Leftfield

When was the last time you saw a President say "I'm gonna divide this mf'er?"

When I asked you if scientists who oppose the mainstream are being paid, you said this: You have made no qualifiers at any point to the effect that there are ethical climate change scientists that are included in the majority. Feel free to point them out if you have. So no, I'm not "talking out of my a$$", you're just showing yours. So what percentage of ethical scientists do you think there are? If they are ethical, why do you dispute their studies? Can you discern the ethical studies from those that are unethical?

Not at all, nor have I ever implied that.

Um.....you mentioned Boeing, genius. In the paragraph of yours I quoted, there were three other sentences concerning what was actually being discussed. You being so scatterbrained that you can't stay on topic is no fault of mine. So this confirms it....you think every climate scientist that posits global warming is corrupt. Every. Single. One. And you think any scientist against the prevailing opinion is not. There is no logic that can penetrate an utter belief in conspiracy such as this. And as if on cue, to prove my point.....both about being scatterbrained and a conspiracy theorist.

You make a lot of assumptions. Unfortunately for you, you're just as ignorant about my life as you are the environment. I happen to be employed, as an engineer, like you. If it makes you feel better to say you don't have the time to respond, hey, go for it. You're correct, natural variations do dominate climatic changes....normally. Everything you address above, though, has to do with the ocean. While certainly a huge part of the overall climate, you haven't addressed anything concerning radiation from the Earth's surface, nor have you addressed the release of radiation out of the atmosphere and into space. Can you account for the sudden spike in temperatures, which are novel in history? Do you have any citations of studies to prove what you assert? When we post something to back up what we're saying, all you say is "wrong," but you don't even try to back up your arguments.

I notice you never answer when I ask you to provide citations, or for a cause of temperature increases. Why is that?

In a debate about global warming you think I'm talking about....Boeing? I'm referring to all the posts you've been putting up with scientists claiming CO2 isn't the cause. Aren't they dependent on grants for research, also? Aren't they getting paid? Or do you think they're the only ethical ones?

So the scientists that you present as a counter, are they ethical? If so, why are they the only ones? If not, why do you trust them?

All of them? Thousands of scientists have been bribed into producing junk science just for financial gain? And nobody is blowing the whistle on it? Who knew that percentage of scientists were so unethical? If so, why do we trust them for anything that doesn't provide them with a large financial incentive? As you so often accuse others of doing, why doesn't Sowell debunk the actual science, instead of attack the source of it? If Sowell really believes there are little-to-no ethical scientists, then he's gone full conspiracy theorist, as have you.

Citation? You've been asked this many times....to what do you attribute the warming climate? Or do you deny the global temperature is increasing?

Sowell is completely wrong in saying scientists can't confront the lead/lag issue. No idea why he would say that, other than he was clearly on a sympathetic program and wouldn't get pushback. Also, Sowell is an economist. Tell me why his opinion is more valid than thousands of climate scientists? I will agree with him that any legitimate science that counters the prevailing opinion should not be suppressed. Science should always be questioned, and if contrary evidence is found, theories revised. Unfortunately that's not what deniers are doing. Deniers simply shout that not everyone believes the prevailing opinion or that the prevailing opinion is only there because scientists are bought. They never present any legitimate evidence as to why it's wrong, or what other factors are causing warming.

Feel free to post evidence of other reasons the climate is warming.

It's a theory backed up by ample evidence. Feel free to post evidence to the contrary.

They didn't retract the change. The interpretation of the data was wrong. The "reduction" in the estimate of women and children killed was simply the number of those identified, and it was roughly half of the total that had been identified. The total estimated killed (identified vs unidentified) did not change.

You....read the rest of my post, right?

So why post that the numbers changed when you don't believe them to begin with? Oh, I've got it....when the numbers changed you could use it as proof that the Palestinians were originally lying, so that must have meant the numbers are right. Now the Fox News article has been shown to be crap, so you're back to not believing the numbers at all. The world of subjective reality is fun, isn't it?

