IChooseReality

So LGD your approach here is to post your claims, then fold with an extra helping of sarcasm when pushed to actually back them up. OK, to each their own. Rather just makes you a propagandist doesn't it?

Of course all the usual causes of death remain. Instead of getting sucked into the confusion over attribution just look at the total number, i.e. the body count. its a lot higher than usual in 2020. If not from COVID-19, then what?

Every industrial shift has lead to an economic boom. The shift to sustainable energy will be the biggest such shift in history and will propel the economy for many decades even if it takes some payment to get started.

Back to one of my original comments, you pick what you like from science and technology that you use every day and then slam the things that while not interfering with your day to day life, conflict with your ideology. Seems mighty inconsistent to me. In a way, but not the way you are doing. Some get an idea and then spend a lifetime trying to figurout how to make it work, or others having spend a lifetime learning are in a position to make reasonable estimates of what might be problematic for some areas of work. You have no such grounding and basing your imaginary possibility (as I see it anyway) entirely on your hatred of Gates.

Of course the earth will remain, no one is saying otherwise. The issue with man made climate change is that we'd like to keep it easy for us to live here. Indeed volcanos do produce a lot of CO2 so we shouldn't push our contribution so high so that things like volcanos can push things over the limit for our ease of living. What do you think has been causing these MEASURED rises in temperature? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_surface_temperature#/media/File:Land_vs_Ocean_Temperature.svg

You'll have to let me in on the joke. LM-2 is at the Air and Space Museum which is part of the Smithsonian Institution. Yep, a wrong step and they could have poked a foot through the wall/floor. So what? It was build for one very well defined narrow purpose. Why would it have melted? The danger from the Van Allen Belts is not that they have enough energy to melt a spacecraft but to damage human tissue or disrupt electronics. This was avoided by some shielding and careful mission planning and being willing to accept some risk (perhaps higher long term cancer risk for example) https://science.thewire.in/the-sciences/apollo-11-van-allen-radiation-belts-translunar-injection/ For you maybe, but it says nothing about a flat earth in the psalm so what it meant to Van Braun is pure speculation. Given the obvious fallacy of a flat earth it seems extremely unlikely that he saw it as you do. Why do the craters near the edge all seem like you are looking at them from an angle compared to the craters in the middle? We only see one side due to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking . No its only reflected light. Because those stars are in the same galaxy that we are and are wildly far away compared to earths orbit (if that is the "hurtling" you are talking about. It does if the container does. why does a ship appear to sink as it sails into the distance? If you have a flat dish then the water is not going to pile up in the middle and this is what smaller lakes are. Once the "dish" gets big enough that it is no longer flat but follows the curve of the earth, so does the water. Why do the poles experience times when they have a 24 hour day or 24 hour night but this not experienced in other pats of the planet say at the equator at the same time? How could that happen on a flat earth? Why is the night sky different in the northern vs southern hemispheres? Why do we NOT all experience sun rise or sunset at the same moment yet we all experience it in the same way (at the horizon).

No. You do not seem to understand how science works. Of course scientists get things wrong, especially when their conclusions is based little data (as was the case for the claim of canals on Mars). Publishing a peer reviewed result is only the beginning. It must be verified by others and stand the test of time. We have 40+ years of data on global warming at this point and at each step of the way the data almost always show that its WORSE than we previously thought. That's as close to a "proof" as you can get outside of a domain such as mathematics. This claimed "possibility" is only something you imagine, it's not real. You could say it, but I don't think you can point to evidence to support it as I can for you and will do just below. Your travels and personal experience in no way tell you the rate of poverty, disease, or literacy in the country you are in even for the time you are there, let alone how it has changed over the centuries (which was the question). That takes actual data collection, historical research and analysis. Had your travels only taken you to wealthy areas of various countries would you say these issues had been wiped out? I'm not being condescending and if it appeared that way I apologize. The fallacy of thinking that one's perusal experience somehow indicates the state of the world is all too common. But its a fallacy none the less. Note also that I provided links to analysis of how these issues have changed over long periods. There are actual discernible facts of the world, everything is not just an opinion. Here is Steven Pinker giving a TED talk (TED talks are always 20 minutes) on this general subject and specially what the data says about it.

Tell me Markinsa, do you perform any investigation into the veracity of the things you post, or is it enough that you like it? Bhadki's claim that "the [German] government was overreacting because the virus posed no more threat than influenza, and that any COVID-19 vaccine would be pointless" seems rather silly after 3.3M deaths worldwide with the disease being brought under control in the west due the vaccines yet still raging in other parts of the world that have yet to get enough vaccines. Perhaps he should go peddle his views in India. I'm sure he'll find a most receptive audience.

This is a gross misrepresentation of the data. Forget cause, that is tricky to determine in any case. Just focus on total deaths (not one cause plus another minus another etc), just the total number of bodies from all causes and all ages. Here is the basic mortality page at the CDC (its not yet complete for 2020 which is rather pathetic) https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/provisional-tables.htm . But even with it not being complete for the year if you graph that data you get this If COVID-19 was not responsible for the huge uptick in March 2020, then what was?

