Leftfield

You would have the same sentiment if someone you loved were one of the people still stuck there, right?

So he recommended to the crowd that they take the vaccine, and a fair number of people booed. I'm hoping he can change minds. The scariest thing that can happen is for the world view of some of those people to no longer depend on their icon and become self-sustaining.

You misspelled "correct".

Bird, I just can't understand your thinking on this. Surely you see that not wearing masks increases spread? Which in turn means more will die? Our freedoms are not absolute. You cannot do something that you know may harm another, simply because that is what you want to do. Why is this situation different?

Wouldn't have a problem with that if they weren't taking others with them.

Happy Birthday, aubiesixtysix! And congratulations.

So there is no one out there, at all, that is investigating the cause? Surely there are some skeptical organizations or philanthropists that would be willing to fund research into this. Or perhaps they already have? You told us there were scientists who disagreed with the wider community and have been silenced or marginalized, even though you haven't told us about their findings or where we can find them. Certainly those organizations would be helping to get their message out. It boils down to the fact that you will not believe climate scientists under any circumstances, because you believe they are all in-the-tank to enrich themselves, fund their own research, or avoid persecution. However, even though you admit the global temperature is increasing more rapidly than it should, you offer no alternate theories as to why. You also have to downplay the extent of ocean acidification (pardon me - becoming less alkaline) to avoid having to admit it is a problem. As an engineer, do these sound like reasoned, logical arguments to you?

This sentence is all that is needed. It does not matter the evidence that is presented, you won't believe it. You've already pre-determined that it's impossible that CO2 is a major culprit. The average temperatures could jump five degrees and you wouldn't accept it. I don't understand why you even debate it. Just say you don't believe it, never will, and move on. Since that is settled, would you care to address ocean acidification?

From what they're saying, it's to make sure all our personnel and any Afghans who helped us can get out safely. If that's indeed the case, I agree with this, but they better get the troops back out quickly. We shall see.

To switch gears a bit, to what do you attribute the acidification of the oceans?

Which you fail to cite.

Which is why I asked you to cite any works that disprove it. I am completely open to being wrong. Are you? You were the first one to use the word belief ("Belief isn't good enough"). I simply adopted it to make my point. You clearly "believe" otherwise.

First off, I already said computer models are mainly what we have. There is simply no way to verify it through planet-sized experimentation. If that's what it would take to convince you, then obviously there is no reason to continue the conversation. For your second point, since you want to parse words even though you know what I was talking about....please, show me a computer model that shows man does not significantly contribute to global warming. My belief is based on faith in the scientists working on this. What is yours based on?

But assumption, speculation, and predictions are entirely part of, and are actually the very reason for, experimentation. Unfortunately, we have no way other than computers to effectively model what's happening, unless you know of a planet-sized laboratory we can use. We use computer models almost everywhere now. Did you cheer when Perseverance touched down on Mars? That was largely due to computer models. Nobody knew for sure it would work until it landed. Designing buildings to withstand earthquakes and hurricanes, evolution of stars and the universe, all areas of medicine (including vaccine development), fluid dynamics, etc. etc. All of these use extensive computer modeling, and prove out far more often than not. Of course something could be wrong with assumptions made, and there could be unknowns that aren't being factored in the current models, but while there were certainly errors made early on, for decades the models have constantly been updated and fine-tuned, and they have never strayed from showing that human activity is a factor. Can you point to a computer model that shows man does not contribute to global warming? Surely if there are reputable scientists out there that disagree with the majority, they would have built their own models and run simulations as a counterpoint. Doing something will have negative effects, surely, but at least if the prevailing science is wrong we get some positives out of it. If the science is correct, which the overwhelming majority of the climate science community believes, the negative effects are an end game.

Unfortunately, to get the proof you seek, all this will have to happen and it will be too late. Which is the point. You also haven't addressed what you believe is currently driving the rising temperatures.

Please expound on the evils being taught. Masks are not mostly useless. I am not a leftist, though people like you are certainly pushing me, and many others who once leaned right, in that direction.

Well, gee, when you say things like "spending trillions to accomplish nothing," forgive me for thinking that your stance is there is no need for it. So you believe temperature are rising and the environment is rapidly changing, but don't believe that an increase CO2 levels are contributing to a significant degree? What would be your theory or explanation for the changes we're seeing? What evidence would it take to convince you that humans are a large factor in what is happening?

Congratulations. In the history of your pathetic replies, you've found a way to sink lower.

Just a tad more expensive per dose than a vaccine. But what's money when you've got a political point to make?

What's a good analogy for two engineers arguing? On second thought, I probably don't want to hear peoples' suggestions on that.

I'm confused - you believe the current, available evidence is not verifying that the average worldwide temperatures continue to increase? If so, why would you believe that? Do you have your own evidence, or do you simply not believe the climate scientists that are saying this is happening? If it's the latter, what reason do you have to not accept their findings? Your second paragraph makes some assumptions. One is that everyone is proposing to completely replace the power grid with wind and solar. I have seen not one person ever say that. Certainly those sources need to be expanded, but of course other sources would be needed. Another assumption is that solar panels are not environmentally friendly. While that was true historically (and it was a major failure to not address recycling it in the early years of solar), the materials used and recycling capacity are far better than they were. You also assume everything is focused on the production side, while there are plenty of industries focusing on the consumption side. All your arguments are based on the premise that nothing is happening. If you're wrong and the science is correct, would you still propose to do nothing, and just resign ourselves to the fact our children will have to live in a world of survival of the fittest? If the science is correct, would it be a sin to spend trillions to save as many as possible, considering not doing so would mean that the economies and poor you mentioned would be completely gone?

But everyone is being held accountable now, even if it's too early for many to be able to recognize it (which is why we have scientists). The evidence is there, you're just refusing to accept the data. Is it more of a sin to come up with a theory that may or may not prove out, or to claim to understand the science and yet still dismiss it when it does prove out? Is there nothing in the alarms that climate scientists are sounding that concerns you? Elevated temperatures? Ice melt-off and sea level rise? Ocean acidification, pollution, and current disruption? Coral bleaching and loss of habitat? You sincerely don't believe any of this is a problem?

Hope I never have to use anything that guy designed.