The Barbarian

Couple of errors there. First is a knowledge issue: carbon dioxide is not the greatest contributor to warming, but humans substantially increase carbon dioxide. Which matters, because carbon dioxide traps thermal energy at wavelengths other greenhouse gases do not trap as well. Second is a logic error. Suppose you have to keep a vessel filled with water, but bad things will happen if you overfill it. So you rig up a system that just matches evaporation with added water. Then someone adds a system that adds 1% more water continuously. What happens? Right. Think.

It's the observed reality. The Earth is getting warmer, at pretty much the rate that was predicted thirty years ago, based on carbon dioxide emissions. No point in denying what everyone can see.

And hence more severe storms, which is what we are now seeing on the Gulf coast. Hurricanes run off moisture and heat. Both of which are rising due to warming. Nature pretty much seeks the most efficient flow of things. Constructal law, and so on.

Well, you could pick a membrane protein that is not present in all humans. The problem is, such things are not limited to any ethnic group. For example, blood types are scattered among all ethnic groups even if some are more common among some groups. The best shot you would have, would be among endogamous groups, like Ashkenazi Jews (which aren't so endogamous any more) that intermarry within the group. And yes, it would be possible to target specific groups for severity once infected. Age and obesity, for example, tend to make infections more deadly. But again, that's not something limited to specific ethnic groups.

The mode of entry for COVID-19 into a human cell is angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 embedded in the cell membrane. Same for all humans. So not possible for it to target any specific human population.

While sickle cell disease is more common in African-Americans compared to other ethnicities, it can affect people of any race or ethnicity. https://www.emedicinehealth.com/can_a_white_person_have_sickle_cell_anemia/article_em.htm

Still an infant technology, but it shows promise.

I'd work on reliability and battery life (and maybe more sustainable materials) first.

Average person with one of those would kill himself within a year.

No. For example in the western United States it will be drier. In North Africa it will be wetter because the cool dry winds out of Asia are being disrupted. In the western U.S. cropland will tend to become pasture. Pasture will become semi-arid. Semi-arid will become deserts. A big part of that is that warmer climate means less snowpack in the mountains (snow line goes to higher altitudes) and that means less water available in spring and summer. The continental self is under water. The coastline will change a bit. Some places a lot. Sorry, Florida.

It's a fairy tale. There are no biological human races. There is more genetic variation within an "race" you might define than there is between "races."

Some antibiotics do interfere with some immune processes, but generally do not. And it some very rare situations, some vaccines can do that, too. The issue with antibiotics, is that overuse can lead to the evolution of immune bacteria, as Alexander Flemming predicted when he discovered penicillin. So there are protocols to prevent such evolution. And of course, antibiotics are useless on viruses, which use your own cell metabolism.

There will be winners and losers. Canada, Northern Africa, and Siberia will probably be more livable. The American West and the Gulf coast will be more challenging, with worse droughts and stronger storms. I don't see that as a good thing. But then, I live in America.

You can't get to God by data. And you can't do science by faith. Different things. Those who try to replace science with religion will be forever deluded. Yep.

The problem isn't carbon dioxide, it's how much carbon dioxide. Turns out, elevated levels of carbon dioxide in the air reduce the nutrition of many crops humans depend on to live. American Journal of Plant Sciences > Vol.9 No.7, June 2018 Effect of Elevated Air Temperature and Carbon Dioxide Levels on Dry Season Irrigated Rice Productivity in Bangladesh Abstract Agricultural productivity is affected by air temperature and CO2 concentration. The relationships among grain yields of dry season irrigated rice (Boro) varieties (BRRI dhan28, BRRI dhan29 and BRRI dhan58) with increased temperatures and CO2 concentrations were investigated for futuristic crop management in six regions of Bangladesh using CERES-Rice model (DSSATv4.6). Maximum and minimum temperature increase rates considered were 0°C, +1°C, +2°C, +3°C and +4°C and CO2 concentrations were ambient (380), 421, 538, 670 and 936 ppm. At ambient temperature and CO2 concentration, attainable grain yields varied from 6506 to 8076 kg·ha-1 depending on rice varieties. In general, grain yield reduction would be the highest (13% - 23%) if temperature rises by 4°C and growth duration reduction would be 23 - 33 days. Grain yield reductions with 1°C, 2°C and 3°C rise in temperature are likely to be compensated by increased CO2 levels of 421, 538 and 670 ppm, respectively. In future, the highest reduction in grain yield and growth duration would be in cooler region and the least in warmer saline region of the country. Appropriate adaptive techniques like shifting in planting dates, water and nitrogen fertilizer management would be needed to overcome climate change impacts on rice production. It's not just rice. Many other crops are adversely affected. https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=63280 Interactions between plant nutrients, water and carbon dioxide as factors limiting crop yields https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10.1098/rstb.1997.0077 There's a race on now, it find ways to evolve plants better adapted to rising CO2 levels, but we're losing at the moment. Why don't you just ban Jewish Space Lasers? Marjorie Taylor Greene thinks that they are why we're having forest fires. That's a growing technology now. The big concern was storage safety for a highly explosive gas. Lots of new technology being developed to address that issue. https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-storage It can be produced with renewable electrical power, won't adversely affect the atmosphere, and could even power electrical plants to keep the power grid working. (and incidentally make EVs more green). https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/hydrogen/production-of-hydrogen.php