OK, how about the modern theory of global warming. Sure melting of glaciers has been seen s potentially problematic for a long time. We have a lot more data about it and a lot better ability to measure things now than we did in 1912. The fact that some scientists were wrong in 1912 does not in any way negate the huge amount of data and the support by virtually all scientists today. By your methodology since in the late 1800s a few astronomers claimed there were canals on Mars, obviously later shown to be wrong then all we know about that planet today must also be wrong. Of course you can when that "theory" (and yes I use that term extremely loosely) has no basis in fact what so ever. The idea that we should test to make sure this modification will not spontaneously create entirely new multiple biological infrastructures (cross species no less) let alone do so so fast that it happens before the modification is gone is ridiculous, nonsensical, and not even worthy comic book status. I see very little critical thinking in your posts. You post then defend that post no matter how false its shown to be. You appear to me to be entirely driven by your ideology. in response to my statement that "look at poverty rates, literacy, disease, etc. all are wildly improved from say the 1500s" So "with your own eyes" you have seen global rates of literacy, poverty, or disease? Of course not. Do these things still exist? Of course (and I can say that with confidence even without the traveling I have done). I never said otherwise. But they are far far lower than they were in even the 1800s let alone the 1500s https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cross-country-literacy-rates https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/life-expectancy https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/world-population-in-extreme-poverty-absolute?country=~OWID_WRL You suffer from the fallacy that your individual experience informs you about the entire planet. Alas you are far from alone in this characteristic. But I'd still share a pizza with you if we were to ever meet. :-)

Well the one that landed is still there, but yes I have seen its twin in the Simthsonian AaS. What about it? Yes, so what? Psalm 19:1 "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork." says nothing of a flat earth. Water is effected by gravity just like everything else. on a clear enough day ships sailing away appear to sink. why is that? So with your own eyeballs: Why does the moment of sunrise and sunset vary by longitude , yet all experience them in the same way (the sun rising from or dipping behind the horizon)? Why does the apparent path of the sun and the length of the day/night vary based on latitude and season? Why is the night sky different in the northern and southern hemispheres? Why are other planets clearly spherical? as well as our own moon clearly seen via telescope or even decent binoculars? Easily explained by a slightly tilted spinning sphere orbiting the sun, not explainable at all with a flat earth. If you are not going to accept the scientific method for evaluating theory against observation then this conversation is pointless so I doubt I will continue but couldn't help myself from making a reply.

Fair enough. A circle is a good shape for a pizza (though I have to say since starting to make them myself mine tend to come out more blob like, still delicious though). Circles for pizza, spheres for planets. nite.

How so? If you are referring to the self limiting aspect, that is discussed in many reports on this technology including on Oxitec's site. Global warming has been clearly shown to be real by a huge mountain of evidence since it was first proposed in the 70s. Back then you would be right to be skeptical. Not now. Mating does not cause the genome of the female to be modified or even susceptible to be modified by the genome of the male. There is no mechanism or pathway to do so. The notion that this small bit of DNA is somehow going to create an entirely new biological system is ridiculous. Further your initial comments were not about what "could" happen, as false as even that is. You said And when a monster like that does something like releasing Genetically Modified Mosquito's onto the American People there can be only one reason. and How long do you think it will be before the female mosquito's start biting our young daughters, passing on the genetic material that will cause their deaths? So you said "only one reason" and "how long" not if or could. I agree that we have invented a lot of stuff that we have used to our determent. Still you're not living out in a hut as a hunter gatherer are you? Me neither. We're in a very dangerous time and I have no idea how it will turn out. We could come together to use technology to solve problems or we could continue to degrade our environment or even kill ourselves off. its easy to be pessimistic but if you look at poverty rates, literacy, disease, etc. all are wildly improved from say the 1500s despite a vastly higher population. Has the development of science lead to fewer people believing in the supernatural? Seems reasonable. However it seems to me that people have a need to have an explanation for things. Pre-science that explanation was mostly the supernatural as that was all there was. Now science provides such explanations so belief in the supernatural is likely much lower than say in he middle ages. But was that really a belief or just a handy story to fill in for "why did that happen"? To complete the picture I am an atheist and have no doubt about it and never really have. Even as a child gods never made any sense to me. There are certainly good prescriptions for living in the teachings of some religions (be kind, help people in need and so on) and I like the Buddhist view that we are the source of our own mental suffering, but the supernatural aspect of them all has always seemed clearly wrong to me. The supernatural just does not exist

and where would that be exactly? BigWave simply withdrew. Pizza was just friendly banter.

Do you think the fact that 2+2=4 is colored by you opinion? I don't see how. Separating fact from opinion is key to understanding the real world and in no way removes one's humanity. Its not something we will ever be perfect at doing but agreeing to what is real, having a shared view of the physical world is what has made our technological civilization possible. The application of a systematic approach to discerning the physical world as opposed to just giving an opinion, is what changed in western civilization in the mid 1600s (earlier in other places) and is what has given rise to the astonishing advances in the 400 years since compared to the previous few thousand years.