live in our dreams.

So, be careful about how much stock you put into anything you believe is true, especially because you "believe" you have witnessed or experienced something magnificent... Believe it or not, seeing is NOT believing! Science always had the right idea, you MUST allow others to confirm what you found, and if they cannot find it--no matter even IF you "found it"--you might need to be able to accept the harsh reality that somehow you didn't see or experience what you thought you did (but, it can still be amazing)...