You can't get to God by data. And you can't do science by faith. Different things. Those who try to replace science with religion will be forever deluded.

Nope. That story got started when a few reporters noticed a brief period of cold years and assumed it was climate, writing stories in magazines about the "coming ice age." Even then, most climatologists knew better. Climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s. The integrated enterprise embodied in the Nobel Prizewinning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change existed then as separate threads of research pursued by isolated groups of scientists. Atmospheric chemists and modelers grappled with the measurement of changes in carbon dioxide and atmospheric gases, and the changes in climate that might result. Meanwhile, geologists and paleoclimate researchers tried to understand when Earth slipped into and out of ice ages, and why. An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests. https://ams.confex.com/ams/88Annual/webprogram/Paper131047.html

As you learned, the text indicates that the "days" are not literal days. Since evolution is constantly observed in living populations, you're clearly wrong. God cannot be falsified by His creation. As you have seen, there is no conflict with the Bible and evolution at all. How could there be? It's just a fact that we can verify almost everywhere. I think you're still confusing evolution (which is an observed phenomenon) with common descent of all living things, (which is a discovery of genetics, not evolutionary theory). Darwin, for example thought that God just created the first living things, and supposed that there might be any number of original created living things. Do I need to show you, again? I'll go with the Bible as written. You can go with you new revisions of what it means.

... Which is what many creationists do.

Yes. If Jesus came back today, a lot of the people who fancy themselves to be His followers would crucify Him again. That's why He hung out with the humble sinners; they were a better class of people.

Actually, no. Climatologists don't predict populations. They predict climate. BTW, as early as the 1970s, climatologists were warning that a warmer world would cause greater extremes in weather, which is what we are seeing. You do know that anthropogenic carbon is not the only mechanism for warming, right? For a while, the darkening surface of Mars was thought to be warming it up significantly, but... Recently, debate about global warming on Earth has been intensified by the observation that Mars appears to be undergoing a period of climate change. It has been suggested that warming is therefore a result of natural processes rather than human activity. However, climate change on Mars is mostly determined by changes in the tilt and shape of its orbit and the only reliable evidence merely indicates that Mars ended its most recent ice age about 400,000 years ago.Although some studies in the 2000s purportedly showed evidence of climate change on Mars, these were shown to be either localised effects due to Martian ‘weather’ and dust storms rather than ‘climate’. The most recent studies show that there have been no significant changes in the average Martian temperature since at least the time of the Viking landers in the 1970s. So there is no evidence that Mars is actually heating up at all. https://www.sciencefocus.com/space/is-mars-really-heating-up-quicker-than-earth A warmer Earth wouldn't mean the end of the world. It almost certainly won't even mean the end of humanity. But it will make for a more interesting and challenging place to live. C'mon.

You've confused creation, which is what God did, and creationism, which is man's attempt to revise God's word. You'll admit that much, but you won't admit how He did it.

Jesus hung out with a lot of unsavory characters and while He never missed a chance to call them to repentance, He certainly seems to have enjoyed their company, to the shock and disapproval of the Pharisees: Matthew 11:9 The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say: Behold a man that is a glutton and a wine drinker, a friend of publicans and sinners. And wisdom is justified by her children.

Actually, no. Climatologists don't predict populations. They predict climate. BTW, as early as the 1970s, climatologists were warning that a warmer world would cause greater extremes in weather, which is what we are seeing. You were misled about that. The warmer Earth we are seeing now, was predicted by most climatologists in the 1970s. And the warming trend was nicely predicted by a NASA climatologist over thirty years ago, using only carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. Pretty good work, after all. Would you like to see how good it turned out? BTW, this was predicted in the 19th century, by scientists who realized what rising carbon dioxide would do, long before it happened. Eunice Foote and later John Tyndall apparently discovered the mechanism for warming independently (some suspect Tyndall of copying Foote's results, but because she was a woman, she couldn't publish).

Yes, we'll have to agree to disagree. But you haven't been disagreeable about it. I'll leave the discussion to you now. I don't seem to have a very calming effect on some people here, and maybe I need to walk away again for a while.