More sources on how expensive beef is: http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/environment.html
More sources on how expensive beef is: http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/environment.html
The link between increased emissions from beef and warming is tenuous at best. Cows eat grass or other feed, which absorbs co2 in order to grow. They don't eat coal. Therefore their net impact has to be very small. You can try and argue the 'methane more impact than c02' line, but the sensitivity of both methane and c02 forms the basis of most of the argument around the global warming theory.
I think it would be better with another, more relevant factor for that one of your choices. The comments here say six isn't enough and the beef link is very tenuous. To me it comes across as veganism dressed up as global warming.
I should mention that the main emissions issues with cows that we are aware of are from methane and nitrous oxide. The former comes both from the cow itself and its manure; the latter from its manure and from the fertilizer used to make its food. There's some issue with CO2 and land use changes (e.g. cutting down forest for cows to graze), but that's not as big. Methane and nitrous oxide are 20 and 300 or so times as strong greenhouse gas as CO2 on a 100-year time scale. However, we clearly didn't find it to be nearly as significant as the other categories.
We wanted to include some question about a type of consumption that wasn't about home energy or transportation, because a significant part of one's emissions does come from the supply chains that lead to one's purchases. It may be that there is no one question that would be very useful in this regard. Perhaps we should ask something about which car you drive, or something else to help refine one of the already mentioned questions.