I was typing up a point by point response, then realized there was no use. You clearly didn't understand the responses to your posts with the studies on CO2's enthalpy, because @Aufan59never said CO2 wasn't the cause. I usually take people at their word when they tell me something, but I just can't believe you're reading everything we're posting. It's better to believe you're not, because the alternative is that you're a moron. You are not comprehending any of this, and you're jumping to completely incorrect conclusions. Once again, temperature increases lead to release of CO2 into the atmosphere - release from oceans, ice, soil, plants, etc. That extra CO2 amplified the warming of the Earth, but was not the main cause. Now, we're dumping a huge amount of excess CO2 into the atmosphere, which wouldn't normally be there, so we've begun the warming process earlier than it would if just left to nature. Of course, the information in the previous paragraph can easily be found with a simple Google search, but please tell me again how I only believe what I want to believe.

This. Has. Already. Been. Pointed. Out. Many times. CO2 is usually a lagging indicator. The very fact it isn't now is the whole damn point. You really don't read anything, do you?

https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/13/middleeast/death-toll-gaza-fatalities-un-intl-latam/index.html

I agree with you that somebody is paying. However, full-ride scholarships are far less common than you imply here.

Biden is stopping the shipment of 2,000 pound bombs. With a place as densely packed as Rafah, this is the equation that shows how much difference a "smart" bomb would make over a regular bomb: Joules of energy/Square meter of area......or J(ack)/S(**t) https://time.com/6909636/gaza-death-toll/ https://www.aljazeera.com/news/longform/2023/10/9/israel-hamas-war-in-maps-and-charts-live-tracker https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-gaza-war-statistics-95a6407fac94e9d589be234708cd5005 https://www.usatoday.com/story/graphics/2024/04/05/israel-war-gaza-strip-human-toll-visualized/73130709007/ https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/29/world/middleeast/gaza-death-toll-war.html https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/32552-palestinians-killed-gaza-since-oct-7-health-ministry-says-2024-03-28/ I'm sure they're all lying, though. Good point...Netanyahu is clearly concerned about peace. Guy might as well be a dove. Not denying that Hamas is horrible. Is wiping out those children justified? Do you think flattening the place they live is going to change their minds, or reinforce that Israel is the enemy?

Disingenuous again. The 50 trillion number was for worldwide. Not just the US. And you once ignore ignore the costs of coping with the problem if it's not avoided. Didn't ask you to apologize. I don't expect anyone to have to apologize for not knowing there was a problem. Now, willfully ignoring the problem after you've been made aware of it.... "Assumption"

Again, look to any of the numerous links that have been provided. They show the climate has warmed, they show the mechanisms by which increased CO2 traps more heat. You rail against the inflation that Biden has caused, yet offer no proof. Why is the information we've provided not enough? I am confident we can influence the climate. How much it will cost and how fast, I don't know. It's foolish of anyone to try to nail down numbers, because the scale is enormous and there are huge numbers of variables at play, both with the climate and economics. We're not talking about deliberately trying to control anything. We're just talking about removing what we can of our influence. Were you in Boy Scouts? The phrase "leave no trace" mean anything to you?

How is he saving them? Israel is proceeding with the operation, aren't they? What difference does our lack of bombs make? Well, gee, maybe because half of the almost 35,000 casualties in Gaza have been women and children, and tens-to-hundreds of thousands more are suffering because aid can't get in? Think that might have something to do with it? Alas, your disregard for human life bares itself once again. You can stand by Israel and not support everything that the leader of their country is doing. Hell, you don't support anything that Biden does, but you'll still defend America, right? Everything a hammer sees is a nail. Of course negotiations are over. Netanyahu was going into Rafah regardless. This is exactly what Netanyahu has wanted all along - an excuse to go scorched earth. This is a winnable battle. The war doesn't end until a permanent solution is found. What Netanyahu is doing is breeding generations of enemies who will point to Israel's razing of Gaza as proof it is evil. Israel had a wave of goodwill and support after October 7. Netanyahu has pissed it away, and actually reversed it - there is a renewed effort to have Palestine join the UN. Nobody is saying Israel shouldn't have acted. Even in the beginning, people were understanding that some innocent lives were going to be lost, but when Israel doesn't even follow their own rules (bombing escape routes they assured would be safe and such), opinion began to turn against them.

You mean other than the eleventy billion things some of us have already posted? Or all the evidence online that you could dig up yourself if you actually were interested in reading anything or thinking outside of your own opinion?